If Comcast establishs a policy where you pay depending on what you download, they are demonstrating that monitoring traffic is not an undue burden. This could open them up to liability for actions of their users.
ISPs have argued that they should not be liable for the actions of their users because, in part, the burden of monitoring users is too great.
Comcast should not open this Pandora's box by targeting specific content for higher fees. If they want to charge more for excessive bandwidth consumption, fine. But they should not even attempt to demonstrate that content can be monitored. If it can be monitored, it can be censored.
Why does this remind me of something that I would see as a scheme on Pinky and the Brain?
Pinky. Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
I think so Brain, but if we take over the net, how will the big boats catch any fish?
*bonk*
Not that kind of net, Pinky. The Internet: A global network of millions of computers; a network where music and pr0n are yours for the taking; a network where powerful tools like email and hypertext are used promote penis enlargement, pyramid schemes, and cheap drugs from the third world; a network where millions are left totally vulnerable by software given to them freely by the richest company in the world.
Ooooo, sounds nice, Brain. But Brain?
Yes, Pinky?
If you take it over, who's gonna share their pr0n with you?
Some of us don't find a book dull just because there aren't any spaceships or computers in it.
Some of us read all kinds of books, including children's books, and sometimes we find the occasional book to be dull. You're not suggesting that all books are interesting, are you?
This is the real reason they are giving it away... the law says they have to.
But, that makes this game a version of open source/free software. Some IP lawyer would have to rearch more to find out if the source code would have to be released also under the non-copyright/full disclosure laws.
I like your reasoning, but the government is allowed to keep secrets from us. They even have levels of secrecy (e.g. classified, secret, etc.)
I'd bet that all military information is treated as classified by default until someone decides it's ok to de-classify it.
Also, although you're right that the government cannot hold copyrights/patents, the government can license the IP of others. Doing that doesn't give Joe Citizen a de facto license. For example, there are many cities in the US that have licensed their Municipal Code from companies and are heavily restricted interms of redistribution.
NASA, on the other hand, is a nice example of what you'd like to see. Where would we be without Velcro? Of course, not everything they do makes as much sense. NASA spent tons of cash to make a zero-G usable pen. The Russians used pencils. Duh.
There you go, finally an *actual* extinct term. The law of averages said that you had to get one right eventually.
I wasn't aware we were looking for "extinct" terms. I think for it to be extinct, no one would know what it means.
What I offered up were formerly ubiquitous terms that are now esoteric at best. While some people may still call copying "Xeroxing", it's done very rarely. Just like facsimile machines got shortened to fax machines. I'd wager that 9 out 10 people don't even know that "fax" is an abbreviation.
While everyone over the age of 30 has probably used a rotary phone, and know what it's called, you'd be hard pressed, I suspect, to find someone under 20 who could describe a rotary phone.
I might be wrong about calling TV antennas "rabbit ears." I know that many still use antennas, but are they still calling them "rabbit ears"?
"Daisy" rifles used to be to BB guns what "Xeroxing" is to copying, IIRC. Now, they're just one brand.
The thing that I came away with was not so much how lame tv must have looked back then (and as others so gleefully point out, looks now), but how unimaginative the author was.
Read Charlotte's Web, you have not. Very dull, it is.
"iconoscoping", "direct wire", "megacycle", when the hell are we gonna get stuff that sounds this cool.
To quote Scotty: "Keyboard?! How quaint."
Here's some goodies I remember:
"Xeroxing" documents
"rabbit ear" TV antennas
rotary telephones - the reason why you "dial" a number
"radar range" ovens
"betamax" recorders
"daisy" rifles
"vacuum tubes"
"Switchboard operators"
"USENET" (just testing)
Anyone else miss the old AT&T standard issue rotary phones. You could pratically pound in nails with the receiver --virtually indestructable *sniff*. Sometimes monopolies make good products.
Maybe it was an inside job. They are, after all, state workers.
state worker (re.ti.ur.d) - n. Individual paid to move paper from one side of their desk to the other. Typically, they don't know where the paper came from, where it is going, or what the funny symbols on it mean.
If you bought a 30 hour box and are getting 30 hours, what's the problem?
