Skip to content

Stay tuned for details on the National Broadband Plan

From Ars Technica:

How much hate will the National Broadband Plan get?

FTA (Points of interest):

…

As FCC broadband plan head Blair Levin told us recently, a significant portion of the NBP is going to recommend ways to get the wireless industry the additional spectrum it needs in the long term to meet the humongous growth in smartphone use. Genachowski has pledged to find ways to free up 500MHz of frequency band for wireless, and the FCC hopes that much of that comes from the licenses allocated to television broadcasters.

….

I don’t know what to say – they are doing it wrong works I suppose.

I’m totally with Google on this one – this bandwidth can be used to distribute a raw internet wireless signal that would cover ALL the same areas (as far as I know) which currently get the old *analog* (remember the DTV transition?) TV broadcast spectrum.

Why would be regulate this usage to only allow other companies to control?

How is it not better just to open it up and let the people decide to do with it as they will?

Broadband internet is essential in using computers in this day and age and it’s technology and innovation is pretty much in it’s infancy.

What can you not do with a decent internet connection?   Wireless access?  I can get that with my phone through wifi, I could use a VOIP connection to turn any device that plugins into a network and satisfies the following requirements:

1.) Microphone (and / web cam) – Input..

2.) VOIP software either pre-installed or installable (free software typically)

This short list covers A LOT of devices currently on the market (most or all current smart phones) and makes any of them into a standard phone.

And you can even get a number for that phone… (without a 2 year contract) and you might already own the hardware!

So, if using the Analog TV spectrum lets you do this PLUS has an infinite possibility of scalable solutions which enhance lives, careers AND businesses, why would you limit this spectrum to just “wireless industry” use only?

It doesn’t make sense.

Instead of telling people they have to have the same old cafeteria food again why not give them the OPTION to hit the buffet and pick out the items that they can use?   And keep allowing them to come back as their needs change?

Why do we constantly remove options for people?  Shouldn’t we be adding more options for them to choose from constantly?   How can you ensure quality without introducing motivation to fuel it?

The internet needs to be OPEN to truly flourish and lead to innovation which benefits all of society on multiple levels to deny this is to deny progression into our evolution in my opinion.

The internet being policed as it currently is works fine – there’s no need to turn over full control to people who may (and probably do not) have your best interests in mind.

Turning the keys to the future over to an industry which few would argue is completely greedy and corrupt is a completely irresponsible decision.

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!

Posted in Other, Political, Tech.

Tagged with .

rev="post-175" No comments

By admin – March 4, 2010

February 18th performance patch for Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Beta

From the Article (click here):

This update is about performance and stability again. We are not doing any changes to the game’s datafiles.

Reduced input “lag”
On machines where the CPU would out-run the GPU, sometimes the GPU would queue up several frames’ worth of rendering commands.
This could lead to the game having a high framerate, but input still feeling very sluggish.
Now there’s a limiter on how many frames the CPU is allowed to be “ahead” of the GPU.
Control this setting via Settings.ini. Default setting: RenderAheadLimit=2

* Performance optimizations with biggest improvements on dual-core machines
* Fixed black “masks”

The soot on buildings with holes in them had a bugged renderpath. We switched that over to a more well-tested renderpath.

* Improved hit-detection

We’ve gone through the hit detection logic, and client+server will now give more consistent results.

* Fix for some “rubberbanding” issues

C4 should stay attached to vehicles and not rubberband around

* Reduced spikes/dips in framerate
* Various fixes for alt+tab related CTD on Dx9
* More fixes for random CTD on Dx9
* Fix for crash when you’re in a vehicle that gets destroyed

There was a race condition in the code;
System 1 thought “oh hey, you’re leaving vehicle X”
System 2 thought “the vehicle got destroyed, let’s remove it”

If system 2 ran before system 1, chaos would ensue.
This was actually fixed in the retail version since a month, but it was only when we got detailed crash reports from the community that we understood *why* the Beta was crashing.

