Piracy isn't justified, but if the consumers want to see a TV show, they will. The question now is, are you going to sell it to them, or are they going to have no choice but to steal it?
There are many ways to justify piracy. Free advertising to markets who otherwise would not be exposed to it without shelling out money.
Anime is the best example of this. Fansub groups have been pirating Anime for a couple of decades, more so in the past 5 years as VCD/DVD and digital subtitles became practical. Most fansub groups pirate material until such time it becomes licensed in their country, which they feel they contributed to creating a market for material that otherwise did not exist. 100% justified. Whether it's right or wrong is up to the respective copyright holders, who in the past have shown tolerance to anime fan-sub groups. You can't say it's wrong, holding the copyright alone gives you the moral and legal authority to what you want. I can say, without a doubt, my spending on import material has increased as a result of these anime pirates.
How would a TV station know what the viewer wants unless they ask for it? What does an end user do when a series is cancled mid-season? What about DVD-region codes which were designed to prevent one market from viewing until such time as it was felt to be "ok" for them to view?
On the one hand, I agree that they should not be pirating this material when there is a viable option. But on the other hand, media companies are not respective the fact that we are a global society, and the concept of borders between peoples is obsolete. I would propose rather than thinking of these people as thieves, then of them as another demographic group, and market tward them. Establish either a planet wide television network, or permit downloadable viewing within a resonable period of time. Problem solved!
Forget about right or wrong... establish a system to meet the demand, and profit by it.
My local library lends DRM infested AV materials, which in it self is reasonable. However, I have a friend who rents material to use on his palm which from what I'm told doesn't support these files. The only viable solution, other than investing in another pocket device, is to copy the media, strip the DRM so he can actually use it. Whats funny is he's actually an honest joe who does delete the material after it's been used, so he's not actually pirating it, only violating the DMCA.
Someone else would likely be tempted to keep these non-DRM copies, which they have to make to play them.
And how the fuck you can convince someone on evidence that got obtained in an illegal way?
Well... just because evidence was gathered illegaly doesn't mean it can't be admited. IANAL but I seem to recall provisions in the law for this. If you are law enforcement... then they are obligated to obey certain rules of conduct. On the other hand, ordinary citizens are not required to. I also seem to recall the fact that wiretaps cross boarders are totally admissible... at least according to moaning canadians who were concerned over the US gathering evidence via illegal wiretaps back in 2000 or so. While I disagree with this practice for matters not related to national security, America seemed to have opened a can of words with a double edged sword.
Now... dispite the fact that the ex-judge was spyed with kiddy porn, something which is a huge no no, I believe that the regular laws of telephony devices should apply. I feel that this should be considered to be an illegal wiretap. Good intentions or not it's as serious a violation of privacy as tapping someone's telephone.
Or you'll get a DVD player that up converts, like a Futureshop in Toronto tried to sell me when I asked for an HD DVD player.
Oddly, I noticed distinct bias from the manager, who, when I asked again where the HD DVD players were, pointed to the Blu Ray (take THAT, Parent!!).
As I said, always bet on stupid. You were looking for HD-DVD, and got sent to the blu-ray section. I would have expected HD DVD to result in HD-DVD but even I can't account for how stupid sales people can be.
Because of that bias (as well as my own bias in favour of HD DVD -- not a fanboy, just don't like the idea of closed formats dominating markets), I don't go to that store any longer.
I never understood why anyone shopped at futureshop my self. When they were in the states they had this annoying tendancy of never having anything resembling consistent prices, everything was always on sale. Goods sold were often returned items which didn't always include all the stuff noted on "this box comes with". I understood somewhat that at one time Canadians wanted to support a Canadian business, but they are not Canadian owned anymore.
This is true, but I think that if somebody cares enough to drop $1000 on a high-def player they're going to at least take a cursory glance at what the technology is which would usually result in them becoming aware of blu-ray if they weren't before. I mean, even if $1,000 is nothing to you, if you go into best buy and tell the clerk you want an HD-DVD player he'll likely point out the blu-ray players as well.
Ummm... I diagree. Those early adopters of HDTVs often bought them without tuners, and without HD support from the cable company.