It's not like when someone buys a computer and they said it comes with a 10GB hard drive. Then, you look at the hard drive and find out that a)The OS takes up.5GB b)The reserved recovery area takes up.6GB, and c)The file system partitioning dropped another.4GB. Now your 10GB hard drive is really 8.5GB.
Which is better?
1. Paid for 30 hours, got 40, can only use 30. 2. Paid for 10GB, got 10, can only use 8.5.
If I'd paid for 40 and got 30, I'd be annoyed; but, I paid for 30 and got 30. I'm just happy I got what I paid for.
If you're really keen to have more space, add another hard-drive.
if you pause it it starts recording what you were watching. you stated yourself that it will not record the promo if you are already recording something...
Actually, you misunderstand. TiVo is always recording a 30-minute buffer of the current channel. This 30-minute buffer is also outside the 30-hour space because of this. If you pause live TV, it doesn't begin recording. It's always recording. In fact, you can rewind live TV. Pausing live TV just stills the last image on the screen, and "bookmarks" your place in the buffer. If you leave it paused for more than 30 minutes, it'll unpause and start playing the buffer from the beginning (the spot you bookmarked)
I believe that if the TiVo is paused when it wants to change the channel, the default is 'yes' if you scheduled a recording, and 'no' if it's making a suggestion. Don't know how it handled this situation for the promo.
My main point is that there's a difference between the live buffer and an actual recording. TiVo is recording the 30-minute buffer 24/7; and, to be clear, it's always the last 30 minutes of the current channel. If you change channels, the buffer is wiped instantly.
I do NOT like that TiVo think's it's ok to grab that kind of control over MY property.
This does not take control away from you. For as long as I can remember, TiVo has pushed some promo content into some reserved space. During the Oscars, there were extras in the menu, for example. What's different here is that they pushed the content over the TV instead of the modem.
One of the good features of TiVo is that it does things in your interest when it's "bored". For example, TiVo, by default, will study what you watch and will record shows that are similar. You can grade it on it's efforts using a thumbs up/down rating system so that it gets better at it. These "suggested" shows do not get in the way of your control. TiVo won't delete your shows to record suggestions; and, if it's tight on space, it will delete all suggestions before it touches any of your shows. Most importantly, it only records suggestions if a) you're not recording anything, and b) you're not watching anything live.
The suggestion feature has been very helpful for me. For example, I have been recording Stargate SG-1 on Showtime. Much to my surprise, an extra episode showed up. I looked at it and it was from the local Fox affiliate. TiVo suggested it, and now I record both. However, if TiVo Suggestions annoy you, you can turn off the auto-record element of it. It'll still maintain of list of suggestions, in case your hard-up for things to record.
This thing they tried in the UK was, in a sense, a meta-suggestion. It was only recorded if a) you weren't recording anything else and b) you weren't watching anything. But, because it's not a suggestion in the traditional sense, it got recorded whether or not you have suggestions turned off. Also, TiVo adds promo content to the main menu. Some people find the extra item annoying.
In case you're wondering, TiVo only knows if you're watching live TV by popping up a message before changing the station to ask permission. If you don't answer, it assumes you're not there and changes the channel. People may have gotten upset because they walked away from the TV and came back to find the channel changed. It may also be the case that once it started recording in your absence that an unanticipated bug made it so that you couldn't stop the recording. Normally, you can stop a recording in progress if you need to change channels. Also, TiVo has a 30-minute live TV buffer so you can pause/slow-mo/etc the channel you're watching. If you, or it, changes the channel, the buffer gets wiped and starts fresh on the new channel. If you start watching a show and then decide to record it, it'll include the already buffered portion in the recording.
If the TiVo people have any sense, they'll make this work exactly like a suggestion, then the only difference will be that the suggestion has nothing to do with your viewing habits. Big deal.
Check out the longer article here that is so poorly synopsized on Yahoo.
I'd highly recommend TiVo, even with this apparent mis-step. I'd welcome these promo/suggestions if they keep the subscription price down. Of course, you can get a lifetime (of the box, not you) subscription for a flat fee and lock in the price.
I've been doing that for years but I never considered that it was a symlink because you can't do "cd mylink" at the commandline level (at least I think you can't) because the 'link' is really just a file.
