No question that the HP 48G is the one to get if you want something that will last. TI's or the Carly era HP's aren't as durable by a long shot. I have a small collection of HP's that has some models that date back to the 80's, and they all work quite well despite being 25 years old. One of the models I have is the 41cx which is distinguished for being carried on the early space shuttle missions for use to supplement the on-board computers.
If you do get a 48GX do be careful protecting the screen. The carrying case doesn't provide enough protection - I lost one because of that.
If you want to make the case that it's ok for law enforcement to move protestors for practical concerns that's one thing, but to make them ask permission from the two groups most likely to be the target of the protest is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
I agree that the permit process has been abused. Various watchdog groups have been filing suits based on these abuses like crazy.
It is not illegal for the police to listen in on your call if you are communicating with a person that is the *target* of a tap.
The police get a court order first.
The NSA has been monitoring communications for years.
I am sure it has. Whether or not it has been doing so legally is a different question.
Here is what the FISA authorizes:
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [5]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [6] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[7]
. The FISA *will* now grant a FISA warrant on a NSA lead. In other words, the court apparently agrees with the administration's legal argument.
The actual orders under which the administration is now operating have not been made available to the public. We don't know what they have adopted regarding the use of NSA information. It will be very interesting to see how this works out in a court case. If I were a defense attorney and thought that NSA information either obtained illegally or under foreign intelligence provisions was used as a basis for obtaining a warrant I would be filing motions to exclude the evidence obtained in the warranted wiretap as fast as I could write them. That is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.
In addition the FISA court isn't saying to the government AT ALL that what they were doing previously was legal. They are still maintaining oversight, as is evidenced by the following quotation from Attorney General Gonzales "Court orders issued last week by a Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will enable the government to conduct electronic surveillance - very specifically, surveillance into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization - subject to the approval of the FISA Court."
You really need to do a lot more reading before making a fool out of yourself. There are never freedoms that are absolute; all are tempered by some limitations or conflicts with other freedoms. One of them is the freedom of assembly. You can't expect to be able to assemble in the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge whenever you feel like it - you are infringing on the freedom of others if you do so - thus the need for permits.
The same goes for the internet. The ISP has no obligation to give you a forum to spout your drivel. What it does do is place severe limits on what government can do to restrict your freedom of speach.
Since when does the NSA need to get a warrant to tap foreign communications?
Even Gonzales admitted that FISA makes tapping communications between US and a foreign country is illegal without a warrant. It is nonsense to believe somehow that just because one end of the call is someplace outside the US FISA, the First Amemdment and the Fourth Amendment are all of a sudden not applicable.
But the president does have the power to do it.
Under the Constitution he has the power ONLY if there is a rebellion or invasion. In only ONE case in all of US History has it been suspended, and that was during the Civil war due to rebellion. Neither of these conditions apply now, and if he tried to do it he should be immediately impeached. Even during the Civil War the courts held that it was not permissible for military tribunals to try civilian citizens.
It seems to me that foreign enemies on US soil do not have any right to habeas corpus. Why should they?
Who the hell decides what a foreign enemy is? Once you are declared as such you have no recourse whatsoever. They can just find a dark hole and throw away the key. Where the hell in Constitution is anyone granted such power? How about the concept of innocent until proven guilty for crying out loud. You are stripping away people's rights before there is even any finding that they are guilty of anything. And the Bush administration doesn't limit this to non-citizens. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld.
Since the 1300's Habeus Corpus has been recognized as a basic human right. Unless there is a pretty damn good reason like an invasion it needs to be defended vigorously. The US should not be run like some military junta was in charge. It is absurd to believe that extending basic legal rights to a few hundred prisoners materially impacts the security of this nation.
Fundamentally by acting in this manner, failing to live up to the basic precepts that this country was founded on, flouting international law and understanding of human rights you are sinking to the level of the terrorists. If you do that, they have succeded in their goal of making us live in fear and darkness.
It applies, thank the founders. Unfortunately the religious right in the US would like to re-write much of the Constitution including the parts about separation of church and state, freedom of religion, etc.
It is during times like these one really needs to dig in and protest in any way possible. Erosion of Habeus Corpus in not acceptable.
