You're mistaken. Cable companies can only encrypt premium channels aka extended basic and above. In other words, approx the first 10 to 60 channels (depending on your area) should not have the flag and the rest most likely will.
I'm not entirely sure if Shaw allows cable cards but if you can get your hands on one then you can record every channel you subscribe too even hbo channel if you pay for it.
Most cable card based DVRs are media center PCs that come with a cable card slot. If you want to build your own computer the only option I know of at the moment is http://ati.amd.com/products/tvwonderdigital/index.html
Also, keep in mind that using your own DVR with a cable card you can not get on demand and other special features like ppv. However, cable card version 2.0 supposedly supports those options.
Alternatively, you can hack a tivo or another box but that isn't exactly as legit as plugging in your home made dvr directly into the coax cable from the wall.
It is nvidia's fault. The power drain comes from the gpu (the extra visual features in 7) and nvidia releases drivers outside of bootcamp that run on all macs with nvidia gpus not bootcamp which provides drivers to other hardware.
It is more than that. In general nvidia gpus consume to much power even on the older models of the macbook pros. Since windows 7 uses a lot more gpu power it completely explains why there is a power drain.
At least apple is doing something about it with 10.6. Currently on 10.5.8 after bootup OSX uses up around 220MB or ram. Bloated? Yes, but in comparison to MS no.
My opinion might be a bit biased though. I consider ubuntu bloated.
True but I doubt this is the issue with windows 7. It is most likely nvidia's fault. The graphic card is what is consuming battery life. Even OSX hits this issue from time to time on my mbp. Nvidia's hardware locks up and the gpu consumes to much power from time to time.
This may not benefit google voice and it may not benefit the 'unlawful' users. But it does do one thing which imho is better than nothing:
All ISPs (cellular too) can not push a monthly cap on its customers. This means no more 5GB cap on phone ISPs, no 40GB cap on many cable isps, no comcast 250GB cap, and so on...
Any company that sells hardware can today legally restrict what you run on their hardware. It is a messy subject because if the law changed other companies could legally sell their games to console hardware and you would have the atari issue all over again. If anything Nintendo was the one who started the whole licensing developers thing.
Yes and no. Yes your cellular provider is an ISP. Yes the ISP has to allow tethering BUT No the phones do not have to allow tethering.
If you get a phone that supports tethering like through an app on windows mobile your cellular ISP has to accept it. However, if you get a phone that could have tethering support but doesn't then you can't get tethering.
In other words, the cell companies can legally make it a pain in the ass to get tethering but they can legally not stop you once you've obtained it, but the cell phone maker could potentially try to stop you.
I think the study is more to show the slower drivers holding up traffic in the left hand lane cause traffic jams and if they see that it is ok for people to drive faster in the left hand lane the slower driver might rethink his or her own driving and move over to prevent the whole situation?
"On the other hand, what about the annoying guys that just whizz past you in the lane you're trying to get over into while you are trying to get OUT of the fast lane? And they sometimes get really upset, because you just moved into HIS LANE and he had to use his brakes. Ugh! Awful brakes."
No offense but it sounds like either your relaxes are terrible, you do not use your mirrors, or you do not know how to properly drive. Either way, you're being dangerous.
Shouldn't you move over BEFORE they can move over or even get behind you? Also, shouldn't you use your mirrors to see that the person has moved over already before you've started changing lanes?
I'm saying this not to be offensive but more that if you do not think about it and change your driving style (based on what you've said) you might end up dead one day.
In california there is no left lane passing law.:(
However, it is always easy to tell the difference between local drivers and people passing through on some of the freeways because of such a difference in driving.
For example, 101 in CA is king for left hand drivers lining up to the person in the lane right of them even if it is below the speed limit and most locals seem to think that helps save peoples lives because they are driving slower when in fact it is the complete opposite. However, on I-5 through most parts if someone is in the left hand lane and someone comes up on their ass the person will move over to the right hand lane without any issues and because of that traffic flows much better.
What this guy says is right but what is his doing is different and wrong.
The concept is coasting and not using your break. If stop and go breaks out the first time you have to hit your break from hitting anything but then you accel a bit slower than everyone else and measure out how much a stop will line up to so when you see red lights you coast and if done right you will end up right behind the person in front of you without you using your breaks. Then when they accel again you're farther away and never used the breaks once to normalize the speed. However, if traffic evens out in front of you then you shouldn't be holding up traffic since the point was to stop the stop and go and instead you should be back up behind the person to aid the people behind you.
What this person does is hits their break before getting up to the person in front of them so they are echoing the same stop an go exactly but is instead taking up 3 cars worth on a road of maximum compacity. Not using your break stops the stop and go but driving faster when possible increases the number of cars that can fit on the road without a jam. If you do not mix the two then you are holding up traffic and stopping the stop and go is near pointless.
Statistically, the driver who drives above the speed limit and openly admits it is 6 times less likely to get in a crash.