I tested the first time using the browse feature of the Save window. It went right across the link, and the file was saved on the other side.
You are right, however: you cannot 'cd' across it. Seems Windows knows what to do, but good old DOS just sees a file. I guess it's not fully functional. I wonder if this works under XP. I have typed some Linux commands at an XP prompt and have been surprised to see them working (e.g., netstat), but I haven't tried ln. Maybe someone with access to XP will chime in here...
Actually, I only said it could save him a step. Currently, he has Netscape installed and adds plug-ins to it and then copies the files. He could remove the netscape plugin directory and replace it with a link to the mozilla plugin directory.
Depending on how these programs look for netscape, other things might be possible; but all I offered is a suggestion to skip a step.
"You might be able to save yourself a step in there somewhere with a symlink. "
This person is using windows.
Windows makes symlinking of folders very obscure, but not impossible. (If anyone knows a faster way to do this under Windows 9x, feel free to follow up):
Using Windows Explorer, locate the item or folder to which you want to link.
Right click the item and select "Send to" then "Desktop." This will create a shortcut to the item and drop it on the desktop.
Go to the desktop and right click the new shortcut. Select "Cut" from the list.
Return to Windows Explorer and locate the folder in which you'd like to place the symlink.
Paste the shortcut into the folder and rename it.
Follow these steps, and you have a fully functional symlink to a folder. It's way easier with normal files. Seems Microsoft never imagined putting folder shortcuts anywhere but the desktop and start menu. But, the desktop and start menu are just file system folders at the end of the day.
While the nature of this story sounds mighty hypocritical on the RIAA's part, you've got to love the results. Consider the potential outcomes:
(definite) Two antitrust-violating groups burn serious money attacking each other. Money that could be used for evil purposes.
(possible) Payola through "independent promoters" gets banned. Radio station formats may open up a bit.
(possible) More people, driven by disgust at the practices of either group seek out independent labels and/or stations.
(possible) This is one more iron in the fire for RIAA's legal staff. While they're paying attention to this, some kid in Kansas is burning a mix CD for his girlfriend...and getting away with it.
(possible) Federal prosecutors decide to "follow the money" and end up prosecuting members of the RIAA for being responsible for funding these practices.
It is possible to dislike the RIAA and love this at the same time. It's like a machiavellian wet dream. Couldn't have achieved better if we'd planned it.
WRT your idea about W3C standards; they won't be of any use without applications, and as I said, applications are very difficult to develop.
The application already exists. It's called Microsoft Word. I'm not suggesting that a standard get created out of the blue. I'm suggesting that Microsoft be forced to disclose the current format, that the format be adopted as the current standard, and that a seperate organization similar to the W3C be created to control it. It makes a great deal more sense to take a format that 95% of people are using and make it the standard than to create one. The fact that Microsoft has been found to be behaving criminally provides a window to do this as a remedy that will help to eventually break their monopoly.
I realize that most other tools aren't ready for prime time, but that's not the point. I won't even try using those tools until I can share my files with people who use Word and vice-versa. Because I need to share docs with others who use Word, I need to use Word. Because I need to use Word, I need to use Windows. I'm stuck using Windows because of the Word file format. You could create a word processor for Linux that typed as I thought, and I'd still be using Word under Windows until I can share my work with people who use Word (and them with me.)
Well, I need netscape anyway because some sites won't let you install a plugin for mozilla but only netscape or explorer. The installer gives you a choice of one or the other and if you pick netscape it says it couldn't find it. So I install netscape, install the plugin, then copy the files to my mozilla folder.
You might be able to save yourself a step in there somewhere with a symlink. You could either link Netscape to Mozilla or link your Netscape Plugins directory to your Mozilla Plugins directory. If you do it right, you should be able to select Netscape and have it automatically drop into Mozilla instead.
A binary format of Word 97 - which can contain billions of objects in other formats - is a nightmare to implement, and an impossibility to document, especially when MS has no particular reason to do that.
I can see your point that Microsoft may not even know their own file format. However, that does not change the fact that dependence on tools like Word will keep businesses enslaved by Microsoft. For businesses to consider moving to Linux, they need to be able to take documents with them.