You need to think about what the goals of terrorism are - and why statements like this mean the terrorists are winning.
I don't know if I find it that ridiculous. Gambling has long been one of the primary sources of funds for organized crime. Various criminal organizations have long used gambling to launder money from other activities. There have been a number of articles published in various sources warning that funds raised from internet gambling are finding their way into criminal organizations. Plus there is the issue of loss of tax revenues. Also there have been studies in both the UK and US that show internet gambling attracts a much higher percentage of addictive or pathological gamblers (75%) vs. the 20% normally observed at casinos.
as they had resigned from the company before that law even came into effect.
You are assuming they are being charged under this new law. I have not seen any indication that this is the case. The US Atty General's statement is "connection with the creation and operation of an Internet payment services company that facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds from United States citizens to the owners of various Internet gambling companies located overseas". There are US laws going back to 1961 covering wire tranfers of funds associated with gambling. This link contains a summary as of 2004 of these laws. It looks to me like these people are being charged with money laundering provisions under one of the older laws rather under the recently passed Safe Port law.
"the RPG firing would be illegal in Canada too. I'm pretty sure online gambling is only illegal in the US so far."
I am sure it would be illegal in Canada to fire the RPG. I am not so sure that shipping adulterated food offshore would be illegal. But that is not the point. The point is that it is perfectly reasonable to envision a case where a person who is not physically in country XYZ could violate that country's laws. Food quality requirements vary considerably from one nation to the next.
It is irrelevant to this point as to whether the country the person is in has a similar law or not.
As far as the US being the only country where online gambling is illegal, that is certainly not true. Australia for one also prohibits online gambling. I am sure there are others.
Poppycock. It is illegal in the US to transfer funds to an offshore gambling operation. These activities occurred in the US, not in England, France and Timbuktu.
It is not illegal for Americans to gamble online. What is illegal is for a business to collect money in the US resulting from that activity. This is exactly what Neteller does, i.e. perform financial transactions in the US that are illegal.
Not the ones I saw. Neteller has always been a very shady operation; in fact when the company went public several years ago they acknowledged that they were likely in violation of US laws. Here's a quote from a news article:
Garcia noted that the company acknowledged when it went public that U.S. law prohibited people from promoting certain forms of gambling, including Internet gambling and transmmitting funds that are known to have been derived from criminal activity.
however, the company in question was not actively pursueing an illegal activity with or against US companies. It was not a gambling company in itself. The execs arrested are apparently no longer affiliated with said company, and had broken affiliation with it before the laws changed. Now, gambling companies that cater to US citizens online might in themselves be liable, but it's ludicrous to chomp up the chain this far.
There are US laws against transfer of money via wire for sports gambling that go back as far as 1961. There are also other laws involving illegal transfers of funds in order to launder the money. At present it does not appear these executives are being charged with violation of the most recent i.e. 'Safe Port' gambling law.
Not all of these laws require that you actually operate a gambling business, and certainly some of them were in force at the time these executives were involved with their company.
US law apparently says that you can be guilty of an offense without ever going there.
Most countries would agree with that stance. Suppose you sat north of the US Canadian border and started launching RPGs into the US? Don't you think that it would pretty reasonable for the US to figure that you have violated US laws by that action even though you have not entered the US?
Or suppose I shipped food into Canada labelled as baby formula when it contained Botulitis toxin? Wouldn't you think that Canada would figure that I had violated Canadian law?
Some of the comments in this thread are utteerly ridiculous in thier views of what a nation regards as its sovereign rights.
You do know that some aspects of internet gambling have always been illegal in the US due to the Wire Act of 1961? And these Neteller execs are being charged under this 1961 law, which was clearly not after the fact?
What you are suggesting is very dangerous. If I put up a web page, it should sufficethat I comply with all local laws.
Unfortunately life is a little more complicated than that. This is a case of a company putting up a web page that results in people making illegal financial transactions in another country. The web page content per se is not a problem. It is the financial transactions that are. No country is going to give up it's power to regulate commerce. That is one of the most fundamental aspects of national soveriegnty. This could have just as easily been a sports gambling operation conducted by telephone in Great Britain taking bets from people living in the US. That is equally illegal.
