I think the problem is less with the usage and more with the disposal.
We need effective ways to dispose of things - preferably by recycling/recovering - that have harmful components. Because once they're in a landfill, they can get into the ecosystem in a big way (lots of little bits adding up...) and they don't just "go away" because you stuck them in a landfill. At some point they become a hazard.
I'm all for sensible warnings, labels and restrictions (by which I mean to say, I think California goes overboard), but I think we do need to think about the materials we use.
You do realize that you're going to be required to go digital in Feb. 2009, right? Not HD, just digital. That means a digital converter box and some method of controlling it from MythTV (such as an IR blaster or maybe serial - no idea what those converters have).
Complying with Sarbanes-Oxley means complying with the retention policy for e-mail. S-OX does NOT say you have to keep every e-mail forever, but that you have to keep all documents (including email) for a reasonable and clearly defined time.
And of course not every company needs to comply with S-OX, though even many that don't try to follow many of those requirements.
Not specifically related to the topic at hand, but since I work at PBS (the corp. headquarters, not one of the stations) I can tell you that indeed PBS does distribute some content via P2P services like Vuze and they're definitely trying to increase online distribution.
Don't expect them, or anyone else, to be casting content into the winds of the wide-open P2P environments though. Most of the time they only have licenses to broadcast the content (that is, they don't own it either).
Trust me when I say, there's NOTHING easy about any of it.
Exactly my thought - risky doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. Getting out of bed in the morning sure is risky, probably should just stay inside.
I'm all for recognizing the hazards of an activity and weighing the risk/reward, but if we don't have a problem with oil riggers, Alaskan fishermen, etc. then why would we have a problem with risk for scientific and/or economic advancement in space?
Maybe holding off on tourists in space until we can come up with reasonable precautions/reactions for things like solar flares, but manned exploration by people who know and understand the risks? There are plenty of people who accept those risks for a multitude of reasons.
Actually no, if you read that the WebKit/Safari team have to suck it up and deal with tons of maintenance problems ('many many hours of regressions'). They aren't getting anything _better_, just using non-public stuff to work around things that would otherwise cause problems within Safari/WebKit.
Which is basically the same thing that every other 3rd party developer does who finds a non-public call/api that meets some need or solves some problem. The only bit that, to me, is a little 'off' is that the Safari/WebKit team have better access to see what those hidden bits are.
They absolutely are - there are companies out there (some with a recognizable big yellow character) that want to be able to leverage BitTorrent delivery methods.
And? I am not a big Radiohead fan but I did buy the album to support the message that the RIAA isn't necessary and that their methods and business practices are not in the best interests of the artists or the customers. Yes, I knew that they were respected but I am mostly ambivalent towards them (though I have enjoyed the album).
Oh for the love of god, no, no one is stealing a damn thing. Not in any sense of the word. If a site doesn't want people to view something that they've put up without paying to see it, then use a subscription model and login. What, that's not going to have the same amount of revenue as ad views? Well, gee, that's just too bad and perhaps no one cares enough to keep your content online. Just because their business model doesn't work doesn't mean I should go out and subsidize them (or feel bad that I'm not subsidizing them). Nope, sorry, too bad you're not going to be online any more.
Re:$10/month from the cable company and you're don
on
The Trouble With TiVo
·
· Score: 1
Because the cable company's version isn't near as good? It doesn't recommend shows, doesn't let you set up a wish list, doesn't automatically record shows that it thinks you might like, doesn't group recordings together by shows, only has 1 week of programming in advance, etc. At least, that's what Comcast in my area provides.
Really, there's a lot of functionality missing from my cable provider's DVR. What it _does_ do is HD recording and it has 2 tuners, which is why I have the cable's DVR box at all. I use it to record HD content and to record something that I happen to flip by and decide I want to watch later.
For people who just want a simple VCR replacement, their cable provider's box is probably just fine. For people who'd like to spend less than a DIY and want more than a simple VCR, it's pretty much just TiVo.
Heh, go ahead and try it. The best you can do is make sure that the users are Limited accounts. It goes a long way, but Windows still screws itself up easily enough. On top of that, too many Windows applications that we have to install assume that the users are Admins.
There are 2 of us where I work and we maintain 450+ Windows desktops/laptops. 99% of the company are limited users and it's a godsend, but it still doesn't keep the machines from sometimes going haywire.
