Jeff Ravencraft from the USB Implementers Forum discusses the deployment of USB hardware interface standards, including USB 3.0 as well as wireless USB. So-called “Superspeed” USB, or USB 3.0, can operate up to 10 times faster than current USB 2.0 connections. USB 3.0 ports can supply up to twice as much power as USB 2.0 ports, which is important for charging many of today’s portable devices more quickly.
Mr. Ravencraft also discusses the certification process that USB devices and device manufacturers must go through in order to be able to legally display the respective official USB logos.
Interview by Andy McCaskey of SDR News and Esbjorn Larsen of MrNetCast.com.
Please Support our CES 2011 Sponsors.
Save 25% on 4GH Hosting 1yr Subscriptions Save 25% Promo Code CES2.
Podcast (specmedia): Play in new window
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal recently, Google’s Eric Schmidt suggested that teens will automatically change their name in order to disassociate themselves from the indiscretions of youth. While this might seem to be a somewhat extreme action to take, how easy is it to actually change your name?
If you live in the UK, it’s actually very easy. All you have to do is start using your new name. As long as there’s no intention to deceive or defraud, that’s it. Pretty easy.
If you want to make it it a bit more formal so that it’s on your passport and driving licence, you can use a “deed poll” to change your name. You fill out a simple form, get it witnessed and that’s it legal. You then present the deed poll whenever you want to get your old name changed to your new name. Job done.
One further and final step is to “enrol” your deed poll which then becomes part of the public record. All of these deed polls are published in the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazettes and there is a charge for this service of around £50 ($75).
There’s a guide to changing your name by deed poll and enrolling it on Her Majesty’s Court Service. If you do a quick Google, you’ll find plenty of websites (a) wanting to charge for the service and (b) testimonies of people who have done it for free. I liked this one who changed his name legally to “Flash” because he was going to be forced to answer the phone with his real name.
It’s perhaps more common than you think. I know one couple personally who, instead of the wife adopting the surname of the husband, they created a new surname that combined parts of both of their original surnames. They took care with how it sounded and it worked out well.
So Eric Schmidt might be onto something if it’s that easy – the difficult part is going to be choosing a new name.
Usual disclaimer – I’m not a lawyer and the above doesn’t constitute legal advice.
Check out this screenshot. Tell me why it’s an Oxymoron:
If you said “This is an Associated Press article – I CANNOT share it on Mixx, Buzz, Digg, Reddit, Facebook or Newswire”, then you are correct!
If you go to the A.P.s site, you do not see any sharing widgets. However, if you go to the sites that pay for the content, they could have these little add-ons to try and promote their brand. But with these widgets, they could be in breech of their contract.
The Associated Press has said it doesn’t want to squelch new media, but it will go after sites that post it’s content and make money on it. Isn’t that like EVERY site on the Internet?
Back in June, the AP told their reporters to police social media like Facebook and Twitter. The idea would be to identify and irradicate any posts that violate their usage policies. So you could get a take down notice if you post or “Re Tweet” those A.P. articles.
If you have a website and you have A.P. content on it, you might want to think about those little blurbs to suggest sharing the articles. You may be inadvertently breaching your contract.
I wonder if someone should start a list of Websites that use A.P. so we all know not to share the data from it. Of course, I am not going to rock that boat. However, if you know of a website that is an Associated Press site, you might want to comment on it below…
The Software DVDXCopy by 321 Studios was banned in the US 5 years ago after a big battle with Hollywood. 321 studios took on a lawsuit stating that people have a right to backup and archive material they purchased. The movie studios countersued, and in February 2004, it was ruled that DVDXCopy violated Digital Millennium Copyright Act laws and was officially banned in the US.
Well, the website apparently revamped their site from the Sale of the DVDXCopy software to an informational website of the best DVD Copy software. They review 3 different DVD copy programs, but are heavily pushing DVDneXtCopy, which the pro version can allow copying of single, Double sided DVD’s in multiple formats including formats for the iPod and PSP.
The site is not shy on saying that the XCopy version has been banned. But they are also warning people that there are fake versions of the software out there.
Of course we all know that copying movies for redistribution is illegal. However I would like to back up my movies in the case of damage. When I travel I don’t like to take original movies – I like to take copies. That way if something happens, I don’t lose the original.
Then again, with items like Blockbuster and Netflix around, will copying DVDs be as important nowadays?
*NOTE: I made a couple slight corrections to highlight the points in this article. I am not siding with Apple nor Psystar. I am siding with the consumer for wanting an Apple machine at a decent price.
Apple finally went for the Psystar Jugular as they not only filed a major lawsuit, but also want “All Open Computers Sold” recalled. Therefore if you bought a Psystar with the OSX 10.5 software on it, you would have to return it to Psystar. Good luck in getting a refund or a replacement machine.
Apple is also going for Triple the amount of damages and a permanent injunction of sales. This move could easily wipe out the small Florida based company.
I cannot believe that Apple is this selfish in the game. I cannot believe that Apple is willing to put another company under for giving consumers an alternative and maybe getting them interested in Apple computers.
It seems more and more relevant that Apple is a money grubbing company. How do you expect to get more than 20% marketshare if you deny the consumer market every time? How do you expect to beat the PC if you are not willing to make it affordable?
CNet has already noted that Apple charges almost three times as much for accessories (like Memory) for their machines then a company like Dell. Yes, you can buy a Mac Mini for $600, but what do you really get? For $600 I can get a usable Windows PC or even a good laptop. The Mac Mini has no real upgrade options (video for example), and if you want to upgrade items like memory, well get out that pocketbook. The Mac Mini doesn’t even come with a mouse or keyboard (it’s only a $5-10 addition in production cost).
The only customizable machine is the Mac Pro for $2800. For $2800, I can equip 8 people with decent PC’s. I can equip 2-4 people with high-end machines.
Maybe Psystar shouldn’t be the ones who need to be sued. Don’t get me wrong here – Psystar was wrong for selling the OS and should be penalized.But did their actions really harm Apple enough for them to go for triple the damage? NO. Not even to set an “Example”.
Say what you want about Intel and Microsoft. At least you know where those snakes are. Apple is posing as the “Friendly Snake” that is just gonna bite you in the…. well… derriere. It’s understandable they want to protect their stuff. But is this really necessary? Even if it might mean a five to ten percent Marketshare increase?
Shame on you Apple. SHAME ON YOU.