Sure the build quality might not be as great, but I'm yet to see evidence that there is actually a difference in quality. Only thing I've seen is a marginal ( only being able to tell by stats, not in use)was a colour increase in a cable that was worth over $100.

Also at $1.50, who cares if it breaks :)

Current monitor is 40" LED... 8-[

msy.com.au also the only place in Oz you want to buy PC components from.

How do you find it? Do you sit far back? Any problems with refresh rate/flicker in games?

I'm considering plonking a 40" Samsung or LB next to my 22" monitor, but then again JB HIFI have ok looking 48" 50hz Soniq branded panels for less than $700... :-k

Absolutely no issues at all, I like playing moody games (like XCOM: Enemy Unknow, The Walking Dead, Deadlight, I Am Alive etc) so the cinematic effect of the big screen is great. I sit on my couch with a good quality wireless mouse and keyboard, I have a wireless headset and a mic on a stand for chatting in game. I am using a 40" Samsung SmartTV which only cost me $900 so was well worth every penny, I also wouldn't have gotten Fox if I had owned this TV as you can just purchase the Sports sub through the TV and stream the games at 1080p.

I think here is the right place to ask this

Got an IPad & want to upload my DVD onto it

Any ideas

Can you show me any proof that the quality of the signal changes? I cannot find any... On the other hand, I can find many tests that show that there is absolutely no difference, so please back your "opinion", which you always love to state as fact, up.

Anyone got one of these bad boys?

Oh man, a bunch of my mates have one of these as an extra camera for film shoots, and many TV shows and films use them, especially for car scenes, but more interesting is my brother in the Navy who wears it on his helmet so he can watch himself board boats like an FPS! Have a look at recent footage from Afghanistan, half the Western troops there will have one strapped to their helmet, it's not like they have much else to spend their danger pay on over there :lol:

I'd love to attach one to the front of a motorbike and ride it to Europe... :-k

msy.com.au also the only place in Oz you want to buy PC components from.

Conroy backs away from internet filter

Phillip Coorey
Published: November 9, 2012 - 3:00AM

THE federal government has abandoned its long-standing commitment to introduce a national internet filter and will instead ban websites related only to child abuse.

Following years of debate about trying to censor the internet, the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, said the government would no longer proceed with ''mandatory filtering legislation''. It would, however, use powers under the Telecommunications Act to block hundreds of child abuse websites already identified on Interpol's ''worst of'' list.

Senator Conroy said blocking these sites met ''community expectations and fulfils the government's commitment to preventing Australian internet users from accessing child abuse material online''.

''Given this successful outcome, the government has no need to proceed with mandatory filtering legislation,'' he said.

Australia's main internet service providers have agreed to block the child abuse sites, meaning about 90 per cent of web users will have no access to them. The Australian Federal Police will begin issuing notices to smaller ISPs to have them block the sites as well.

The decision falls short of the original intention of a filter, which was to blacklist sites beyond those relating only to child abuse. It will please internet lobbyists who have argued against censorship and protested that a filter would be ineffective and would slow net speeds.

It will anger groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby, which only on Thursday renewed calls for the filter to help prevent ''explicit sexual practices'' among teenagers.

The internet filter policy was a promise Kevin Rudd took to the 2007 election when Labor won government and was controversial from the outset. The government argued that laws governing material on the internet should be no different to those that applied to printed content.

The policy also lacked political support, with the Coalition and the Greens opposed.

The government policy was to legislate for an internet filter that would have required every Australian ISP to block overseas-hosted ''refused classification'' material as identified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

This would have included child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and material that advocated terrorist activity.

The list of banned sites would have been based on public complaints to ACMA.

The chief executive of the Internet Industry Association, Peter Lee, welcomed the decision as ''a positive step''.

The Australian Christian Lobby said a filter was needed after ''revelations'' that ''teenagers view explicit sexual practices as normal''.

"Talking to students about what they see online is important, but is too little too late,'' said the lobby's spokeswoman, Wendy Francis. ''It is important to prevent unwanted access to pornography in the first place.

"We must protect our children from forming unhealthy attitudes towards women and sex."

Senator Conroy said some Australian ISPs had already blocked Interpol ''worst of'' sites without any impact on speeds or congestion. Nor had there been any complaints about users being inadvertently denied access to legitimate content.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/conroy-backs-away-from-internet-filter-20121108-290ym.html

Filter was white elephant waiting to happen

Asher Moses
Published: November 9, 2012 - 11:49AM

ANALYSIS

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has always known his mandatory internet filtering scheme was a white elephant but waited years for a politically opportune moment to dump the failed and toxic policy.