Are you kidding? We use XP Pro SP2 and Office 2k3 at work and have no such problems deploying at all. You might want to try creating an administration installation point. We do our computer deployment with ghost and sysprep, so we don't install Office each time, but we never run into a problem launching any Office app as a limited user (unless Office breaks in really strange ways, like thinking it hasn't been installed).
1% of our users are Admins (mostly in IT), everyone else is a limited user account. Mostly only older software (*shudder* HomeSite) causes problems with the lack of Admin rights and those mostly just want write permission to the application's directory. Not great, but better than making the user's admins
But how could it ever have generated interest, Fox refused to let it play on ANY regular schedule. Only people who were hooked on the first or second show made the effort to figure out when Fox might next play another episode. It was ridiculous. NO show would survive what was done to Firefly.
I'm pretty sure you misread what was said. What I read, and what makes sense, is that we should not pretend that everyone has equal ability in all realms of human endeavor. No-where did he say that people should not be allowed to try their hand at whatever interests them, just that the reality is that not everyone is actually good at the things they may want to do. Indeed, people should be encouraged to explore their potentials. It's ridiculous to believe that everyone has the same potentials, however.
If a person has no skill at farming but wants to be a farmer; fine. Just don't design a economic and social system that would encourage and support that person being in charge of major farming efforts. It isn't functional to put people in positions of responsibilty if they are incompetent at that position whether they want to be there or not.
Furthermore, much like a suit of armor that has joints to make it flexible, you could add "joints" that aren't coated in the film at the knees, elbows, etc. Whether your need to would only be answerable by seeing the stuff in action for real, but being able to put a layer of this around everything except your elbows and knees would still be huge.
Another question that we'd need to know is - how breathable is the stuff? If it's like being encased in a suit of armor, it's gonna be too hot to be applied everywhere.
Are you and I using the same Google Maps and Live Local?
Live Local worked just fine in Firefox, there weren't any bugs that popped up when I've been using it, and custom push pins (and the huge amount of functionality built WITH those push pins) is so glaringly lacking in Google Maps that I don't see how it's a "poor competitor". I don't use either globally, so perhaps that's where the flaws you see are coming in, but for the US it's IMO easily better than Google Maps.
If Google were to implement all the functionality built on the custom pushpins in Live Local, then they'd be comparable.
I live in a major metropolitan area (about 7 miles from the heart of Washington DC) and have exactly two provider options: Verizon and Comcast. Currently I have no phone line, so I have only one option, Comcast. If I were willing to pay Verizon for a land-line, I could get DSL, sure but also pay for an undesired and un-needed service.
Or I could go with Speakeasy (so long as Verizon et al don't figure out a way to cut them out) for DSL, but the cost of Speakeasy at 3 Mbps down is pretty similar to Verizon (with the phone #) at 3 Mbps. Still, if push came to shove that's where I'd go since they seem to be far friendlier to their customers.
I grew up in a small town; they _just_ got high-speed. Cable and at a paltry 60-70 Kbps! That's it. Guess they could try to get satellite or something, but I can't see that being better.
You should feel awfully lucky that you have more than one choice, let alone the large number you appear to have available.
Sign me up right now. I'd actually be up for a lot higher than 10% chance. If it's a one-way trip, then I don't much care what the chance of getting cancer would be and I'd still go. As plenty of other people pointed out, exploring the earth and pushing out the "known" terrestrial frontiers was a dangerous business.
There are certainly a lot of naive/innocent people who, as you say, simply don't grasp the consequences, but I don't think finding intelligent and aware people to take the risks is the problem. It's that the risks require a lot of money that few people/governments are willing to spend without immediate, obvious returns on investment.
It's gotta make more sense to spend billions to put people on Mars than to spend billions creating and prepetuating violence. Too bad we can't convince all sides of that though.
As an actual employee of PBS, I can say that there might be one or two Republicans floating around here. Just about everyone here is a Democrat or otherwise anti-Republican.
Yup, it was great moving to an area where that is the case. I grew up in an area where billboards are the norm, so it was really nice to get away from them.
IANAL but that doesn't seem even close to abusive. Apple has a product and doesn't want to sell tools to create competitors to that product. How is that abusive? Where is it a law that a company has to sell it's competitors the tools/technology to compete?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the problem is less with the usage and more with the disposal.