Always bet on stupid. Even the clerks are stupid, you say an HD DVD player, odds are you'll get HD-DVD.
12 episodes could easily be 2 years worth of episodes. I'm not sure why a series has so few episodes compared to American ones, but that's the way it is.
One reason I got BBC america in the first place was for classic doctor who. I rather thought that they would be running the whole thing like the local PBS station did, in order, from begining to end. Instead they showed the first year or two of Tom Baker... over and over again. This trend also seemed to be consistent with other classic programs. I can't remember how many years they were stuck in the same sequence of tom baker, but they did for quite a while.
I don't have a problem with the series length, I did have a problem with the fact other than new programing they repeated episodes into the ground.
I did switch cable companies so I don't have to pay extra to get BBC-America.
I'm not offended by paying for programming (I happily pay for Homechoice/Tiscali TV) - I'm offended by having to pay for channels that I don't want and I'm even more offended that I face the risk of a 1000 pound fine or jail if I want to watch a competitors free to view channel while not paying for those channels that I don't want to watch. At least you get a choice - I have to pay for the BBC if I want to watch any TV.
That must be annoying, but the way I see it, so long as they have one program I enjoy, it's worth $10/month out of my pocket. That's what I give freely specifly for BBC media. I have no issue funding arts and entertainment directly and should BBC ever be available directly via a sat feed I would happily subscribe... and hell even get a tivo to timeshift to my hours, and even spend more than $10/month for the privilage.
They don't produce as much as they used to (and a lot of what they commission, they don't own, unlike years past), and a lot of it is still made with ratings pressure (as that's the main way they can show "value for the fee payer") Look at all the main BBC programmes - they all have equivalents on commercial TV. Even the arts and documentary programmes have commercial equivalents. There is very, very little that the BBC does that isn't being done by the commercial broadcasters and what little there is does not justify the fee.
rome a joint HBO/BBC production AFAIK would seem to be a program that is worth the fee. Doctor Who always worth the fee, though Torchwood was rather soso. "The Office" funny as hell.
I give PBS 10 a month, or an extra 10 if the other station carries something I like. I do pay to watch rome presently on hbo.
No, HD-DVD will win because fewer people misspell it, so more people will be able to Google it properly.
What's sad is the parent is rather insightful. Not so much that HD-DVD is easier to spell than Blu-Ray but looking on the package it's painfully clear to your average joe with a HDTV set that the HD-DVD is for HD-TVs. The Blu-Ray disc doesn't in it self say "i'm for your HDTV".
OK you get about 80 stations for $26 How many are actually worth watching? and would your like them better if they had no ads:-) and better still could be critical about any company without worrying about loss of Ad revenue.
There is also Freeview which is getting increaingly good 40 odd free channels with about 5-10 digital only commercial channels with anything worth watching (Freeview would have died without Aunty comming in an giving the kiss of life, she's rather keen on going digital)
I'm not saying the system is prefect but for the most part I like what there doing with my money
You are talking to a person who does donate PBS... esp for programs from the BBC. It's different now that doctor who is on commercial television, CBC and Sci-Fi. IIRC during the days local stations bought Doctor Who (pre-1988), a recent episode cost $1000 for the local station. I guess 12 to 13 episodes was the norm at the time, so a given city which carried this particular program shelled out $12k or so/year, of which a joe like my self would toss $10/month their way, a very small donation but I never asked for the newsletter.
My only complaint is the fact that someone like my self can't just subscribe to the UK feed. BBC-america is somewhat of a joke, though there are programs which I can watch. There is "some" new programing on it, but most of the time it seems like old shows... with the same 12 episodes repeated over and over again. But needless to say i'm not offended by paying for programing.
But how much is worth watching at $26/month. This is what I actually use
-news- Northwest Cable News - Traffic reports / local news
The Weather Channel
CNN CBUT-Canadian (CBC) (olympic coverage is excelent) -Educational- Discovery Food Network History Channel National Geographic -Entertainment- USA - monk TNT - Movies sometimes Comedy Central A&E / Independent Film Channel Sci-Fi - Stargate Eureka Cartoon Network - Anime BBC America CBUT-Canadian (CBC)
I'd say 14 out of out of 55 stations have at least one program I enjoy. The other 25 stations are mostly off the air stuff.