Likely bugs in this build
I wouldn’t be surprised if it (still) has trouble remembering your settings between rounds. It would be nice to have that fixed too, but it’s better to get a patch out now, and look at the settings issues afterward.

-Mikael Kalms

Posted in General.

rev="post-165" No comments

By admin – February 21, 2010

Battlefield Bad Company 2, PC Game – Barnes & Noble – $20 ?

Battlefield Bad Company 2, PC Game – Barnes & Noble.

Posted in General.

rev="post-163" No comments

By admin – February 15, 2010

Asus Eee PC 1201N BIOS / Drivers – Windows 7 etc.

EeeUser Forum / Asus Eee PC 1201N BIOS / Drivers.

Posted in General.

rev="post-159" No comments

By admin – February 15, 2010

Upgrading my netbook!

1201n

Going from the Eee PC 1000 to the 1201n.

Why? Nvidia Ion baby.. HD movies (HDMI Out)!

And even some light gaming woohoo!

Asus Eee PC 1201n Specifications

  • Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium
  • Display: 12.1-inch LED-Backlit WXGA display (1366 x 768)
  • CPU: Intel Atom N330 Dual Core processor (1.6 GHz)
  • GPU: NVIDIA ION Graphics
  • Wireless Data Network: WLAN 802.11b/g/n (draft 2.4GHz n) and Bluetooth V2.1 + EDR
  • Memory: 2GB DDR2, 2 x SODIMM slot
  • Storage: 250GB HDD + 500GB ASUS WebStorage*
  • Camera: 0.3 megapixel
  • Audio: Hi-definition stereo speakers, high-definition audio CODEC, Microphone
  • Storage Cards: 2-in-1 MMC, SD(SDHC) flash card slot
  • Input/Output: 1 x VGA port (D-sub 15-pin for external monitor), 1 x HDMI, 3 x USB 2.0 ports, 1 x LAN RJ-45, 2 x audio jacks (Headphone & Mic-in)
  • Battery Pack: 5 hours**, 6-cell Li-Ion battery†
  • Dimensions: 11.54 (W) x 8.11 (D) x 1.06~ 1.30 (H) inches
  • Weight: 3.22 lbs
  • Color: Silver

    • Now to decide… It comes with Windows 7 Home Premium (MS you’re lame)

    So I’ll test drive that a bit possibly upgrade to the 64 bit version and then..

    Maybe go hackintosh and see how she runs ze Snow Leopard…

    And / OR

    Go back to good ‘le faithful – Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic Koala) with or without Netbook Remix.

    Time to Google the multi-boot OS options =)

    Posted in General.

    Tagged with , , , .

    rev="post-141" No comments

    By admin – February 8, 2010

    FCC Investigates Wireless Competition (Industry)

    What I truly hope comes from this FCC stirrup, is a complete audit across the board of all industries which try to establish ‘exclusive’ tie ins to force consumers into positions where they are faced with less choice. (IE: Can only buy Coke here, Can only have X phone with this carrier, can only have NFL network with Direct TV, etc etc.)

    The USA is supposed to be an economy fueled by consumer demand and when these corporations try to control or direct it does a little more than dampen the market purity, it also stifles innovation. I cannot stress how important innovation is in today’s world and I truly hope that more people start to see and appreciate this concern.

    From Forbes:

    The U.S. Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to launch an official inquiry into the state of innovation and competition in the U.S. wireless market, indicating that more regulation may be coming to the industry.

    The agency will take a three-pronged approach in its investigation, analyzing innovation and investment in the wireless market, as well as “competitive conditions” and consumer billing practices. It plans to ask industry players and the public to comment on the issues and summarize its findings in a report that could lead to new regulations.

    (entire article here)

    Posted in General.

    rev="post-132" No comments

    By admin – September 2, 2009

    Hurray! An Official FCC inquiry! Apple + AT&T + iphone & Google

    It appears as though the FCC has finally launched a bit of an inquiry in regards to the very confusing and inconsistent criteria (requirements) put forth by (both) Apple & AT&T for applications to be accepted for distribution on Apple’s App Store. The letters they have submitted to this respective corporations can be found in complete detail below.