Also, the average driver who constantly drives 15 to 20 mph is 14% less likely to get in a crash then someone who drives at the speed limit.
(One statistic is from a study I can not recall but in the US and the other is a Canadian study. Both are studies using divided highways (or freeways out here) not of surface streets.)
Every area is different but out here the people who tail gate, and generally drive dangerously are the slower drivers in the end. It might be because I'm in an area with many highways that are single lane each direction so there is no passing but the second the highway breaks into more than one lane the tail gate driver is the one in the left hand lane holding up traffic.
In other words, these 'rude' drivers (based on the article) are the faster drivers who are least likely to get in an accident. My theory is that they pay more attention to the road. The more relaxed driver who is in a middle lane going at whatever speed and not trying to get around stops paying attention and looking in their rvm every 2 seconds like they are suppose to.
This is why in most states it is against the law to not pass in the left most (passing) lane. The exception is when someone is in front of you but if you're in the left hand lane and are not passing someone to the right regardless if someone is behind you or not then you need to move over.
I wish this law was enforced and not the speed limit laws. If the passing lane laws where enforced there would be a lot less traffic, a lot less crashes, and a lot less deaths on the road.
"3. Cops... I like cops, I appreciate cops, I have cops in the family; it's not really the cops, it's the people who drop below the speed limit simply because one is nearby."
I wouldn't blame some people. I got a ticket for going 5 under the speed limit but going to fast for safe conditions. I also got another ticket for going 1mph above the speed limit. And finally, I got a fix it ticket for a light that was not out because I was going the speed limit to the dot.
I fought all but the fix it ticket and won. What happened with the 1mph over and the fix it ticket was that when everyone saw the officer they literally slowed down to 10mph below the speed limit and I stayed to the limit to the dot. Because of this it looked like I was speeding and the cops out here pace and do not use radar or lidar often. Once the officer was behind me instead of letting it go I was pulled over both times. I learned that it is best to go with the flow even if it is 10 under or you will get pulled over regardless, or at least out here.
Slashdot Mirror
I think people watch TV because of sports related channels and news mainly.
You're mistaken. Cable companies can only encrypt premium channels aka extended basic and above. In other words, approx the first 10 to 60 channels (depending on your area) should not have the flag and the rest most likely will.
I'm not entirely sure if Shaw allows cable cards but if you can get your hands on one then you can record every channel you subscribe too even hbo channel if you pay for it.
Most cable card based DVRs are media center PCs that come with a cable card slot. If you want to build your own computer the only option I know of at the moment is http://ati.amd.com/products/tvwonderdigital/index.html
Also, keep in mind that using your own DVR with a cable card you can not get on demand and other special features like ppv. However, cable card version 2.0 supposedly supports those options.
Alternatively, you can hack a tivo or another box but that isn't exactly as legit as plugging in your home made dvr directly into the coax cable from the wall.
No more un-erase. What is gone is really gone, there is no recovering lost data.
It is nvidia's fault. The power drain comes from the gpu (the extra visual features in 7) and nvidia releases drivers outside of bootcamp that run on all macs with nvidia gpus not bootcamp which provides drivers to other hardware.
It is more than that. In general nvidia gpus consume to much power even on the older models of the macbook pros. Since windows 7 uses a lot more gpu power it completely explains why there is a power drain.
At least apple is doing something about it with 10.6. Currently on 10.5.8 after bootup OSX uses up around 220MB or ram. Bloated? Yes, but in comparison to MS no.
My opinion might be a bit biased though. I consider ubuntu bloated.
True but I doubt this is the issue with windows 7. It is most likely nvidia's fault. The graphic card is what is consuming battery life. Even OSX hits this issue from time to time on my mbp. Nvidia's hardware locks up and the gpu consumes to much power from time to time.
Actually MS does do this. Look at the xbox.
This may not benefit google voice and it may not benefit the 'unlawful' users. But it does do one thing which imho is better than nothing:
All ISPs (cellular too) can not push a monthly cap on its customers. This means no more 5GB cap on phone ISPs, no 40GB cap on many cable isps, no comcast 250GB cap, and so on...
One step at a time.
No this does not. Apple is a hardware vendor not an ISP.
Unfortunately no. Apple is not an ISP.
Any company that sells hardware can today legally restrict what you run on their hardware. It is a messy subject because if the law changed other companies could legally sell their games to console hardware and you would have the atari issue all over again. If anything Nintendo was the one who started the whole licensing developers thing.
Yes and no.
Yes your cellular provider is an ISP. Yes the ISP has to allow tethering BUT
No the phones do not have to allow tethering.
If you get a phone that supports tethering like through an app on windows mobile your cellular ISP has to accept it. However, if you get a phone that could have tethering support but doesn't then you can't get tethering.
In other words, the cell companies can legally make it a pain in the ass to get tethering but they can legally not stop you once you've obtained it, but the cell phone maker could potentially try to stop you.
on anySAT I stopped at level 12.