[broadcast] PBS - Nova, some BBC material PBS - two pbs affiliates in my area, somewhat commercial free. For example the yankie workshop starts off with an advert for power tools, but then continues commercial free. ABC NBC - Heroes NBC old movies CBS UPN FOX - Simpsons, House M.D.
There are some other stations off the air, some religious, some to be honest i've never heard of or seen. But out of 8 mainstream broadcast stations, i'd say 4 of them I watch on a regular basis. My tv watching has been limited as the big three networks have been hip on reality shows, game shows, and desprite housewives.
Currently worth watching on HBO is ROME, a joint HBO/BBC production. Showtime had "Dead like Me" Showtime / Hbo is another $15 each there and abouts, or $56.50 for digital and two premium stations. Both are commercial free.
A better way to recover the internal combustion dissipated energy is probably through some small steam engine. Didn't BMW try that? http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/
I did think about doing something similar to power an air conditioner. There is alot of wasted heat which can be used to generate engery.
Personally I'm rather happy with the Licence Fee For 11 pounds ($21) a month I get 5 TV channels 11 radio channels.... What do you get for $21/month?
For $7.50 I could get basic cable. That would be ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, PBS, a couple of independents, c-span, local cable news and some other crap. Most of this I could get off the air, but i'm lazy. Radio, well... I lost track of how many stations there are. There are 25 stations in the basic lineup. Many people who subscribe to basic via other services (typicaly under $15/month) often get standard cable as they are too lazy to install the filter.
For $26.75/month is standard cable, another 53 channels above and beyond the basic 25 channels. There are a couple of shows I watch in this range, including Monk and Stargate.
Most of these are commercial stations.
PBS, off the air, is funded by donations and is somewhat commercial free. In the past they carried much in the way of BBC material.
I'm not trying to be critical of the UK tv license, only trying to put things into perspective.
The idea of TV licensing has always troubled me, and radio licenses doubly so. There's a saying here in the US that derives from an early Supreme Court case, and it says "the power to tax is the power to destroy". Now, think about that for a moment. Are you comfortable giving the government power to destroy television and/or radio communications? After seeing a few Holocaust-type films [imdb.com] where people secretly listen to the BBC broadcasts on shortwave while their nation is occupied by the Axis during World War II, you might begin to get the notion that this freedom sort of freedom is a good thing. Why should it ever be a crime to listen to someone else's over-the-air broadcasts?
That's not really the issue is it? The issue is citizens in the UK must a license fee to enjoy TV. There seems to be No radio license. Their world service according to this website is funded by the goverment, not by the TV license.
I don't pretend to know everything about the system in the UK, but the way I see it from cross the pond, they pay money for their programing rather than media being paid for by commercials. Both systems have their merits, but the point becomes moot as cable TV has become popular. It has become even more moot as the net has replaced the need for short wave for planatary broadcasts.
But it looks like you can still listen to the radio including shortwave in your basement without fear of being taxed or arrested. You don't have to do it in secret... but if you enjoy being secret... great.
There are some areas where CFLs are just plain not appropriate however, like in Ovens and Refrigerators. That's why blanket bans on all Incandescent bulbs are not a good idea.
This is at least a valid point. I am unsure how CFLs would work in an oven. In a fridge, CFL or LED would be a most spiffy alternative esp since bulbs do tend to create "some" heat.
There is something else not quite considered. Automobiles. I can't see CLF being a viable alternative anytime soon. Perhaps LEDs for for indicators, but headlights are another story.
You really don't understand the situation out in the sticks.
- Things have to be maintained - and usually built - using supplies available at rural stores.
- Even the rural stores may be an hour or two away by road in the best of weather, and inaccessible for days in the winter. The nearest city may be a small town, too, with something substantial enough to have a suitable industrial supply maybe a couple hundred mile round trip. Add the gas price and the opportunity cost of spending a day driving just to get a part...
I think I understand *urual* perfectly well. You have a choice between a lightbulb which lasts 1000 or so hours, or a heating element which to be fair, would outlast a bulb by a long shot, these things are rated for 10,000 hours. As you explained, given the cost of fuel, the distance to the mom/pop... even at $25/each these things are far more practical given your application.
