Since the device is aimed at custom home system installers, it's a pretty good bet that those guys are going to be putting Cat5 all over the place. And, for a stationary device, I'd always rather use wired rather than wireless, unless there's a compelling reason not to.
Unfortunately, most of those "new features" seem to be restrictions of unsubscribed functionality.
So that's not a good thing.
I now have a pet peeve. I am tired of paying $MONEY for a product (Tivo, Everquest, whatever) and then paying $money every month to keep it working. Make up your mind...want to sell a subscription service? Do it. Want to sell a product? Great. I am not willing to let you (the vendor) have it both ways.
I really love the idea of TiVo...I just don't love the idea of paying $12/mo for it.
Because it's HP, and HP is the devil. They're evil evil evilevilevil, and they hate every single person who's ever bought one of their computers with the loathing of one thousand, uh, loathes.
Or maybe I just hate trying to fix 'em. Not sure if I'm biased.
You're absoultely right. Microsoft won't use its embrace and extend policy, like it has for the last 20 years, on this new market segment, because they've decided to start playing nice. You can tell, because every new MS home-theater PC includes a little fuzzy bunny that hugs you when you use the computer.
XP Media Center is the next part of the wedge, right behind xBox. Until MS is getting a (large) percentage of your cable bill, they won't stop.
Although if the new Oddworld games has the intro with the people getting chopped up in an abbatoir, I'm not letting my (hypothetical) six year old play it.
The man is, in that capacity, an entertainer. If you'd ever actually watch the show, you'd see that he is without exception courteous and respectful of every contestant, and also knows a whole lot of stuff.
You call them pointless questions. I call them demonstrations of breadth of knowledge.
And what aspects of his "lifestyle" do you have issues with? Please provide citations, not generalizations.
The prosecution obviously wanted to bring a carefully veneered and edited account of the facts to the courtroom. Why were they permitted to do this, when the witness was available for testimony?
Suppose that Mr. Sklyarov, rather than being a personable, charismatic, sympathetic individual (as he was described in the article) was a scruffy, unpleasant, shifty-looking guy. The prosecution makes a tape of said shifty-looking guy making certain statements about the defendant, maybe after giving him a haircut and sticking him in a suit. Those statements are edited to be as damning as possible to the defendant. The damning testimony has now been artificially enhanced against the defendant (otherwise, why bother?)
Now, the defense calls said shifty looking guy. The defense attempts to make a case with this guy. Now, the prosecution has already made a lot of hay with his carefully constructed testimony. Maybe he doesn't come across as good in person, so he's less useful to the defense. And, of course, now the prosecution gets a chance to cross examine him and try to slant the facts back in their favor.
Why is this good? I mean, I understand that this might be a part of how the game is played, what with jury consultants and all that nonsense, but how is justice served by presenting (edited!) videotapes of testimony?
If the witness is available, they should be in court, in front of the jury, saying what they have to say. Period.
It's, like, a fundamental part of our legal structure. The opposing side gets to IMMEDIATELY challenge your statements on the stand, obviously with the intent to lessen the impact of those statements on the jury.
The FAA (here in the States...but I imagine similar stuff is going on in Europe) is reevaluating the separation envelopes for aircraft. Improvements in air traffic control and automation would permit closer spacing of aircraft, ameliorating the congestion you cite.
Problem with Wing In Ground Effect vehicles is that they're noisy, and very close to the ground (well, water usually), so they can run into surface traffic.
It would essentially take a whole new infrastructure development (not very many seaplane ports left on Earth) along with some reorganization or expansion of sea lanes and tying all the environmentalists to their chairs to make these things viable for large-scale transit.
One thing the theatres have done around here (Plano, TX) have started doing, is that they do the commercials before screen time and the trailers after the screen time. That makes me very happy, since I feel no compunctions whatsoever about talking over the commercials. And I typically enjoy watching the trailers, so that doesn't bug me.
So it's a good compromise, IMO. Hope it catches on.
In my opinion, anything I post on the Internet is fair game. Anybody who is dumb enough not understand that there may be more than one person with my name referenced on the Internet is not worth my time.
As long as the people doing the searching aren't idiots, there is nothing wrong with this practice. If they are idiots, well, they're idiots.
I'd argue that if the data is unspecific enough to smear innocents, then no, the data should not be freely available.
I have a right to not be detained for unfounded accusations of being a child molester. You do not have a right to know what the person next to you is or does.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the device is aimed at custom home system installers, it's a pretty good bet that those guys are going to be putting Cat5 all over the place. And, for a stationary device, I'd always rather use wired rather than wireless, unless there's a compelling reason not to.
ROFL
Thanks. That was funny. : )
You've obviously never been to Chipotle. Burrito the size of my forearm for $6.
I swear, God eats here. Yummy food.
Unfortunately, most of those "new features" seem to be restrictions of unsubscribed functionality.
So that's not a good thing.
I now have a pet peeve. I am tired of paying $MONEY for a product (Tivo, Everquest, whatever) and then paying $money every month to keep it working. Make up your mind...want to sell a subscription service? Do it. Want to sell a product? Great. I am not willing to let you (the vendor) have it both ways.
I really love the idea of TiVo...I just don't love the idea of paying $12/mo for it.
