Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Tesla needs just a few more things (Score 1) 314

by adolf (#46785623) Attached to: Mercedes Pooh-Poohs Tesla, Says It Has "Limited Potential"

Meh.

I drive quite a lot, at least compared to most people I know around here. I drive an old, small, fun, reasonably efficient gas-burner. Lately, I've been doing about 700 miles a week, and I'm home every night.

A Tesla would be awesome for this, if my current car weren't already so paid-for and weren't relatively cheap to maintain.

Every now and then (once or twice a year on rough average), I do drive more than 450 miles at a stretch. Filling up in minutes instead of hours is admittedly very handy.

But for a long trip, I can just rent something more appropriate. No big deal.

I made a conscious decision a long time ago that I didn't need to own a truck because I can always have Big, Heavy Things delivered, or just rent something more appropriate. ("Renting something more appropriate" usually means renting a truck by the hour from Lowes/Home Depot, but has also included U-Haul box trucks of various sizes. Either is economical and easy compared to owning, driving, insuring, maintaining...etc...a truck of my own.)

If I were in car-buying mode I could very easily decide that I don't need a gas tank, and that a Tesla would be a perfect fit.

If the Tesla is cheap to drive (it seems to be), and fun and comfortable (no stated complaints there that I've ever read), than yeah: A range of a few hundred miles would be perfect for the vast majority of my driving.

Sure, I'll occasionally need something else: But that's what rental agencies (and friends!) are for. ("Hey, you want to use my Tesla this week while I take your Honda to Florida for a week?")

So...*shrug*

Comment: Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (Score 1) 80

by adolf (#46732191) Attached to: Wi-Fi Problems Dog Apple-Samsung Trial

This is the best solution. But running wire is a PITA.

But the wire is already there.

Ever work on cabling in a courtroom after, say, 2005? I have. There's Cat5* reasonably close to all of the requisite points, already. There is at least one computer on the judge's bench, also hardwired.

Network cabling in the courts is a PITA, but it's already been done.

*: No, maybe not 5e or 6, but whatever: Even common gigabit performs just fine, by specification, on the plain-old Cat5 that we've had for decades now. There may also be Cat3 installed, but that's also a perfectly cromulent way to get 10Mbps 802.3 10base-T between endpoints on the Court Recorder system...which ought to be plenty, even with fast-talking lawyers driving the content therein.

And the press will still ignore largely it, bring in all their crap, and turn it on.

Then they dig their own grave. Let them. At least the proceedings will continue without interference.

Comment: Re:Interesting (Score 1) 147

by adolf (#46731941) Attached to: 'weev' Conviction Vacated

I was actually waiting for someone to bring up a rape analogy. Your analogy fails.

If you break up a rape, you've done two things: Witnessed wrongdoing and attempted (succeeded?) in stopping it.

If you pen-test someone else's network, you've done none of these things. Where's the witnessed wrongdoing? Where's the stopping it?

In the first case, of course you are (or should be) a hero. But to extend your analogy, in the latter case, you're done nothing more than check every girl you can find to see if she's rapable.

Apples and ugly.

Comment: Re:sad day for those who don't like 4chan trolls (Score 1) 147

by adolf (#46731929) Attached to: 'weev' Conviction Vacated

I'm a bit of a devil's advocate as I write this, but:

The law is already responsible for security. When I leave the cheap door locks on my house locked and the windows open (but locked, and because the weather is beautiful), and someone breaks in (by picking the lock, using a metal rod to bypass the locked window, a sledgehammer to knock the doorknob-lock off of the door, or just throwing a brick through the window), the crime is the same as if I had fancy Medeco deadbolts, high-security doors, wrought-iron security cages over the windows, a solid alarm system, and a well-trained attack dog: B&E.

The reason? As I understand it, it revolves around intent. I intend for my house to be secure, and therefore (in the eyes of the law) it is.

What makes electronic security different from physical security?

Comment: Re:Damn you, Amazon and your bluetooth! (Score 1) 130

by adolf (#46731839) Attached to: Apple, Google, and Amazon's Quest For One Remote Control Is Futile

Huh? I'm not talking about the remote being a keyboard, I'm talking about the remote identifying itself as a keyboard. It's the equivalent of bar-code scanners that you plug into a keyboard port and that "type" whatever you scan with them.

Oh, neat. Where do I buy one of those? Will it work with my other stuff, too?

Keyboards have some buttons that are very good for remote control functions, like "up" and "down" and "left" and "right" and "enter" and "escape" and "pause/play" and "fast forward". Make a handheld stick with just those buttons, and have it pair over bluetooth as a keyboard, and that remote would then work with an Apple TV, an Ouya, a Fire TV, a Linux box running MythTV, a Windows box running Steam in big picture mode, et cetera, et cetera. That's what I'm talking about.

Oh, I guess it won't work with my other stuff: So when you want to switch devices (say, from using Apple TV to a Linux box with MythTV), you have to perform the device-specific re-pairing incantation? That's not handy. It promotes one-remote-per-device and therefore physical clutter and needless expense.

I see. There are features in a remote that I'm so uninterested in that I don't even think of them, that you consider absolutely essential. (Though a subset of those are easy. They could all be easy given specific device choices which I'm not going to assume.)

So you're uninterested in turning things on and off, and adjusting the volume?

You and I will not like the same remotes.

That's actually a realistic possibility.

But I dare say that you might be unique. Most people want a simple remote, and don't want to think through the configuration of their AV system every time they change tasks. I submit that this has been wanted by people ever since VCRs required people to tune to channel 3.