I agree that even if the document format were a wide open standard, the exact layout will not be the same for a variety of reasons (bugs, fonts, etc.) However, I believe people will be happy as long as they can open/edit/save/print the file.
Finally, I am not suggesting that we chase Word. I'm suggesting that they be forced to stop running. The file formats for tools like Word need to be standardized and managed by an independent body like the W3C. You should be able to use any word processor that is standards compliant to create/edit/save these files and hand them to any other word processor that is compliant to do the same.
I'm all in favor of creating new tools; but if they can't open old docs, you're wasting your time.
But what these companies need to realize is that they can convert their old files into plain text files, using the very version of Office which is trying to tie them into an ugprade cycle of doom, using some simple batch scripts.... I don't know why this solution isn't being offered to companies.
I've got karma to burn, so here goes...
Converting old files to plain text is an incredibly bad idea. Even if your only talking about.doc files, you need to understand that there is meaning in format. If you cannot take the formatting with you, you're not preserving the meaning. Simple example:
Life of Brian is excellent. Life of Brian is excellent.
Now, beyond the issue of the simplest kind of old files, consider things like spreadsheets, PowerPoint presentations, Accounting data, etc. Converting these files to plain text will render them useless.
If you want businesses to move to Linux, look back at how we got here. There was a time when nothing was done on computers. Why start? Everyone could use a pencil. All typewriters worked more-or-less the same way. Businesses didn't start using computers because they were cool. They didn't start using them because they were cheaper. They started because computers could do things faster. Computers represented solutions to problems. What your proposing is to make a problem out of a solution. You won't get businesses to agree to problems in order to save money.
If you want to see a mass migration to Linux, here's what you need:
standard file formats - Linux tools need to open/edit/save Microsoft formats. It is still my hope that Microsoft is forced to cough up their document formats to a standards body as a result of the anti-trust suits.
cloned interfaces - Linux tools need to perform tasks in an identical fashion to their Microsoft counterparts. Corporations will be very reluctant to retrain their entire workforce in exchange for a free OS. The applications need to work the same.
inter-operable OS - provide emulators to run legacy applications. There's a reason why knowledge of Cobol was needed before Y2K: Some old, proprietary applications cost way more to replace than 1000 years of OS upgrades. For many companies, their data is trapped inside computers they don't even understand. Once common applications have turned into black boxes. Make it so they can copy the application and it's inseperable data.
education - Linux needs to be accessible to educators to share with students. Schools, libraries, and colleges all receive generous donations of Wintel computers. Children are taught from an early age that Windows == Computer. They learn their tools under Microsoft's guidance. There is, however, a back door. Community Colleges are chartered to teach what the community asks for. Businesses who've embraced Linux and OSS need to ask their local community college to get their future employees ready. Invite educators to tour your business and sit with your people.
The price of an item is determined by the demand, not the cost. (This is actually oversimplified, quantity and price interact recursivly.)
What you're describing is, in my opinion, an economic fallacy; or it is, at the very least, way over-simplified: There are many factors that determine price; and demand, in my experience, only determines whether manufacturing is economically viable.
For every product manufactured, there are fixed costs and unit costs. For a season of Star Trek on DVD, your fixed costs would include: box art, case art, digitizing the shows, printing setup, assembly setup, advertising, etc. For something of this magnitude, fixed costs could run $100k, or more. Unit costs include things like: media, paper, assembly, shipping, royalties, etc. An individual unit may cost as little as $3, but it has to carry it's share of the fixed costs. If you only make one, it'll cost $100,003 to make.
Now, if you believe in the economic model you describe, you can chart per unit price (cost + desired profit) against demand and arrive at an optimum price point. But, in truth, it's not that simple. Other factors work to confound this model: many products, thanks to patents and copyrights, are monopolized; some products are subject patent or copyright infringement (piracy); products are not required to be the same price for life, and adoption of prerequisite technology can cloud demand. All of these factors influence pricing of Star Trek DVDs. Paramount has a monopoly; and they can charge more for that reason, with little effect on demand. All DVDs are priced higher because of the MPAA fear of piracy; Paramount will benefit from that. Paramount can release the DVDs at different price points along the demand curve to maximize profit, and they'll start at the highest point they can. Ultimately, Paramount knows that there are limits in the number of fans who even own a DVD player; and they will factor that in as well.