A clause necessary, but not sufficient.
: )
Because it's HP, and HP is the devil. They're evil evil evilevilevil, and they hate every single person who's ever bought one of their computers with the loathing of one thousand, uh, loathes.
Or maybe I just hate trying to fix 'em. Not sure if I'm biased.
: )
Well, whatever people around here might think, the article says that the HP PC crashed a couple times before they reinstalled from the ground up.
So, well, I guess you're not right.
You're absoultely right. Microsoft won't use its embrace and extend policy, like it has for the last 20 years, on this new market segment, because they've decided to start playing nice. You can tell, because every new MS home-theater PC includes a little fuzzy bunny that hugs you when you use the computer.
XP Media Center is the next part of the wedge, right behind xBox. Until MS is getting a (large) percentage of your cable bill, they won't stop.
Fair enough...I was exaggerating.
Although if the new Oddworld games has the intro with the people getting chopped up in an abbatoir, I'm not letting my (hypothetical) six year old play it.
That did not seem to be the parent poster's contention.
How many kid-appropriate titles does Nintendo have? Lots.
How many kid-appropriate titles does xBox have? Zero.
Therefore, Nintendo is the more kid appropriate console. All those nasty games don't come in the box, you see...
Dunno, 'cuz mine says Desert Eagle, point five-oh.
Great freakin' movie.
"if the witness is unavailable, as unavailability is defined in Rule 804"
The article says that Sklyarov was waiting in a hotel room to testify. I wonder how the prosecution argued that he was "unavailable"?
Weird. Glad it didn't mess up the verdict.
Wow, look at you, like, actually knowing what I'm flapping my gums about.
Thanks for the reference. : )
The man is, in that capacity, an entertainer. If you'd ever actually watch the show, you'd see that he is without exception courteous and respectful of every contestant, and also knows a whole lot of stuff.
You call them pointless questions. I call them demonstrations of breadth of knowledge.
And what aspects of his "lifestyle" do you have issues with? Please provide citations, not generalizations.
Same reason that military jets are faster than planes you can buy.
Why is that sad? Conflict motivates.
How many animals out there improve their existence more by cooperation than by conflict?
Not sad, not happy, just a fact of the human condition.
The prosecution obviously wanted to bring a carefully veneered and edited account of the facts to the courtroom. Why were they permitted to do this, when the witness was available for testimony?
Suppose that Mr. Sklyarov, rather than being a personable, charismatic, sympathetic individual (as he was described in the article) was a scruffy, unpleasant, shifty-looking guy. The prosecution makes a tape of said shifty-looking guy making certain statements about the defendant, maybe after giving him a haircut and sticking him in a suit. Those statements are edited to be as damning as possible to the defendant. The damning testimony has now been artificially enhanced against the defendant (otherwise, why bother?)
Now, the defense calls said shifty looking guy. The defense attempts to make a case with this guy. Now, the prosecution has already made a lot of hay with his carefully constructed testimony. Maybe he doesn't come across as good in person, so he's less useful to the defense. And, of course, now the prosecution gets a chance to cross examine him and try to slant the facts back in their favor.
Why is this good? I mean, I understand that this might be a part of how the game is played, what with jury consultants and all that nonsense, but how is justice served by presenting (edited!) videotapes of testimony?
If the witness is available, they should be in court, in front of the jury, saying what they have to say. Period.
Two words.
Cross examination.
It's, like, a fundamental part of our legal structure. The opposing side gets to IMMEDIATELY challenge your statements on the stand, obviously with the intent to lessen the impact of those statements on the jury.
Please elucidate the "grave safety implications" of a 10-15% increase in speed.
I think you just made that up.
The FAA (here in the States...but I imagine similar stuff is going on in Europe) is reevaluating the separation envelopes for aircraft. Improvements in air traffic control and automation would permit closer spacing of aircraft, ameliorating the congestion you cite.
Problem with Wing In Ground Effect vehicles is that they're noisy, and very close to the ground (well, water usually), so they can run into surface traffic.
It would essentially take a whole new infrastructure development (not very many seaplane ports left on Earth) along with some reorganization or expansion of sea lanes and tying all the environmentalists to their chairs to make these things viable for large-scale transit.
Uh, like what? The company (foolishly!) took a name from another company and turned it into a successful product.
Where's the liability to countersue for?
One thing the theatres have done around here (Plano, TX) have started doing, is that they do the commercials before screen time and the trailers after the screen time. That makes me very happy, since I feel no compunctions whatsoever about talking over the commercials. And I typically enjoy watching the trailers, so that doesn't bug me.
So it's a good compromise, IMO. Hope it catches on.
But what if you only THINK ERRONEOUSLY that they are a danger? What is your right to incorrect data?
And what is "enough"? Where are you going to stake out that slippery slope?
In my opinion, anything I post on the Internet is fair game. Anybody who is dumb enough not understand that there may be more than one person with my name referenced on the Internet is not worth my time.
As long as the people doing the searching aren't idiots, there is nothing wrong with this practice. If they are idiots, well, they're idiots.
I'd argue that if the data is unspecific enough to smear innocents, then no, the data should not be freely available.
I have a right to not be detained for unfounded accusations of being a child molester. You do not have a right to know what the person next to you is or does.