For at least five years the government continued to advocate the scheme as virtually every expert and stakeholder save for the Australian Christian Lobby and Family First strongly opposed it. Today, Senator Conroy announced the broad mandatory filter would be scrapped, replaced by a filter targeting only a finite list of child porn sites identified by Interpol.

The original policy attracted vocal opposition from online consumers, lobby groups, ISPs, network administrators, some children's welfare groups, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the opposition, the Greens, former High Court justice Michael Kirby, Google, the US ambassador to Australia, Labor MPs and even the conservative Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, who famously tried to censor chef Gordon Ramsay's television swearing.

The beginning of the end for the policy came back in July 2010 when, in the face of withering criticism, Senator Conroy launched a review of the filter's scope.

Opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull said the internet filter had been abandoned only because Senator Conroy had been forced to recognise he could not get it through Parliament.

“Conroy's humiliating backdown comes after five years of bullying bluster about his internet filter. But don't be fooled. He hasn't turned into a libertarian. His instinct is always to control and dominate,” said Turnbull.

“This is the minister who boasted that he had the power to make telco executives wear red underpants on their heads.”

Mark Gregory, senior lecturer at RMIT's school of electrical and computer engineering, said the junked policy was “unworkable, not because it could not be implemented, but because of the debate over what would be censored and who would control what was on the censorship list”.

Telecommunications expert Bjorn Landfeldt, a former University of Sydney professor, co-authored a report delivered to the Rudd government in early 2008 that said schemes to block inappropriate content such as child pornography were fundamentally flawed.

He said the technology did not work effectively as anyone who was determined to access the blocked content could still do so. A broad mandatory filter would slow internet speeds and inevitably block access to legitimate material.

The plan was originally to censor “prohibited content” and then “refused classification” material but these parameters were poorly defined and captured relatively innocuous websites. A secret Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist leaked by Wikileaks contained many innocent businesses added in error, including a tour operator, a Queensland dentist and even a school tuckshop consultancy.

Landfeldt also raised issues of scope creep, transparency and accountability and questioned whether children were stumbling across content such as child pornography in the first place. No filter would be able to keep up with the enormous amount of content being published on the web every day and under previous guises the policy had the potential to block entire user-generated content sites such as YouTube or Wikipedia over a single video or article.

Now a professor at Sweden's Lund University, Landfeldt welcomed Senator Conroy's backdown today but he was still concerned by reports that police could issue takedown notices to ISPs.

“While the limited scope makes a huge difference to the feasibility aspects, the questions surrounding transparency still remain if this holds true,” said Landfeldt.

He said it was “time to discuss effective ways of protecting and guiding young people around the internet instead of chasing mirages”.

Greens senator Scott Ludlam said the government's "return to evidence-based policy" was not driven by an admission that it was wrong but by a "successful grassroots campaign".

He said the new policy would be less open to abuse and scoop creep but "some of the arguments against the broader filter are still live in that it's very easy to circumvent if you're looking for this material, it doesn't get any images taken offline it doesn't lead to prosecutions".

"Even as this one gets put to bed the attorney-general's department is cooking something that in my view is more dangerous than the filter ever would have been, around data retention and the national security inquiry," Ludlam said in a phone interview.

"I hope that the return to evidence-based policy by Senator Conroy doesn't persuade the Australian people that this government is necessarily a friend of the internet."

Network engineer Mark Newton said several ACMA studies and even Senator Conroy's own department told him the original policy wouldn't deliver results worthy of the cost but he ploughed ahead “to avoid losing face”.

“It was always unworkable because distributing a list of thousands of worst-of-the-worst URLs to hundreds of ISPs was going to be a security and workability nightmare, and Conroy never thought that through,” said Newton.

“Even now there's precious little detail about how the Interpol list is going to be distributed and implemented: How many sysadmins will have access to the plaintext list in their name server configuration files?”

Jon Lawrence, spokesman for online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), said the government had known this was a deeply unpopular, unworkable and failed policy for some time but waited until it felt politically safe to abandon it.

“The filter would have been trivial to circumvent for those it was targeted at ... it would also have seriously impinged free speech in Australia as it was targeted at a very broad range of issues, using a secret blacklist,” he said.

Nigel Phair, former cyber cop turned security consultant, said many Australians discovered “proxies” and “IP filtering” during the Olympics as it allowed them to watch overseas broadcasts, and the same technology could be used to get around any filter.