The internet aspect of this is not what the problem is. It is the financial transactions that are.
It is worrisome how the US is trying to enforce its law on the whole world.
Not in this case. The violations in US law are alleged to have occurred within the US. I am afraid that if you are going to do business with people living in the US you are subject to US law. If you do this business illegally from a foriegn country and then travel to the US you are subject to prosecution within the US.
The US is not telling the Canadian government or Canadian citizens how to act in Canada. In fact all this protest is due to Canadians trying to export their laws and operating practices to the US. Not the other way around.
Can anyone explain under what pretense the US gets to arrest noncitizens for violating US law?
If a person has violated US law and is located in the US, regardless of his citizenship he is certainly subject to arrest and prosecution. This is true the world over. If you are on the soil of country XYZ you are subject to their laws. If I were to break a Canadian law by electronic means (say stealing funds by hacking into a Canadian Bank) from the US, don't you think that I would be arrested by Canadian Police if they later found me travelling in Canada? Of course I would.
Now of course there is a question as to whether these two actually violated US law, but that will be determined in court soon enough. I am sure that the Canadian Ambassador is twisting arms to get to the root of this.
You can debate ID al you want. What shuld be silenced is the presentation of ID as science in the classroom. ID is not science and any attempt to call it such requires a fundamental change in the definition of science to encompass supernatural phenomena.
It's really the only proposition that works economically for remote locations. I used to live in central NY - one day I got a 'free cable installation' coupon in the mailbox so I called the cable company. They sent out a cable guy who looked at my end of the line two miles from the nearest neighbor electrical service and well we got an example of the meaning of ROTFL.
I've since moved away from that location and now live in the NYC metro exurb where I can get 30/5 cable internet. I'd bet the people who bought my previous home now have a satellite dish.
Well, my great uncle moved from England to Chile, and lived there alone for about 30 years. He refused to learn Spanish, and didn't have much contact with local English speakers. The last time I saw him he really had forgotten much of his spoken English. His only language skill was the ability to read and write in English. It was quite amazing to spend time with somebody who had such limited verbal language.
Looks to me like another Euro-wish that English wasn't the lingua franca.
Seriously, why would anyone learn this? There is no literature written in it, it has no cultural heritage nobody speaks it and there is no commercial traffic in it.
Scifi has a baaad history of hacking up books, cf. Dune and Earthsea. The only thing that could be worse is if they were given the rights to film the Hobbit.
The big advantages that patents have over trade secrets are that they:
1. Have a limited term 2. Require that you publish how you did it
Trade secrets tie up the idea in perpituity and cause their inventors to keep the idea as secret as possible. There are all kinds of negative effects from this. Imagine drug companies operating with this set of rules.
Yes, you can use your own ideas in this environment. But your won't have the ideas expressed in technical literature, scientific journals (at least publications from organizations that want to make money like universities etc.) and of course the patents themselves to base your ideas on. And of course you have to be pretty damn egotistical to think that the ideas YOU personally have outweigh all the ideas that everyone else has.
Ultimately the loss of the ability to publish and have the commercial value of the idea protected is far, far more damaging than any potential advantage of doing away with the patent system. It boggles the mind that so many people haven't thought this through.
I use a cable card on Cablevison's network. Works fine, cheaper too. Plus I get better reception because the built in QAM tuner in my TV is better quality than the crappy cablebox, and there isn't any signal degradation from an external connection, plus I don't have a remote for the TV and a remote for the cable box. And yes there is one less box.
Yes, I don't get interactive features, but I never used them in the first place.
The real problem with Cable Card 2.0 is that it is unlikely to be compatible with the HDTV's that are being sold today. Not only is a new standard needed, but there is now a lot of equipment out there that uses the current design.
Slashdot Mirror
As a matter of fact. I can declare without a study, and have the same level of accuracy.
The law of large numbers was proven by Poisson in 1835. Maybe you should read up on it.