    EDIT: Gizmodo has weighed in

    EDIT: Apple’s response

    EDIT: AT&Ts response

    EDIT: Google’s Reponse

    Full article here which I think borrowed the content from here

    Here are the questions that the FCC submitted to AT&T:

    1. What role, if any, did AT&T play in Apple‘s consideration of the Google Voice and related applications? What role, if any, does AT&T play in consideration of iPhone applications generally? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or in any non-contractual understanding between the companies) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?

    2. Did Apple consult with AT&T in the process of deciding to reject the Google Voice application? If so, please describe any communications between AT&T and Apple or Google on this topic, including the parties involved and a summary of any meetings or discussions.

    3. Please explain AT&T’s understanding of any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol applications that are currently used on the AT&T network, either via the iPhone or via handsets other than the iPhone.

    4. To AT&T’s knowledge, what other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone? Which of these applications were designed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network? What was AT&T’s role in considering whether such applications would be approved or rejected?

    5. Please detail any conditions included in AT&T’s agreements or contracts with Apple for the iPhone related to the certification of applications or any particular application’s ability to use AT&T’s 3G network.

    6. Are there any terms in AT&T’s customer agreements that limit customer usage of certain third-party applications? If so, please indicate how consumers are informed of such limitations and whether such limitations are posted on the iTunes website as well. In general, what is AT&T’s role in certifying applications on devices that run over AT&T’s 3G network? What, if any, applications require AT&T’s approval to be added to a device? Are there any differences between AT&T’s treatment of the iPhone and other devices used on its 3G network?

    7. Please list the services/applications that AT&T provides for the iPhone, and whether there any similar, competing iPhone applications offered by other providers in Apple’s App Store.

    8. Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of the Google Voice application? Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of other applications that have been rejected for the iPhone?

    9. Please explain whether, on AT&T’s network, consumers’ access to and usage of Google Voice is disabled on the iPhone but permitted on other handsets, including Research in Motion’s BlackBerry devices.

    And here are the questions the FCC submitted to Apple on the issue:

    1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store? In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected? Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.

    2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?

    3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?

    4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?

    5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?

    6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

    Also here is the letter sent to Google:

    Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1739
    July 31, 2009
    Richard S. Whitt, Esq.
    Washington Telecom and Media Counsel
    Google Inc.
    1101 New York Avenue, NW, Second Floor
    Washington, DC 20005
    RE: Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application

    Dear Mr. Whitt:

    Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store.1 In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation. To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    1. Please provide a description of the proposed Google Voice application for iPhone. What are the key features, and how does it operate (over a voice or data network, etc.)?

    2. What explanation was given (if any) for Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice application (and for any other Google applications for iPhone that have been rejected, such as Google Latitude)? Please describe any communications between Google and AT&T or Apple on this topic and a summary of any meetings or discussion.

    3. Has Apple approved any Google applications for the Apple App Store? If so, what services do they provide, and, in Google’s opinion, are they similar to any Apple/AT&T-provided applications?

    4. Does Google have any other proposed applications pending with Apple, and if so, what services do they provide?

    5. Are there other mechanisms by which an iPhone user will be able to access either some or all of the features of Google Voice? If so, please explain how and to what extent iPhone users can utilize Google Voice despite the fact that it is not available through Apple’s App Store.

    6. Please provide a description of the standards for considering and approving applications with respect to Google’s Android platform. What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application? Request for Confidential Treatment. If Google requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

    Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

    Sincerely,
    James D. Schlichting
    Acting Chief
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    Federal Communications Commission”

    Let’s all hope that the FCC sticks to their guns on this one, because god knows that there is going to be a shit ton of back peddling and smoke and mirrors on this one.

    Posted in Apple, Tech.

    Tagged with , , , , , .

    rev="post-113" No comments

    By Amenic – August 1, 2009

    Apple sending a message?

    Lifehacker has an article up and I have to say I find it hard to argue with what they are saying:

    Apple just rejected the Google Voice iPhone application from App Store distribution, the most recent in a long line of questionable moves, and the message is clear: If you want a device that won’t lock you out of innovation, skip the iPhone.

