Just buying a STB and hooking it up isn't enough for everyone - depending on coverage for your area you might need to spend money on your aerial. Maybe coverage is more even in The Netherlands, what with its relative flatness.
I'll be really interested to see how the analogue switch off goes here in the UK -- a phased switch off beginning in 2008 -- my guess is that those stubborn enough to have resisted digital by the time their analogue transmitter is decomissioned will stand a good chance of being given a free/subsidised STB and aeriel upgrade.
I'm under the impression that come switchover the power of digital broadcasts in England will be significantly boosted (it is low now to avoid interfering with analogue signals) so hopefully aerial upgrades won't be a big thing. It's also a bit hard to imagine STB needing subsidising except in cases of severe poverty, they should be pretty cheap by the time switchover occurs. Here in Oz my first DVD player cost $700 but now you can pick them up in a supermarket for under $50.
By the time switchover appears turns up STBs will probably be free with a packet of breakfast cereal.
For most programming the director or whatever can presumably frame the shot so I can see what I need to see so apart from a bit of a wow factor increased resolution doesn't really bring much.
I think there is more value in sport though there is a lot more going on. I simultaneously want to be able to see a wide view of the pitch to follow play but also want to be able to make out who the players are and what they are doing. With SD you are generally too zoomed in to see much of the context or zoomed out till the players are largely indistinguishable from each other.
but if we allow an individual to do $x, we should definately allow them to pay someone else to do $x for them.
Let's say you are legally allowed to record something off television for your own use (which is probably true though may not be depending on where you are).
Do you also think it is reasonable to pay someone else for a copy of something they made from TV? That would effectively remove the copyright holder monopoly on retail DVDs.
I think it's fairly reasonable that fair use is limited to non commercial activity.
According to CSIRO they have been selling licences to companies it's just an issue now because it's now that this "Buffalo Technology" company has decided it doesn't want to pay.
Sony could perhaps auction some of them to reduce the market size for the Scalpers.
I don't think they can raise the price for all of them because of the bad press it would generate but they could retain a reasonable portion and auction them off.
They could donate the additional profit to charity to avoid being accused of gouging people themselves and the auction and (presumably ludicrous) maximum price would have additional promotional value.
I thought the joke with Borat was that the British believe all Americans to be ignorant rednecks.
Man, there's plenty of Borat material with British people in it (one I remember is at Cambridge University where Sacha Baron Cohen happens to have gone). That a movie with Americans in it was made for the American market should hardly be surprising especially as he is too well known in Britain to do anything there.
Given the number of people who don't remember the year that "9/11" occurred in I suspect that if the event didn't have political significance it wouldn't have been named "9/11" and that date would not be something people remember.
undercutting ourselves by not developing new technology and capability that will last into the future
What do you mean "last into the future"? Isn't that exactly what the current technology they are aiming to reuse now is doing? If we do create something new now that will "last into the future" will there be someone (perhaps a descendant of yours!) suggesting that we should make something new anyway so we aren't "undercutting ourselves by not developing new technology and capability that will last into the future".
For me I guess it would be a question of what is the "interesting" work to be done and spending the money there. Perhaps the "getting to space" part isn't as interesting as it once. Perhaps the interesting part is doing stuff once we're there and the funds should be directed accordingly.
If whatever we want to do needs a bigger/better launch technology then so be it but otherwise what is the point? To continue to stretch your car analogy, UPS vans don't have the state of the art engineering excellence of Formula 1 cars but they don't need it to perform their role well.
A government could start taxing/increase taxes on something it/voters wants to discourage and decrease taxes on something else it taxes to a similar value, it doesn't have to be a pure money grab.
Of course it may be, but that depends on the government.
I'd be all for a revenue neutral approach and might even support a bit of extra revenue being raised if it were earmarked for research in the right areas.
Opera's MDI interface included something akin to the windows taskbar but for windows in the browser. The taskbar exposed functionality that we now know as "tabbed browsing".