It works as in that it kills people and causes crashes.
I wish the people doing so realized this...
Dynedain (141758) did not use the word slower in his comment so my reply will only be a guess:
Slower as in not the fastest driver in sight in the left hand lane.
I think the study is more to show the slower drivers holding up traffic in the left hand lane cause traffic jams and if they see that it is ok for people to drive faster in the left hand lane the slower driver might rethink his or her own driving and move over to prevent the whole situation?
Ok, maybe not, but it would help.
"On the other hand, what about the annoying guys that just whizz past you in the lane you're trying to get over into while you are trying to get OUT of the fast lane? And they sometimes get really upset, because you just moved into HIS LANE and he had to use his brakes. Ugh! Awful brakes."
No offense but it sounds like either your relaxes are terrible, you do not use your mirrors, or you do not know how to properly drive. Either way, you're being dangerous.
Shouldn't you move over BEFORE they can move over or even get behind you? Also, shouldn't you use your mirrors to see that the person has moved over already before you've started changing lanes?
I'm saying this not to be offensive but more that if you do not think about it and change your driving style (based on what you've said) you might end up dead one day.
In california there is no left lane passing law. :(
However, it is always easy to tell the difference between local drivers and people passing through on some of the freeways because of such a difference in driving.
For example, 101 in CA is king for left hand drivers lining up to the person in the lane right of them even if it is below the speed limit and most locals seem to think that helps save peoples lives because they are driving slower when in fact it is the complete opposite.
However, on I-5 through most parts if someone is in the left hand lane and someone comes up on their ass the person will move over to the right hand lane without any issues and because of that traffic flows much better.
What this guy says is right but what is his doing is different and wrong.
The concept is coasting and not using your break. If stop and go breaks out the first time you have to hit your break from hitting anything but then you accel a bit slower than everyone else and measure out how much a stop will line up to so when you see red lights you coast and if done right you will end up right behind the person in front of you without you using your breaks. Then when they accel again you're farther away and never used the breaks once to normalize the speed. However, if traffic evens out in front of you then you shouldn't be holding up traffic since the point was to stop the stop and go and instead you should be back up behind the person to aid the people behind you.
What this person does is hits their break before getting up to the person in front of them so they are echoing the same stop an go exactly but is instead taking up 3 cars worth on a road of maximum compacity. Not using your break stops the stop and go but driving faster when possible increases the number of cars that can fit on the road without a jam. If you do not mix the two then you are holding up traffic and stopping the stop and go is near pointless.
Rude != Stupid
Statistically, the driver who drives above the speed limit and openly admits it is 6 times less likely to get in a crash.
Also, the average driver who constantly drives 15 to 20 mph is 14% less likely to get in a crash then someone who drives at the speed limit.
(One statistic is from a study I can not recall but in the US and the other is a Canadian study. Both are studies using divided highways (or freeways out here) not of surface streets.)
Every area is different but out here the people who tail gate, and generally drive dangerously are the slower drivers in the end. It might be because I'm in an area with many highways that are single lane each direction so there is no passing but the second the highway breaks into more than one lane the tail gate driver is the one in the left hand lane holding up traffic.
In other words, these 'rude' drivers (based on the article) are the faster drivers who are least likely to get in an accident. My theory is that they pay more attention to the road. The more relaxed driver who is in a middle lane going at whatever speed and not trying to get around stops paying attention and looking in their rvm every 2 seconds like they are suppose to.
This is why in most states it is against the law to not pass in the left most (passing) lane. The exception is when someone is in front of you but if you're in the left hand lane and are not passing someone to the right regardless if someone is behind you or not then you need to move over.
I wish this law was enforced and not the speed limit laws. If the passing lane laws where enforced there would be a lot less traffic, a lot less crashes, and a lot less deaths on the road.
"3. Cops... I like cops, I appreciate cops, I have cops in the family; it's not really the cops, it's the people who drop below the speed limit simply because one is nearby."
I wouldn't blame some people. I got a ticket for going 5 under the speed limit but going to fast for safe conditions. I also got another ticket for going 1mph above the speed limit. And finally, I got a fix it ticket for a light that was not out because I was going the speed limit to the dot.
I fought all but the fix it ticket and won. What happened with the 1mph over and the fix it ticket was that when everyone saw the officer they literally slowed down to 10mph below the speed limit and I stayed to the limit to the dot. Because of this it looked like I was speeding and the cops out here pace and do not use radar or lidar often. Once the officer was behind me instead of letting it go I was pulled over both times. I learned that it is best to go with the flow even if it is 10 under or you will get pulled over regardless, or at least out here.
I recommend you take a step back and look up the "facts" you've presented here.
Why? Because they are wrong, plain and simple.
And of those 10 computers none of them are Apple.
I honestly do not think Walmart sell anything that is considered premium computer or otherwise.