No question that the HP 48G is the one to get if you want something that will last. TI's or the Carly era HP's aren't as durable by a long shot. I have a small collection of HP's that has some models that date back to the 80's, and they all work quite well despite being 25 years old. One of the models I have is the 41cx which is distinguished for being carried on the early space shuttle missions for use to supplement the on-board computers.
If you do get a 48GX do be careful protecting the screen. The carrying case doesn't provide enough protection - I lost one because of that.
they made it clear.. NO EXCEPTION in the bill of rights.
any exception made to these rights is wrong unless one right conflicts with another
So which do you want? No exceptions, or exceptions when one right interferes with another?
Make up your mind.
If you want to make the case that it's ok for law enforcement to move protestors for practical concerns that's one thing, but to make them ask permission from the two groups most likely to be the target of the protest is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
I agree that the permit process has been abused. Various watchdog groups have been filing suits based on these abuses like crazy.
But the justification for it is valid.
I am not sure he did admit this.
e illance_controversy#_note-4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surv
It is not illegal for the police to listen in on your call if you are communicating with a person that is the *target* of a tap.
The police get a court order first.
The NSA has been monitoring communications for years.
I am sure it has. Whether or not it has been doing so legally is a different question.
Here is what the FISA authorizes:
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [5]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [6] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[7]
. The FISA *will* now grant a FISA warrant on a NSA lead. In other words, the court apparently agrees with the administration's legal argument.
The actual orders under which the administration is now operating have not been made available to the public. We don't know what they have adopted regarding the use of NSA information. It will be very interesting to see how this works out in a court case. If I were a defense attorney and thought that NSA information either obtained illegally or under foreign intelligence provisions was used as a basis for obtaining a warrant I would be filing motions to exclude the evidence obtained in the warranted wiretap as fast as I could write them. That is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.
In addition the FISA court isn't saying to the government AT ALL that what they were doing previously was legal. They are still maintaining oversight, as is evidenced by the following quotation from Attorney General Gonzales "Court orders issued last week by a Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will enable the government to conduct electronic surveillance - very specifically, surveillance into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization - subject to the approval of the FISA Court."
You get an F- in civics my friend.
You really need to do a lot more reading before making a fool out of yourself. There are never freedoms that are absolute; all are tempered by some limitations or conflicts with other freedoms. One of them is the freedom of assembly. You can't expect to be able to assemble in the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge whenever you feel like it - you are infringing on the freedom of others if you do so - thus the need for permits.
The same goes for the internet. The ISP has no obligation to give you a forum to spout your drivel. What it does do is place severe limits on what government can do to restrict your freedom of speach.
Since when does the NSA need to get a warrant to tap foreign communications?
Even Gonzales admitted that FISA makes tapping communications between US and a foreign country is illegal without a warrant. It is nonsense to believe somehow that just because one end of the call is someplace outside the US FISA, the First Amemdment and the Fourth Amendment are all of a sudden not applicable.
But the president does have the power to do it.
Under the Constitution he has the power ONLY if there is a rebellion or invasion. In only ONE case in all of US History has it been suspended, and that was during the Civil war due to rebellion. Neither of these conditions apply now, and if he tried to do it he should be immediately impeached. Even during the Civil War the courts held that it was not permissible for military tribunals to try civilian citizens.
It seems to me that foreign enemies on US soil do not have any right to habeas corpus. Why should they?
Who the hell decides what a foreign enemy is? Once you are declared as such you have no recourse whatsoever. They can just find a dark hole and throw away the key. Where the hell in Constitution is anyone granted such power? How about the concept of innocent until proven guilty for crying out loud. You are stripping away people's rights before there is even any finding that they are guilty of anything. And the Bush administration doesn't limit this to non-citizens. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld.
Since the 1300's Habeus Corpus has been recognized as a basic human right. Unless there is a pretty damn good reason like an invasion it needs to be defended vigorously. The US should not be run like some military junta was in charge. It is absurd to believe that extending basic legal rights to a few hundred prisoners materially impacts the security of this nation.
Fundamentally by acting in this manner, failing to live up to the basic precepts that this country was founded on, flouting international law and understanding of human rights you are sinking to the level of the terrorists. If you do that, they have succeded in their goal of making us live in fear and darkness.