When was the last time you saw a "small ceramic heating element" available in a mom-and-pop grocery? When was the last time you DIDN'T find light bulbs in one - especially if it was the only store for 40 miles?
You also don't want the type used in gas ovens: In addition to the high drain, they reach a temperature suitable for igniting gas (or anything else flammable that comes in contact with them. That's not what you want in the battery shed when the wind is blowing and the windcharger has topped of the batteries and the dump load controller has decided to give them an equalizing charge - so they're now putting out enough hydrogen gas to create an explosion if the venting got clogged by a snowdrift or silverthaw.
Urual mom/pop shops do tend to carry many practical items, including gear oil. If incandescent lights are phased out, given your application, the mom and pops would be fools not to carry this alternative.
I imagine in a pinch you could create something with gear oil, a pickle jar, and something of the right resistance. It's rather how transmiters were tested in the olden days.
As for ceramics like those used in gas ovens, that was just a for example. Such things can easily be mounted inside a glass bulb and attached to an edison socket. Or better yet, a standard heater coil inside a ceramic fixture.
But needless to say, there presently exists an alternative for your application in an edison socket. It is something which you presently have to mail order. Until your mom/pop gets them in, you do have a valid argument for keeping some incandescent bulbs in service. I would go with a battery heater personaly, something which I don't have to replace every 1000 hours.
So have the Aussies outlawed owning pets who need heat lamps, people who like heat lamps, lava lamps, and burger joints who use them to dry out their burgers? As with all legislation that aims for a quick, easy fix, this is foolhardy and will likely cause more harm than good.
A lavalamp can easily be designed/retrofited with a small heating element and a LED.
Heat lamps on the other hand... that's a valid point. I imagine that the ban would be on incandescent lights as a light source.
Clearly you've never actually used them, just like regurgitating what someone with an agenda wants to tell you.
For your information they are extremely bright (in fact they're probably underrated - I find the '100 watt equivalent' ones too bright for an average room). They also work just like any other light and are fully bright immediately.
The ones i've used were notably dimmer than their incandescent counterparts. However... two or three 60 watt equlivents are, IMHO, better than one incandescent 100 in the fact that the light is distrubted more evenly, and you are only burning 25 to 40 watts. For me to use them in an average room, I would need an overhead one and a lamp. The bulb to circular florecent light are very spiffy.
My other complaint is many screw in CFLs are not bulb shaped, but this can be resolved by using a defuser.
They're also used as an inexpensive heating element for things like battery houses and pump houses (to keep the tanks and pipes from freezing and the batteries at a temperature where they operate efficiently) in rural areas with cold climates. A 60 watt bulb on a thermostat will keep an insulated pumphouse above freezing in subzero weather. (Of course you use more than one for when they burn out...)
More roadblocks for people trying alternative energy in areas where it makes economic sense.
It seems to me that such things can easily be replaced by a small heating element, perhaps a small ceramic one like one uses for gas ovens or a foil battery warmer. Not as cheap as a lightbulb but certainly would outlast one by decades.
Funny, because I remember people mentioning that Apple had plenty of time to test iTunes to make sure it worked with Vista. So, if that's true, why hasn't Microsoft had time to test drivers? And isn't it the manufacturer's job to provide drivers? If drivers aren't available through first party channels, why is the OEM even selling a machine where the hardware isn't supported by the software provided?
Firstly... i'm not sure that iTunes works with vista. I thought there were issues with iTunes and aero but I could be wrong. I don't use iTunes nor visa.
Second... if apple did test iTunes on vista, then they basicly tested one software package on one OS. Perhaps they even took the time to go with a few different PCs... but still one piece of software, on one OS, on a limited number of machines. Not every piece of hardware in existance.
And lastly... it's the hardware manufacturers job to make hardware. They do also either make the drivers, or outsource that to someone else, many times via microsoft. They are under no obligation to support your platform, only the platform they advertise it being compatable with. They are under no obligation to make drivers for something you already bought. How much hardware was tossed away between win3.1 and win9x? How much between win9x and win2k/xp?