Lawrence welcomed the new approach targeting only child pornography, provided the list of blocked sites had effective oversight.

But the fight among internet freedom advocates has now turned to the government's data-retention proposals which the EFA believes is “equally flawed and becoming equally unpopular”.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-was-white-elephant-waiting-to-happen-20121109-2923o.html

Fuck MSY.

[youtube]rofgMueCOqo[/youtube]

These bad boy Belntec blenders can blend just about anything.

Nexus 4 16gb sold out in 20 minutes. So glad I got in quick. Now to play the waiting game.

First Teleportation from One Macroscopic Object to Another

Physicists have teleported quantum information from one ensemble of atoms to another 150 metres away, a demonstration that paves the way towards quantum routers and a quantum Internet



technologies behind a quantum internet will be quantum routers capable of transmitting quantum information from one location to another without destroying it.

That's no easy task. Quantum bits or qubits are famously fragile—a single measurement destroys them. So it's not all obvious how macroscopic objects such as routers in a fibre optics network can handle qubits without demolishing them.

However, physicists have a trick up their sleeve to help send qubits safely. This trick is teleportation, a standard tool in any decent quantum optics lab.

It relies on the strange phenomenon of entanglement in which two quantum objects share the same existence. That link ensures that no matter how far apart they are, a measurement on one particle instantly influences the other.

It is this 'influence' that allows physicists to transmit quantum information from one point in space to another without it passing through the space in between.

Of course, teleportation is tricky, but physicists are getting better at it. They've teleported quantum information from one photon to another, from ions to photons and even from a macroscopic ensemble of atoms to a photon.

Today, Xiao-Hui Bao at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei and a few buddies say they've added a new and important technique to this box of tricks.

These guys have teleported quantum information from ensemble of rubidium atoms to another ensemble of rubidium atoms over a distance of 150 metres using entangled photons. That's the first time that anybody has performed teleportation from one macroscopic object to another.

“This is interesting as the first teleportation between two macroscopic-sized objects at a distance of macroscopic scale,” say Xiao-Hui and co.

Quite right. The goal in a quantum internet is that ensembles of atoms will sit at the heart of quantum routers, receiving quantum information from incoming photons and then generating photons that pass this information on to the next router.

So clearly the first teleportation from one of these hearts to another is an important advance.

Of course, there are hurdles ahead. Xiao-Hui and co want to increase the probability of success for each instance of teleportation, to increase the amount of time that the atomic ensemble can store quantum information before it leaks away (currently just over 100 microseconds) and to create a chain of atomic ensembles that will better demonstrate the potential of the technique for quantum routing.

None of those challenges seem like showstoppers. Which means that practical quantum routers and the quantum internet that relies on them are just around the corner.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1211.2892: Quantum Teleportation Between Remote Atomic-Ensemble Quantum Memories

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/507531/first-teleportation-from-one-macroscopic-object-to-another/

Something about being told "it's one thirty-two" that creeps me out, I much prefer to be told "it's about one-thirty" or just "one-thirty".

The future of time pieces. Citizen Appleseed XIII. Time changes automatically as it picks up on the global satellite system. This will soon become the norm as far as technically advanced time pieces go.

This was only a concept watch only 20 were made available within Australia. RRP was $14,999.00

So if you won a baseball game 11-0, would you tell people you won 'about 10-nil'?

So you're saying it has a GPS chip within it and it will adjust the time reading per your meridional position, or the watch stays in sync with the atomic clocks onboard the satellites? If the former I'd prefer to have to manually change the clock rather than have the battery changed every few months. If the latter, no application of a wrist watch requires such precision in time-keeping - nice to know if the watch is spare change to you, though.

I hate digital wrist watches. The analogue face gives you a graphical sense of time rather than knowing the precise time, which I much prefer as I can form a model in my mind with regard to how much time is left in the hour, or how much time has elapsed etc. Something about being told "it's one thirty-two" that creeps me out, I much prefer to be told "it's about one-thirty" or just "one-thirty".

Wow...I'm so glad they invented that in a wrist watch. I was totally tired of my phone doing exactly the same thing.

So if you won a baseball game 11-0, would you tell people you won 'about 10-nil'?:-k :p

Actually, if they were up 10-0 then the game would probably be over because of the mercy rule anyway. Jus' sayin'.

It's also Eco Drive which means no battery change (solar power). From what I have been told it's GPS and from what I gather from the add you have to turn the crown to switch the time zone and only than it will automatically set.

It wont be long before we have smart phones on our wrist. What dumb fucks we all are!