It applies, thank the founders. Unfortunately the religious right in the US would like to re-write much of the Constitution including the parts about separation of church and state, freedom of religion, etc.
It is during times like these one really needs to dig in and protest in any way possible. Erosion of Habeus Corpus in not acceptable.
You need to think about what the goals of terrorism are - and why statements like this mean the terrorists are winning.
but the whole concept still seems ridiculus to me
I don't know if I find it that ridiculous. Gambling has long been one of the primary sources of funds for organized crime. Various criminal organizations have long used gambling to launder money from other activities. There have been a number of articles published in various sources warning that funds raised from internet gambling are finding their way into criminal organizations. Plus there is the issue of loss of tax revenues. Also there have been studies in both the UK and US that show internet gambling attracts a much higher percentage of addictive or pathological gamblers (75%) vs. the 20% normally observed at casinos.
as they had resigned from the company before that law even came into effect.
You are assuming they are being charged under this new law. I have not seen any indication that this is the case. The US Atty General's statement is "connection with the creation and operation of an Internet payment services company that facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds from United States citizens to the owners of various Internet gambling companies located overseas". There are US laws going back to 1961 covering wire tranfers of funds associated with gambling. This link contains a summary as of 2004 of these laws. It looks to me like these people are being charged with money laundering provisions under one of the older laws rather under the recently passed Safe Port law.
"the RPG firing would be illegal in Canada too. I'm pretty sure online gambling is only illegal in the US so far."
I am sure it would be illegal in Canada to fire the RPG. I am not so sure that shipping adulterated food offshore would be illegal. But that is not the point. The point is that it is perfectly reasonable to envision a case where a person who is not physically in country XYZ could violate that country's laws. Food quality requirements vary considerably from one nation to the next.
It is irrelevant to this point as to whether the country the person is in has a similar law or not.
As far as the US being the only country where online gambling is illegal, that is certainly not true. Australia for one also prohibits online gambling. I am sure there are others.
Poppycock. It is illegal in the US to transfer funds to an offshore gambling operation. These activities occurred in the US, not in England, France and Timbuktu.
It is not illegal for Americans to gamble online. What is illegal is for a business to collect money in the US resulting from that activity. This is exactly what Neteller does, i.e. perform financial transactions in the US that are illegal.
Not the ones I saw. Neteller has always been a very shady operation; in fact when the company went public several years ago they acknowledged that they were likely in violation of US laws. Here's a quote from a news article:
Garcia noted that the company acknowledged when it went public that U.S. law prohibited people from promoting certain forms of gambling, including Internet gambling and transmmitting funds that are known to have been derived from criminal activity.
You're skewing the topic.
I don't think so.
however, the company in question was not actively pursueing an illegal activity with or against US companies. It was not a gambling company in itself. The execs arrested are apparently no longer affiliated with said company, and had broken affiliation with it before the laws changed. Now, gambling companies that cater to US citizens online might in themselves be liable, but it's ludicrous to chomp up the chain this far.
There are US laws against transfer of money via wire for sports gambling that go back as far as 1961. There are also other laws involving illegal transfers of funds in order to launder the money. At present it does not appear these executives are being charged with violation of the most recent i.e. 'Safe Port' gambling law.
Not all of these laws require that you actually operate a gambling business, and certainly some of them were in force at the time these executives were involved with their company.
US law apparently says that you can be guilty of an offense without ever going there.
Most countries would agree with that stance. Suppose you sat north of the US Canadian border and started launching RPGs into the US? Don't you think that it would pretty reasonable for the US to figure that you have violated US laws by that action even though you have not entered the US?
Or suppose I shipped food into Canada labelled as baby formula when it contained Botulitis toxin? Wouldn't you think that Canada would figure that I had violated Canadian law?
Some of the comments in this thread are utteerly ridiculous in thier views of what a nation regards as its sovereign rights.
You do know that some aspects of internet gambling have always been illegal in the US due to the Wire Act of 1961? And these Neteller execs are being charged under this 1961 law, which was clearly not after the fact?
What you are suggesting is very dangerous. If I put up a web page, it should sufficethat I comply with all local laws.