The simple model of demand v price (cost + profit) is just that, simple. The only truths in that model are: price has a floor; demand has a ceiling, and the product is only viable if you can get the lines to cross. Beyond that, everything else is fluid, especially when there are monopolies involved.
I have yet to meet someone who wants to practice law simply to help people.
Hi. Now you have. After seeing the DMCA, I decided to return to school and become a lawyer. When I graduate, I intend to work as a public defender and donate time to OSS causes. Simple reason: While ignorance of the law continues to be no excuse, understanding the law is becoming impossible.
Someone needs to protect people from government/business abuse of the law. I figure I can do more from within the system than from outside.
Slashdot Mirror
If Comcast establishs a policy where you pay depending on what you download, they are demonstrating that monitoring traffic is not an undue burden. This could open them up to liability for actions of their users.
ISPs have argued that they should not be liable for the actions of their users because, in part, the burden of monitoring users is too great.
Comcast should not open this Pandora's box by targeting specific content for higher fees. If they want to charge more for excessive bandwidth consumption, fine. But they should not even attempt to demonstrate that content can be monitored. If it can be monitored, it can be censored.
Why does this remind me of something that I would see as a scheme on Pinky and the Brain?
Pinky. Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
I think so Brain, but if we take over the net, how will the big boats catch any fish?
*bonk*
Not that kind of net, Pinky. The Internet: A global network of millions of computers; a network where music and pr0n are yours for the taking; a network where powerful tools like email and hypertext are used promote penis enlargement, pyramid schemes, and cheap drugs from the third world; a network where millions are left totally vulnerable by software given to them freely by the richest company in the world.
Ooooo, sounds nice, Brain. But Brain?
Yes, Pinky?
If you take it over, who's gonna share their pr0n with you?
Quality takes time, money, and good people. All scarce resources.
Or put another way:
a) Cheap
b) Fast
c) Good
Pick any two.
It was already pretty bad, and it isn't going to get better soon. Now that the bubble has burst for finding capital, try this:
Cheap [selected]
b) Fast
c) Good
Pick one.
Since everyone want to be the first to market, try this:
Cheap [selected]
Fast [selected]
c) Good
ERROR: Sorry, your choices are up.
There isn't "an internet". The whole deal about "owning the internet" is in-existent.
The story submitter did properly capitalize "Internet" when he says "the Internet".
An internet is any network that connects two or more networks.
The Internet is this goofy thing, started by DARPA, over which you have received this HTML page.
internet == concept
Internet == one instance of the concept, paradoxically loved and hated equally by those who know it best.
Your foobarnet, presuming it would interconnect networks, and not just hosts, would be an internet. This is the Internet.
Some of us don't find a book dull just because there aren't any spaceships or computers in it.
Some of us read all kinds of books, including children's books, and sometimes we find the occasional book to be dull. You're not suggesting that all books are interesting, are you?
When asked why his simulator lacked the ability to deploy landing gear, he replied "I don't really need it."
"Hey Kev, Mr. bin Laden would like to know if he can come over and play"
This is the real reason they are giving it away... the law says they have to.
But, that makes this game a version of open source/free software. Some IP lawyer would have to rearch more to find out if the source code would have to be released also under the non-copyright/full disclosure laws.
I like your reasoning, but the government is allowed to keep secrets from us. They even have levels of secrecy (e.g. classified, secret, etc.)
I'd bet that all military information is treated as classified by default until someone decides it's ok to de-classify it.
Also, although you're right that the government cannot hold copyrights/patents, the government can license the IP of others. Doing that doesn't give Joe Citizen a de facto license. For example, there are many cities in the US that have licensed their Municipal Code from companies and are heavily restricted interms of redistribution.
NASA, on the other hand, is a nice example of what you'd like to see. Where would we be without Velcro? Of course, not everything they do makes as much sense. NASA spent tons of cash to make a zero-G usable pen. The Russians used pencils. Duh.