We need effective ways to dispose of things - preferably by recycling/recovering - that have harmful components. Because once they're in a landfill, they can get into the ecosystem in a big way (lots of little bits adding up ...) and they don't just "go away" because you stuck them in a landfill. At some point they become a hazard.
I'm all for sensible warnings, labels and restrictions (by which I mean to say, I think California goes overboard), but I think we do need to think about the materials we use.
You do realize that you're going to be required to go digital in Feb. 2009, right? Not HD, just digital. That means a digital converter box and some method of controlling it from MythTV (such as an IR blaster or maybe serial - no idea what those converters have).
Complying with Sarbanes-Oxley means complying with the retention policy for e-mail. S-OX does NOT say you have to keep every e-mail forever, but that you have to keep all documents (including email) for a reasonable and clearly defined time.
And of course not every company needs to comply with S-OX, though even many that don't try to follow many of those requirements.
Not specifically related to the topic at hand, but since I work at PBS (the corp. headquarters, not one of the stations) I can tell you that indeed PBS does distribute some content via P2P services like Vuze and they're definitely trying to increase online distribution.
Don't expect them, or anyone else, to be casting content into the winds of the wide-open P2P environments though. Most of the time they only have licenses to broadcast the content (that is, they don't own it either).
Trust me when I say, there's NOTHING easy about any of it.
Exactly my thought - risky doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. Getting out of bed in the morning sure is risky, probably should just stay inside.
I'm all for recognizing the hazards of an activity and weighing the risk/reward, but if we don't have a problem with oil riggers, Alaskan fishermen, etc. then why would we have a problem with risk for scientific and/or economic advancement in space?
Maybe holding off on tourists in space until we can come up with reasonable precautions/reactions for things like solar flares, but manned exploration by people who know and understand the risks? There are plenty of people who accept those risks for a multitude of reasons.
Actually no, if you read that the WebKit/Safari team have to suck it up and deal with tons of maintenance problems ('many many hours of regressions'). They aren't getting anything _better_, just using non-public stuff to work around things that would otherwise cause problems within Safari/WebKit.
Which is basically the same thing that every other 3rd party developer does who finds a non-public call/api that meets some need or solves some problem. The only bit that, to me, is a little 'off' is that the Safari/WebKit team have better access to see what those hidden bits are.
He wasn't saying that he was a teleworker, but he has to answer support calls (on call) for those who do at 6pm on a holiday. Just sayin' ;)
They absolutely are - there are companies out there (some with a recognizable big yellow character) that want to be able to leverage BitTorrent delivery methods.
And? I am not a big Radiohead fan but I did buy the album to support the message that the RIAA isn't necessary and that their methods and business practices are not in the best interests of the artists or the customers. Yes, I knew that they were respected but I am mostly ambivalent towards them (though I have enjoyed the album).
Oh for the love of god, no, no one is stealing a damn thing. Not in any sense of the word. If a site doesn't want people to view something that they've put up without paying to see it, then use a subscription model and login. What, that's not going to have the same amount of revenue as ad views? Well, gee, that's just too bad and perhaps no one cares enough to keep your content online. Just because their business model doesn't work doesn't mean I should go out and subsidize them (or feel bad that I'm not subsidizing them). Nope, sorry, too bad you're not going to be online any more.
Because the cable company's version isn't near as good? It doesn't recommend shows, doesn't let you set up a wish list, doesn't automatically record shows that it thinks you might like, doesn't group recordings together by shows, only has 1 week of programming in advance, etc. At least, that's what Comcast in my area provides.
Really, there's a lot of functionality missing from my cable provider's DVR. What it _does_ do is HD recording and it has 2 tuners, which is why I have the cable's DVR box at all. I use it to record HD content and to record something that I happen to flip by and decide I want to watch later.
For people who just want a simple VCR replacement, their cable provider's box is probably just fine. For people who'd like to spend less than a DIY and want more than a simple VCR, it's pretty much just TiVo.
"Officer, as I understand it, you had an alternate method of subduing him, did you not?"
"Uh, well, yes. I could have shot him."
Heh, go ahead and try it. The best you can do is make sure that the users are Limited accounts. It goes a long way, but Windows still screws itself up easily enough. On top of that, too many Windows applications that we have to install assume that the users are Admins.
There are 2 of us where I work and we maintain 450+ Windows desktops/laptops. 99% of the company are limited users and it's a godsend, but it still doesn't keep the machines from sometimes going haywire.
You're forgetting the $81 Best Buy/Monster surcharge.