Comment: Re:Why is everything else allowed on the network? (Score 2) 80

by adolf (#46731795) Attached to: Wi-Fi Problems Dog Apple-Samsung Trial

...which is a problem that is better-solved by having the local conglomerate provide a temporary, fast(ish) pipe for press over cable/*DSL, with a couple of well-configured 802.11g access points on non-overlapping channels (and another 802.11n at 5GHz, just because), with some decent QoS rules on a router and the WPA key of the day taped to the front of the judge's bench.

Have the court add it to the court costs. It's not even (relative) pennies on this scale, and it is in-keeping with some other things that court costs provide for: HVAC, lights, power, building maintenance...

Or, you know, hardwiring the court recorder's system....which has no business using 802.11 on ISM bands to begin with.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who could optimistically have this all going, and going well, before lunch...or at worst, mid-afternoon on a lazy Saturday, with some behind-the-scenes tweaking on Monday morning to match traffic expectations with reality.

Comment: Re:Damn you, Amazon and your bluetooth! (Score 1) 130

by adolf (#46711093) Attached to: Apple, Google, and Amazon's Quest For One Remote Control Is Futile

Well, the device presents itself as bluetooth using the HID profile. That's a start.

Perhaps. But being HID doesn't mean anything except that the name of that layer in the stack that it talks through.

IIRC, even the ODB-II Bluetooth dongle that I use to diagnose cars is an HID device. As are PS3 controllers. Ain't much standard about them, though -- at least not as-specified by the "HID" TLA.

Given that, I'd consider any remote that presents itself as a keyboard with well-defined keys to be extremely standard. (Remember, media control keys like "play/pause" and "fast forward" are well-defined and widely supported on keyboards already.)

Archaic. None of the "remotes" that I use in my living room are keyboards.

When I hear "remote," I think "something simple and dedicated that I can hold in one hand to easily control remotely-located things." I don't think "something with at least 60 buttons, some of which are actually useful, that takes up too much room on the coffee table, and functions only as a basic input for a single device."

(I in fact often carry a bluetooth device that's remote-sized and is a full keyboard with integrated two-button trackpad and built-in laser pointer. It's hard to beat for presentations, and also controls my AppleTV and my Ouya very nicely.)

Neat. Now how easily does it switch between presentations, AppleTV and Ouya? Does it change inputs on the TV and/or AVR? Turn things on and back off again? Turn the volume up and down?

No? Oh. I'd consider that a lousy remote, then. Double-lousy as it's as likely to be in your bag or in your office as it is available for other people to use.

That would currently require a bunch of one-off solutions, as there isn't a "standard wifi HID profile" to use. Myself, I'd rather have an app on my phone that presented itself to the world as a bluetooth keyboard or gamepad that I could then use even with devices that didn't have IP at all.

TCP/IP is only about as generalized as HID is. Try again. (Also: You fail at understanding "custom integration" as it relates to consumer electronics. IP or even RS-232 is preferred, IR is a distant third, and Bluetooth isn't even on the radar because Bluetooth is a PITA to implement).

(Hey, as long as we're talking about TLAs that generally don't actually work in the real world: HDMI CEC is also a complete pile of shit, even though it's supposed to solve all of these problems and has been "supported" by devices for over half a decade.)

Myself, I prefer my fixed electronics to be controlled by dedicated controllers, so that my friends/family can - gosh - watch TV without fumbling with an app on their own smart phone or borrowing mine from me or taking away from someone else's Flappy Birds time.

I imagine that if I were at Ddj's house and he had to step out for a minute, saying "make yourself at home," I'd stare blindly at a cacophony of different controller devices and have no idea how to make any of it work, and wouldn't even try to make anything happen because I might break something software-wise.

Nay. Play, Pause, Stop, up/down/left/right, Enter, Back, volume up, volume down, channel up, channel down, and automated input/power commands based on task.

-That's- the basis a useful remote. But it's not one that does "standard" Bluetooth HID.

Comment: Re:Damn you, Amazon and your bluetooth! (Score 1) 130

by adolf (#46697239) Attached to: Apple, Google, and Amazon's Quest For One Remote Control Is Futile

If the bluetooth in use is extremely standard, so that other devices and even software can be used to "emulate" it, then I'm delighted, as I'll (eventually) be able to integrate the box with other stuff.

Is there any such thing as a "standard" Bluetooth remote?

If there is: Which store should I go to if I want to buy one?

That said...if you want custom integration, Bluetooth is overkill. These things are implicitly already on the network. Just use IP.

Comment: Re:Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP (Score 1) 645

by adolf (#46683191) Attached to: Should Microsoft Be Required To Extend Support For Windows XP?

Sadly, I have a high capacity 8-bit ISA XMS memory expansion card for which driver support ended with MS-DOS.

My Voodoo3 3500TV also only only worked up through XP, but has no analog signals to receive now anyway; except I'd like to use it to digitize old VHS tapes. ...which, while all true, is more-or-less meritless. Nothing stops you (or me) from having an old XP box in the corner, securely disconnected from the network (or just properly firewalled), just in case you want to use some cherished old hardware.

Computers move on. This isn't a new trend. XP is twelve years old. You know what also doesn't work on modern OSs? My Diamond Speedstar 24x video card. (Oh, the humanity!)

And whose fault is this? It's not MSFT's -- they didn't write the drivers to begin with. In the case of the XMS card, I can blame Intel. For the Voodoo3 3500TV, I can blame a mixture of 3dfx and nVidia.

That all said, USB 2.0 NTSC input devices can be very cheap, indeed. Modern scanners tend produce very high-quality output for very few dollars.

"I have just one word for you, my boy...plastics." - from "The Graduate"

Working...