There you go, finally an *actual* extinct term. The law of averages said that you had to get one right eventually.
I wasn't aware we were looking for "extinct" terms. I think for it to be extinct, no one would know what it means.
What I offered up were formerly ubiquitous terms that are now esoteric at best. While some people may still call copying "Xeroxing", it's done very rarely. Just like facsimile machines got shortened to fax machines. I'd wager that 9 out 10 people don't even know that "fax" is an abbreviation.
While everyone over the age of 30 has probably used a rotary phone, and know what it's called, you'd be hard pressed, I suspect, to find someone under 20 who could describe a rotary phone.
I might be wrong about calling TV antennas "rabbit ears." I know that many still use antennas, but are they still calling them "rabbit ears"?
"Daisy" rifles used to be to BB guns what "Xeroxing" is to copying, IIRC. Now, they're just one brand.
The thing that I came away with was not so much how lame tv must have looked back then (and as others so gleefully point out, looks now), but how unimaginative the author was.
Read Charlotte's Web, you have not. Very dull, it is.
To quote Scotty: "Keyboard?! How quaint."
Here's some goodies I remember:
Anyone else miss the old AT&T standard issue rotary phones. You could pratically pound in nails with the receiver --virtually indestructable *sniff*. Sometimes monopolies make good products.
why did it takes months to do?
Maybe it was an inside job. They are, after all, state workers.
state worker (re.ti.ur.d) - n. Individual paid to move paper from one side of their desk to the other. Typically, they don't know where the paper came from, where it is going, or what the funny symbols on it mean.
If you bought a 30 hour box and are getting 30 hours, what's the problem?
.5GB b)The reserved recovery area takes up .6GB, and c)The file system partitioning dropped another .4GB. Now your 10GB hard drive is really 8.5GB.
It's not like when someone buys a computer and they said it comes with a 10GB hard drive. Then, you look at the hard drive and find out that a)The OS takes up
Which is better?
1. Paid for 30 hours, got 40, can only use 30.
2. Paid for 10GB, got 10, can only use 8.5.
If I'd paid for 40 and got 30, I'd be annoyed; but, I paid for 30 and got 30. I'm just happy I got what I paid for.
If you're really keen to have more space, add another hard-drive.
if you pause it it starts recording what you were watching. you stated yourself that it will not record the promo if you are already recording something...
Actually, you misunderstand. TiVo is always recording a 30-minute buffer of the current channel. This 30-minute buffer is also outside the 30-hour space because of this. If you pause live TV, it doesn't begin recording. It's always recording. In fact, you can rewind live TV. Pausing live TV just stills the last image on the screen, and "bookmarks" your place in the buffer. If you leave it paused for more than 30 minutes, it'll unpause and start playing the buffer from the beginning (the spot you bookmarked)
I believe that if the TiVo is paused when it wants to change the channel, the default is 'yes' if you scheduled a recording, and 'no' if it's making a suggestion. Don't know how it handled this situation for the promo.
My main point is that there's a difference between the live buffer and an actual recording. TiVo is recording the 30-minute buffer 24/7; and, to be clear, it's always the last 30 minutes of the current channel. If you change channels, the buffer is wiped instantly.
I do NOT like that TiVo think's it's ok to grab that kind of control over MY property.
This does not take control away from you. For as long as I can remember, TiVo has pushed some promo content into some reserved space. During the Oscars, there were extras in the menu, for example. What's different here is that they pushed the content over the TV instead of the modem.
One of the good features of TiVo is that it does things in your interest when it's "bored". For example, TiVo, by default, will study what you watch and will record shows that are similar. You can grade it on it's efforts using a thumbs up/down rating system so that it gets better at it. These "suggested" shows do not get in the way of your control. TiVo won't delete your shows to record suggestions; and, if it's tight on space, it will delete all suggestions before it touches any of your shows. Most importantly, it only records suggestions if a) you're not recording anything, and b) you're not watching anything live.
The suggestion feature has been very helpful for me. For example, I have been recording Stargate SG-1 on Showtime. Much to my surprise, an extra episode showed up. I looked at it and it was from the local Fox affiliate. TiVo suggested it, and now I record both. However, if TiVo Suggestions annoy you, you can turn off the auto-record element of it. It'll still maintain of list of suggestions, in case your hard-up for things to record.