I see it in the same light as arresting automobile manufacturers for the hit-and-run death of an innocent pedestrian. Sure, the car was used as the lethal weapon of choice, and it was productive in doing its task, but it's not Chevrolet's fault that their Silverado 1500 was used to kill someone.
It isn't that clean cut though. Chevrolet aren't making their offering as a "pedestrian killer 1500", they are offering something which clearly has a legitimate purpose and are offering it for that purpose.
If someone is running a bittorrent site and they have set up categories such as "TV Shows" or specific show names then I can't see how anyone can claim that they are offering something neutral.
Bittorrent as a tool is neutral. However if you expend effort designing a site in a way which specifically assists illegal use then I don't think it's surprising to be included as part of a "conspiracy". You have specifically assisted people to use the tool for illegal means.
I've not seen Elite Torrents so I don't know how much this applies to it specifically. Having said that from what (little) I have seen "subtlety" isn't a word I'd associate with that sort of site.
Search engines and so forth may contain similar information. However they have not expended effort to specifically help people find that type information, it is just there because it happens to be part of all the information out there.
I've been plugging memory sticks, external hard drives and my compact flash camera into my PC since Ubuntu 5.something (now on 6.10 and 6.06 on different PCs) and they always magically appear as you'd expect.
I'm sure it would be interesting to get to the bottom of whatever is causing problems on your particular installation but I don't think it's the 'normal' experience by any means.
A jump to 6.10 may be worth a try but if it's a configuration issue rather than a problem within an actual package upgrading may not fix what's wrong.
phishing.
Do you seriously think these are the sort of people capable of making competent, informed decisions about "trust servers"?
Even better would be another layer
For fucks sake, what planet are you on? This sort of thing needs to "just work" otherwise it is useless for 99% of the people who would actually benefit from it.
That is true to a degree. However the situation on Linux is a bit different from Windows and in many ways you do have a "seperate group of users".
While Firefox markets directly to Windows users on Linux most people surely get their browser from their distribution rather than from Mozilla. If distributions did re-name it then the new name would get a reasonable amount of penetration automatically.
Windows is a different prospect of course and frankly I'd think it would probably be a waste of time to spend any real effort trying to push an alternately named browser there.
Debian, Ubuntu, Redhat etc should get a few people round a table and establish a decent (ie not iceweasel) name they can all use and promote.
If the main problem with not using "Firefox" is that the new name won't be recognisable then the solution is to make the new name recogniseable.
Interestingly this could devalue the "Firefox" name more than freer licencing of the trademark. If a competing name is established and used by most distributors (and maybe packaged for Windows too) then it may be the start of the new name overtaking "Firefox" in peoples minds.
Q:What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A:Your Honor. (Substitute M'Lud or other region appropriate judge appellation here if necessary.)
Or for even more entertainment, use both.
F. E. Smith to witness: "So, you were as drunk as a judge?"
Judge (interjecting): "You mean as drunk as a lord?"
F. E. Smith: "Yes, My Lord."
Slashdot Mirror
Cowboyneal?
By the time switchover appears turns up STBs will probably be free with a packet of breakfast cereal.
IE has a feature called a "conditional comment" which is perfect for this.
<!--[if IE]>
<a href="http://getfirefox.com">Get Firefox</a>
<![endif]-->
Any normal browser will treat the whole thing as a comment (which it is) while IE will render the html inside.
The "science" in Angels and Demons drove me nuts.
For most programming the director or whatever can presumably frame the shot so I can see what I need to see so apart from a bit of a wow factor increased resolution doesn't really bring much.
I think there is more value in sport though there is a lot more going on. I simultaneously want to be able to see a wide view of the pitch to follow play but also want to be able to make out who the players are and what they are doing. With SD you are generally too zoomed in to see much of the context or zoomed out till the players are largely indistinguishable from each other.
I recommend we stay with the soft curved sort to avoid them getting caught by an edge.
According to CSIRO they have been selling licences to companies it's just an issue now because it's now that this "Buffalo Technology" company has decided it doesn't want to pay.