    Posted in Apple, Tech.

    Tagged with , , .

    rev="post-111" No comments

    By Amenic – July 31, 2009

    Apple acting like your typical corporation? Say it ain’t so!

    Found this article on Digg. Couldn’t help but want to share what a perfect, lovable, awesome company Apple is (like everyone doesn’t know this already?):

    http://mdeslaur.blogspot.com/2009/07/goodbye-apple.html

    EDIT: Looks like others are looking away from Apple already. heh – Check out the Sansa Fuze

    FTA:

    I’ve owned a lot of iPods. My wife has owned a lot of iPods.

    Not anymore.

    For the longest time, I could use gtkpod to seamlessly access my iPods from my Ubuntu desktop. It initially took some reverse-engineering effort to understand the iPod’s data format to be able to access it from non-iTunes software, but it was possible. All of a sudden, Apple is trying everything they can to prohibit interopability.

    First, they encrypted the firmware, blocking the use of third-party firmware like Rockbox and iPod Linux. This doesn’t bother me much, as I always prefered the original Apple firmware anyway.

    Then, in August 2007, they added a new hash to the database to block non-iTunes software. This was quicky reverse-engineered and support was added to gtkpod once again.

    In November 2008, they changed the hash again. This time, Apple used code-obfuscation software on iTunes in an effort to complicate reverse-engineering a second time. When a wiki was put up to start documenting the new hash, Apple sent a takedown notice. Fortunately, some people found an ugly workaround to get gtkpod working again.

    In 2009, Palm released the Palm Pre. It supported syncing with iTunes. Apple retaliated by updating iTunes specifically to block Palm Pre interopability. Unfortunately, this changed the iPod database structure, and the workaround for gtkpod no longer works.

    While I can understand Apple not wanting the Palm Pre to be able to sync with iTunes, as iTunes integration is one of the main selling points for the iPod, I can’t understand why they would actively block third party software from accessing the iPod.

    Everyone is now selling DRM-free mp3 music, so it’s not a question of protecting DRM. You’d think they would want to sell more iPods, not block a certain percentage of their market out.

    My 5G iPod broke today. Dear Apple, the replacement I purchase won’t be from you.

    Posted in Apple, Tech.

    Tagged with , , , .

    rev="post-100" No comments

    By Tybox – July 25, 2009

    EA Games = Brilliant!

    EA Strikes again and this time it’s with Burnout Paradise (for PC):

    http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/bp-technical-support/414208-invalid-valid-product-key-when-trying-go-online.html

    I will find a better link shortly (more official).

    But it looks like the Copy Protection Nazis have managed to alienate their paying customers ONCE AGAIN. And you guys wonder why people pirate software?

    They recently released a patch which not only locks you out of the game, it also clears all your game progress.

    Unacceptable. Meanwhile the clock is still ticking on an issue that I would think would be a little higher priority?

    What a shitty company – I will definitely think twice before buying another EA game.

    UPDATE:  After a weeks worth of emails featuring “Please insert text between these lines or we will ignore your email” <hint hint we are looking for any excuse to not have to serve you>.  AND getting the run around IE:  “We can’t help you unless you give us your birthday”  ME:  “I own the account – I have user and pass, receipts, keys, etc.”

    Today they give me solution.  Great.   Unfortunately I had already figured it out a day or two before the “fix”.

    Fix = Re-install game.   Why does the game to unbind my account, stats and product key with a simple hardware upgrade?   I have 12 other games installed and not one of them broke.   Dark Athena asks me to re-enter my Product Key and it was seemless.  It even read my old one to me so all I had to do was click enter.

    Atari 1 – Ea Games 0.

    Posted in Games.

    Tagged with , , , , .

    rev="post-85" No comments

    By Amenic – June 28, 2009

    This site is protected with Urban Giraffe's plugin 'HTML Purified' and Edward Z. Yang's Powered by HTML Purifier. 2006 items have been purified.