Are you kidding? We use XP Pro SP2 and Office 2k3 at work and have no such problems deploying at all. You might want to try creating an administration installation point. We do our computer deployment with ghost and sysprep, so we don't install Office each time, but we never run into a problem launching any Office app as a limited user (unless Office breaks in really strange ways, like thinking it hasn't been installed).
1% of our users are Admins (mostly in IT), everyone else is a limited user account. Mostly only older software (*shudder* HomeSite) causes problems with the lack of Admin rights and those mostly just want write permission to the application's directory. Not great, but better than making the user's admins
But how could it ever have generated interest, Fox refused to let it play on ANY regular schedule. Only people who were hooked on the first or second show made the effort to figure out when Fox might next play another episode. It was ridiculous. NO show would survive what was done to Firefly.
I'm pretty sure you misread what was said. What I read, and what makes sense, is that we should not pretend that everyone has equal ability in all realms of human endeavor. No-where did he say that people should not be allowed to try their hand at whatever interests them, just that the reality is that not everyone is actually good at the things they may want to do. Indeed, people should be encouraged to explore their potentials. It's ridiculous to believe that everyone has the same potentials, however.
If a person has no skill at farming but wants to be a farmer; fine. Just don't design a economic and social system that would encourage and support that person being in charge of major farming efforts. It isn't functional to put people in positions of responsibilty if they are incompetent at that position whether they want to be there or not.
Furthermore, much like a suit of armor that has joints to make it flexible, you could add "joints" that aren't coated in the film at the knees, elbows, etc. Whether your need to would only be answerable by seeing the stuff in action for real, but being able to put a layer of this around everything except your elbows and knees would still be huge.
Another question that we'd need to know is - how breathable is the stuff? If it's like being encased in a suit of armor, it's gonna be too hot to be applied everywhere.
Are you and I using the same Google Maps and Live Local?
Live Local worked just fine in Firefox, there weren't any bugs that popped up when I've been using it, and custom push pins (and the huge amount of functionality built WITH those push pins) is so glaringly lacking in Google Maps that I don't see how it's a "poor competitor". I don't use either globally, so perhaps that's where the flaws you see are coming in, but for the US it's IMO easily better than Google Maps.
If Google were to implement all the functionality built on the custom pushpins in Live Local, then they'd be comparable.
I live in a major metropolitan area (about 7 miles from the heart of Washington DC) and have exactly two provider options: Verizon and Comcast. Currently I have no phone line, so I have only one option, Comcast. If I were willing to pay Verizon for a land-line, I could get DSL, sure but also pay for an undesired and un-needed service.
Or I could go with Speakeasy (so long as Verizon et al don't figure out a way to cut them out) for DSL, but the cost of Speakeasy at 3 Mbps down is pretty similar to Verizon (with the phone #) at 3 Mbps. Still, if push came to shove that's where I'd go since they seem to be far friendlier to their customers.
I grew up in a small town; they _just_ got high-speed. Cable and at a paltry 60-70 Kbps! That's it. Guess they could try to get satellite or something, but I can't see that being better.
You should feel awfully lucky that you have more than one choice, let alone the large number you appear to have available.
Sign me up right now. I'd actually be up for a lot higher than 10% chance. If it's a one-way trip, then I don't much care what the chance of getting cancer would be and I'd still go. As plenty of other people pointed out, exploring the earth and pushing out the "known" terrestrial frontiers was a dangerous business.
There are certainly a lot of naive/innocent people who, as you say, simply don't grasp the consequences, but I don't think finding intelligent and aware people to take the risks is the problem. It's that the risks require a lot of money that few people/governments are willing to spend without immediate, obvious returns on investment.
It's gotta make more sense to spend billions to put people on Mars than to spend billions creating and prepetuating violence. Too bad we can't convince all sides of that though.
As an actual employee of PBS, I can say that there might be one or two Republicans floating around here. Just about everyone here is a Democrat or otherwise anti-Republican.
I also wish I had a mod point for you. That was insightful to the non-lawyer. Obviously not to the point of being legal advice ;)
Yup, it was great moving to an area where that is the case. I grew up in an area where billboards are the norm, so it was really nice to get away from them.
IANAL but that doesn't seem even close to abusive. Apple has a product and doesn't want to sell tools to create competitors to that product. How is that abusive? Where is it a law that a company has to sell it's competitors the tools/technology to compete?