This thing they tried in the UK was, in a sense, a meta-suggestion. It was only recorded if a) you weren't recording anything else and b) you weren't watching anything. But, because it's not a suggestion in the traditional sense, it got recorded whether or not you have suggestions turned off. Also, TiVo adds promo content to the main menu. Some people find the extra item annoying.
In case you're wondering, TiVo only knows if you're watching live TV by popping up a message before changing the station to ask permission. If you don't answer, it assumes you're not there and changes the channel. People may have gotten upset because they walked away from the TV and came back to find the channel changed. It may also be the case that once it started recording in your absence that an unanticipated bug made it so that you couldn't stop the recording. Normally, you can stop a recording in progress if you need to change channels. Also, TiVo has a 30-minute live TV buffer so you can pause/slow-mo/etc the channel you're watching. If you, or it, changes the channel, the buffer gets wiped and starts fresh on the new channel. If you start watching a show and then decide to record it, it'll include the already buffered portion in the recording.
If the TiVo people have any sense, they'll make this work exactly like a suggestion, then the only difference will be that the suggestion has nothing to do with your viewing habits. Big deal.
Check out the longer article here that is so poorly synopsized on Yahoo.
I'd highly recommend TiVo, even with this apparent mis-step. I'd welcome these promo/suggestions if they keep the subscription price down. Of course, you can get a lifetime (of the box, not you) subscription for a flat fee and lock in the price.
I've been doing that for years but I never considered that it was a symlink because you can't do "cd mylink" at the commandline level (at least I think you can't) because the 'link' is really just a file.
I tested the first time using the browse feature of the Save window. It went right across the link, and the file was saved on the other side.
You are right, however: you cannot 'cd' across it. Seems Windows knows what to do, but good old DOS just sees a file. I guess it's not fully functional. I wonder if this works under XP. I have typed some Linux commands at an XP prompt and have been surprised to see them working (e.g., netstat), but I haven't tried ln. Maybe someone with access to XP will chime in here...
The problem isn't going to be solved by a symlink
Actually, I only said it could save him a step. Currently, he has Netscape installed and adds plug-ins to it and then copies the files. He could remove the netscape plugin directory and replace it with a link to the mozilla plugin directory.
Depending on how these programs look for netscape, other things might be possible; but all I offered is a suggestion to skip a step.
This person is using windows.
Windows makes symlinking of folders very obscure, but not impossible. (If anyone knows a faster way to do this under Windows 9x, feel free to follow up):
Follow these steps, and you have a fully functional symlink to a folder. It's way easier with normal files. Seems Microsoft never imagined putting folder shortcuts anywhere but the desktop and start menu. But, the desktop and start menu are just file system folders at the end of the day.
It is possible to dislike the RIAA and love this at the same time. It's like a machiavellian wet dream. Couldn't have achieved better if we'd planned it.
WRT your idea about W3C standards; they won't be of any use without applications, and as I said, applications are very difficult to develop.
The application already exists. It's called Microsoft Word. I'm not suggesting that a standard get created out of the blue. I'm suggesting that Microsoft be forced to disclose the current format, that the format be adopted as the current standard, and that a seperate organization similar to the W3C be created to control it. It makes a great deal more sense to take a format that 95% of people are using and make it the standard than to create one. The fact that Microsoft has been found to be behaving criminally provides a window to do this as a remedy that will help to eventually break their monopoly.
I realize that most other tools aren't ready for prime time, but that's not the point. I won't even try using those tools until I can share my files with people who use Word and vice-versa. Because I need to share docs with others who use Word, I need to use Word. Because I need to use Word, I need to use Windows. I'm stuck using Windows because of the Word file format. You could create a word processor for Linux that typed as I thought, and I'd still be using Word under Windows until I can share my work with people who use Word (and them with me.)
Well, I need netscape anyway because some sites won't let you install a plugin for mozilla but only netscape or explorer. The installer gives you a choice of one or the other and if you pick netscape it says it couldn't find it. So I install netscape, install the plugin, then copy the files to my mozilla folder.