Unfortunately life is a little more complicated than that. This is a case of a company putting up a web page that results in people making illegal financial transactions in another country. The web page content per se is not a problem. It is the financial transactions that are. No country is going to give up it's power to regulate commerce. That is one of the most fundamental aspects of national soveriegnty. This could have just as easily been a sports gambling operation conducted by telephone in Great Britain taking bets from people living in the US. That is equally illegal.
The internet aspect of this is not what the problem is. It is the financial transactions that are.
It is worrisome how the US is trying to enforce its law on the whole world.
Not in this case. The violations in US law are alleged to have occurred within the US. I am afraid that if you are going to do business with people living in the US you are subject to US law. If you do this business illegally from a foriegn country and then travel to the US you are subject to prosecution within the US.
The US is not telling the Canadian government or Canadian citizens how to act in Canada. In fact all this protest is due to Canadians trying to export their laws and operating practices to the US. Not the other way around.
Can anyone explain under what pretense the US gets to arrest noncitizens for violating US law?
If a person has violated US law and is located in the US, regardless of his citizenship he is certainly subject to arrest and prosecution. This is true the world over. If you are on the soil of country XYZ you are subject to their laws. If I were to break a Canadian law by electronic means (say stealing funds by hacking into a Canadian Bank) from the US, don't you think that I would be arrested by Canadian Police if they later found me travelling in Canada? Of course I would.
Now of course there is a question as to whether these two actually violated US law, but that will be determined in court soon enough. I am sure that the Canadian Ambassador is twisting arms to get to the root of this.
You can debate ID al you want. What shuld be silenced is the presentation of ID as science in the classroom. ID is not science and any attempt to call it such requires a fundamental change in the definition of science to encompass supernatural phenomena.
It's really the only proposition that works economically for remote locations. I used to live in central NY - one day I got a 'free cable installation' coupon in the mailbox so I called the cable company. They sent out a cable guy who looked at my end of the line two miles from the nearest neighbor electrical service and well we got an example of the meaning of ROTFL.
I've since moved away from that location and now live in the NYC metro exurb where I can get 30/5 cable internet. I'd bet the people who bought my previous home now have a satellite dish.
Well, my great uncle moved from England to Chile, and lived there alone for about 30 years. He refused to learn Spanish, and didn't have much contact with local English speakers. The last time I saw him he really had forgotten much of his spoken English. His only language skill was the ability to read and write in English. It was quite amazing to spend time with somebody who had such limited verbal language.
Looks to me like another Euro-wish that English wasn't the lingua franca.
Seriously, why would anyone learn this? There is no literature written in it, it has no cultural heritage nobody speaks it and there is no commercial traffic in it.
Scifi has a baaad history of hacking up books, cf. Dune and Earthsea. The only thing that could be worse is if they were given the rights to film the Hobbit.
The big advantages that patents have over trade secrets are that they:
1. Have a limited term
2. Require that you publish how you did it
Trade secrets tie up the idea in perpituity and cause their inventors to keep the idea as secret as possible. There are all kinds of negative effects from this. Imagine drug companies operating with this set of rules.
Yes, you can use your own ideas in this environment. But your won't have the ideas expressed in technical literature, scientific journals (at least publications from organizations that want to make money like universities etc.) and of course the patents themselves to base your ideas on. And of course you have to be pretty damn egotistical to think that the ideas YOU personally have outweigh all the ideas that everyone else has.
Ultimately the loss of the ability to publish and have the commercial value of the idea protected is far, far more damaging than any potential advantage of doing away with the patent system. It boggles the mind that so many people haven't thought this through.
I use a cable card on Cablevison's network. Works fine, cheaper too. Plus I get better reception because the built in QAM tuner in my TV is better quality than the crappy cablebox, and there isn't any signal degradation from an external connection, plus I don't have a remote for the TV and a remote for the cable box. And yes there is one less box.
Yes, I don't get interactive features, but I never used them in the first place.
The real problem with Cable Card 2.0 is that it is unlikely to be compatible with the HDTV's that are being sold today. Not only is a new standard needed, but there is now a lot of equipment out there that uses the current design.