So what the hell interface did it use? Did you think it mightn't be the wisest idea to purchase something with a wacky proprietary interface and hope that it'd support what was quite a dramatically changed operating system?:)
The hell interface it used was so propriority I don't know the name of it. The adapter card was called the "Microtek, MS-PCY". This was just when twain was pretty new. I, after all, did buy the scanner before win95 was released, by a good couple of years.
It "may" have not been the best idea to go with something so proprietary, but oddly enough support for this wacko jacko interface was better than it's scsi counterpart. The hell version at least had a beta win95 driver which sometimes worked, and the proprietary scan software worked. This was sort of when twain was "newish", but the software I was using had direct support for this scanner.
Was it the best idea was buying this scanner? I "could" have gone with a scsi model but even scsi scanners had their issues. Ones from that time period were rather locked into using a host adapter based on the NCR xxc509 chipset, something which was painful to find. Just so happened media vision released one sound card with the NCR chipset onboard. But I had a choice... $400ish for this propriority scanner, or $800 for SCSI model which may or may not have been supported in the next generation of windows. It was faster for single pass, my software supported it directly without having to go through twain, a big bonus when scanning hundrads of pages for OCR. I saved enough money going propriority that buying another scanner 5 years which was less propriority cost less. I evaluated my options very carefuly, and made a reasonable choice based on what was available at the time period. It wasn't until win2k that I had to ditch that sucker, but 7 years is a good run for hardware.
Why do third parties even need to complile these lists? Shoudln't Microsoft be on top of this?
It reminds me when win95 was new and I had a microtek 600z scanner, something I shelled out well over $400 for. Not scsi nor parallel. There technicaly was a beta driver burried deep in microtek's FTP site. It was a flacky piece of filth but was good enough... well... until scanner prices dropped. I'm sure others experenced annoyance with early generation scanners, even many scsi ones.
My point is i'm sure microsoft provides links to drivers which it takes the time to test for compatability, but one can not expect them to cover everything, esp not this soon into the release.
Even if they did, the drivers microsoft reccomends are not always the best.
I definitely believe that the fact that some people steal software raises the cost of said software for people like me who buy it legally
And I definitely believe the fact that some people who pay too much for software encourages software companies to keep prices high. But what we believe may or may not be the truth.
I diagree with Microsoft's pricing of certain products. Office is a big issue IMHO for home users. Works is priced on a home user level, but Works doesn't really work, not to read other people's Word or Excel documents. Heck, Excel can't read Works documents. A $500 version that reccomends 2.5gigs of ram? The new Vista prices are bordering on insane.
People who choose to disobey the law, whether it be murder, or uploading copyrighted material, cause material damage to those of us who choose to obey the law.
Bill Gates himself said that if a user has to pirate a product, he hopes they pirate a microsoft product. In the early age of computers, one reason MS-Dos took hold of the market was the fact that you could get a system without dos and save alot of money. IMHO the propagation of this product without compensation offered more benifits than any possible material harm. Them the user's hooked, then find a way to make them pay for it.
So, 24 and the Simpsons are on FOX. I have an antenna on my roof to get local channels. I've paid nothing to watch these shows.
So why is it a problem to provide a copy of something that was already given away for free?
It's not given away exactly. It is aired prime time when commercial ad time is at it's highest. That's what pays for the show you can watch for free off the air. Here we are, the cost paid for by your friendly sponcers for a 30 second spot. The show is 42min, leaving room for 36 spots which were sold for close to $300,000 each in 2003. That works out to be about 10 million. I don't know what the present value is, or how much the network affiliates charge for their local commercials, but it's big money.
Given it's a fact that the value of showing an episode for the first time results millions of dollars revenue, those who take the show and release it early, that seriously affects viewership, and affects the value of the ad-time.
"after" it's aired, the value of ad-time does go down, and one can argue that copies floting around encourage people to watch a show during prime time, which would increase the value of these spots. But taking it before it's aired, without a doubt, does do the networks, producers, and advertisers harm.
Many deaf people will feel much more comfortable if they can sign than if they have to use text messaging.