You might be able to save yourself a step in there somewhere with a symlink. You could either link Netscape to Mozilla or link your Netscape Plugins directory to your Mozilla Plugins directory. If you do it right, you should be able to select Netscape and have it automatically drop into Mozilla instead.
A binary format of Word 97 - which can contain billions of objects in other formats - is a nightmare to implement, and an impossibility to document, especially when MS has no particular reason to do that.
I can see your point that Microsoft may not even know their own file format. However, that does not change the fact that dependence on tools like Word will keep businesses enslaved by Microsoft. For businesses to consider moving to Linux, they need to be able to take documents with them.
I agree that even if the document format were a wide open standard, the exact layout will not be the same for a variety of reasons (bugs, fonts, etc.) However, I believe people will be happy as long as they can open/edit/save/print the file.
Finally, I am not suggesting that we chase Word. I'm suggesting that they be forced to stop running. The file formats for tools like Word need to be standardized and managed by an independent body like the W3C. You should be able to use any word processor that is standards compliant to create/edit/save these files and hand them to any other word processor that is compliant to do the same.
I'm all in favor of creating new tools; but if they can't open old docs, you're wasting your time.
I've got karma to burn, so here goes...
Converting old files to plain text is an incredibly bad idea. Even if your only talking about
Now, beyond the issue of the simplest kind of old files, consider things like spreadsheets, PowerPoint presentations, Accounting data, etc. Converting these files to plain text will render them useless.
If you want businesses to move to Linux, look back at how we got here. There was a time when nothing was done on computers. Why start? Everyone could use a pencil. All typewriters worked more-or-less the same way. Businesses didn't start using computers because they were cool. They didn't start using them because they were cheaper. They started because computers could do things faster. Computers represented solutions to problems. What your proposing is to make a problem out of a solution. You won't get businesses to agree to problems in order to save money.
If you want to see a mass migration to Linux, here's what you need:
The price of an item is determined by the demand, not the cost. (This is actually oversimplified, quantity and price interact recursivly.)
What you're describing is, in my opinion, an economic fallacy; or it is, at the very least, way over-simplified: There are many factors that determine price; and demand, in my experience, only determines whether manufacturing is economically viable.
For every product manufactured, there are fixed costs and unit costs. For a season of Star Trek on DVD, your fixed costs would include: box art, case art, digitizing the shows, printing setup, assembly setup, advertising, etc. For something of this magnitude, fixed costs could run $100k, or more. Unit costs include things like: media, paper, assembly, shipping, royalties, etc. An individual unit may cost as little as $3, but it has to carry it's share of the fixed costs. If you only make one, it'll cost $100,003 to make.
Now, if you believe in the economic model you describe, you can chart per unit price (cost + desired profit) against demand and arrive at an optimum price point. But, in truth, it's not that simple. Other factors work to confound this model: many products, thanks to patents and copyrights, are monopolized; some products are subject patent or copyright infringement (piracy); products are not required to be the same price for life, and adoption of prerequisite technology can cloud demand. All of these factors influence pricing of Star Trek DVDs. Paramount has a monopoly; and they can charge more for that reason, with little effect on demand. All DVDs are priced higher because of the MPAA fear of piracy; Paramount will benefit from that. Paramount can release the DVDs at different price points along the demand curve to maximize profit, and they'll start at the highest point they can. Ultimately, Paramount knows that there are limits in the number of fans who even own a DVD player; and they will factor that in as well.
The simple model of demand v price (cost + profit) is just that, simple. The only truths in that model are: price has a floor; demand has a ceiling, and the product is only viable if you can get the lines to cross. Beyond that, everything else is fluid, especially when there are monopolies involved.
I have yet to meet someone who wants to practice law simply to help people.
Hi. Now you have. After seeing the DMCA, I decided to return to school and become a lawyer. When I graduate, I intend to work as a public defender and donate time to OSS causes. Simple reason: While ignorance of the law continues to be no excuse, understanding the law is becoming impossible.
Someone needs to protect people from government/business abuse of the law. I figure I can do more from within the system than from outside.
Worrying isn't it?
I figure if Microsoft code was handling anything important, we'd be dead already. The concept adds a whole new meaning to BSOD.