Sony could perhaps auction some of them to reduce the market size for the Scalpers.
I don't think they can raise the price for all of them because of the bad press it would generate but they could retain a reasonable portion and auction them off.
They could donate the additional profit to charity to avoid being accused of gouging people themselves and the auction and (presumably ludicrous) maximum price would have additional promotional value.
Given the number of people who don't remember the year that "9/11" occurred in I suspect that if the event didn't have political significance it wouldn't have been named "9/11" and that date would not be something people remember.
For me I guess it would be a question of what is the "interesting" work to be done and spending the money there. Perhaps the "getting to space" part isn't as interesting as it once. Perhaps the interesting part is doing stuff once we're there and the funds should be directed accordingly.
If whatever we want to do needs a bigger/better launch technology then so be it but otherwise what is the point? To continue to stretch your car analogy, UPS vans don't have the state of the art engineering excellence of Formula 1 cars but they don't need it to perform their role well.
A government could start taxing/increase taxes on something it/voters wants to discourage and decrease taxes on something else it taxes to a similar value, it doesn't have to be a pure money grab.
Of course it may be, but that depends on the government.
I'd be all for a revenue neutral approach and might even support a bit of extra revenue being raised if it were earmarked for research in the right areas.
Opera's MDI interface included something akin to the windows taskbar but for windows in the browser. The taskbar exposed functionality that we now know as "tabbed browsing".
It isn't that clean cut though. Chevrolet aren't making their offering as a "pedestrian killer 1500", they are offering something which clearly has a legitimate purpose and are offering it for that purpose.
If someone is running a bittorrent site and they have set up categories such as "TV Shows" or specific show names then I can't see how anyone can claim that they are offering something neutral.
Bittorrent as a tool is neutral. However if you expend effort designing a site in a way which specifically assists illegal use then I don't think it's surprising to be included as part of a "conspiracy". You have specifically assisted people to use the tool for illegal means.
I've not seen Elite Torrents so I don't know how much this applies to it specifically. Having said that from what (little) I have seen "subtlety" isn't a word I'd associate with that sort of site.
Search engines and so forth may contain similar information. However they have not expended effort to specifically help people find that type information, it is just there because it happens to be part of all the information out there.
I've been plugging memory sticks, external hard drives and my compact flash camera into my PC since Ubuntu 5.something (now on 6.10 and 6.06 on different PCs) and they always magically appear as you'd expect. I'm sure it would be interesting to get to the bottom of whatever is causing problems on your particular installation but I don't think it's the 'normal' experience by any means. A jump to 6.10 may be worth a try but if it's a configuration issue rather than a problem within an actual package upgrading may not fix what's wrong.
no text here
Who looked at the Clean, sleek, and streamlined interface and thought "What a mess!"?
It's messier than both my Firefox and (customized) Opera browser setups.
This particular change has been in the pipeline for over a month
That is true to a degree. However the situation on Linux is a bit different from Windows and in many ways you do have a "seperate group of users".
While Firefox markets directly to Windows users on Linux most people surely get their browser from their distribution rather than from Mozilla. If distributions did re-name it then the new name would get a reasonable amount of penetration automatically.
Windows is a different prospect of course and frankly I'd think it would probably be a waste of time to spend any real effort trying to push an alternately named browser there.
Debian, Ubuntu, Redhat etc should get a few people round a table and establish a decent (ie not iceweasel) name they can all use and promote.
If the main problem with not using "Firefox" is that the new name won't be recognisable then the solution is to make the new name recogniseable.
Interestingly this could devalue the "Firefox" name more than freer licencing of the trademark. If a competing name is established and used by most distributors (and maybe packaged for Windows too) then it may be the start of the new name overtaking "Firefox" in peoples minds.
Or at least should anonymously read what they write before they anonymously submit it.
Judge (interjecting): "You mean as drunk as a lord?"
F. E. Smith: "Yes, My Lord."