Well... TDD/TTY terminals are used by deaf users. They permit deaf people to use the phone. IM services have been accepted by hearing people. This is a case where both hearing and deaf can use the same thing. I can't speak for the deaf, but but any way you look at it, it's a practical solution.
The real question would have to be put to the deaf community... whether they prefer typing or simplified video communication. I imagine this could be tested by seeing how man deaf users who use IM services actually bother to use video communication.
When you send text messages back and forth, there's a delay with every delivery. For the equivalent of speech, this would be like calling the moon. Plus, you have to go into the inbox and open new messages all the time -- not very conversation-like or, for that matter, IM-like.
I agree with the delay... but with T-mobile is it rather IM like on my nokia 6800 and 6010. In fact there is IM support. Again, speaking only for T-mobile... there seems to be two systems for IM... one is via a relay. It's rather transparent but for example on my 6800 which was geared for AT&T you have to plop in the correct relay number, or if not using the IM login you can receive texts and respond to them.
On good days it seems as efficent as IM services, on others there is a massive delay. There is also GPRS based IM software which is well, as IM like as you can get, because it is.
The big issue with TTD/TTY IMHO is a lack of compatability with, well, standard modems which come shipped with every PC, at least the last time I looked at it. Also there is a big issue with cost. I don't have contact with any deaf people who I don't know the current state of the deaf community, but the last I heard IM services and e-mail were gaining popularity over terminals since... well... your average PC is cheaper. If what I suspect is true, deaf uses already use IM for their basic communication needs, and does a great job of bridging the gap between the hearing and deaf world.
Now if they were going to propose... let's say... ASL data entry... i'd be hip to that jive. I might even learn it my self just for laughs.
Slashdot Mirror
Piracy isn't justified, but if the consumers want to see a TV show, they will. The question now is, are you going to sell it to them, or are they going to have no choice but to steal it?
There are many ways to justify piracy. Free advertising to markets who otherwise would not be exposed to it without shelling out money.
Anime is the best example of this. Fansub groups have been pirating Anime for a couple of decades, more so in the past 5 years as VCD/DVD and digital subtitles became practical. Most fansub groups pirate material until such time it becomes licensed in their country, which they feel they contributed to creating a market for material that otherwise did not exist. 100% justified. Whether it's right or wrong is up to the respective copyright holders, who in the past have shown tolerance to anime fan-sub groups. You can't say it's wrong, holding the copyright alone gives you the moral and legal authority to what you want. I can say, without a doubt, my spending on import material has increased as a result of these anime pirates.
How would a TV station know what the viewer wants unless they ask for it? What does an end user do when a series is cancled mid-season? What about DVD-region codes which were designed to prevent one market from viewing until such time as it was felt to be "ok" for them to view?
On the one hand, I agree that they should not be pirating this material when there is a viable option. But on the other hand, media companies are not respective the fact that we are a global society, and the concept of borders between peoples is obsolete. I would propose rather than thinking of these people as thieves, then of them as another demographic group, and market tward them. Establish either a planet wide television network, or permit downloadable viewing within a resonable period of time. Problem solved!
Forget about right or wrong... establish a system to meet the demand, and profit by it.
My local library lends DRM infested AV materials, which in it self is reasonable. However, I have a friend who rents material to use on his palm which from what I'm told doesn't support these files. The only viable solution, other than investing in another pocket device, is to copy the media, strip the DRM so he can actually use it. Whats funny is he's actually an honest joe who does delete the material after it's been used, so he's not actually pirating it, only violating the DMCA.
Someone else would likely be tempted to keep these non-DRM copies, which they have to make to play them.
And how the fuck you can convince someone on evidence that got obtained in an illegal way?
Well... just because evidence was gathered illegaly doesn't mean it can't be admited. IANAL but I seem to recall provisions in the law for this. If you are law enforcement... then they are obligated to obey certain rules of conduct. On the other hand, ordinary citizens are not required to. I also seem to recall the fact that wiretaps cross boarders are totally admissible... at least according to moaning canadians who were concerned over the US gathering evidence via illegal wiretaps back in 2000 or so. While I disagree with this practice for matters not related to national security, America seemed to have opened a can of words with a double edged sword.
Now... dispite the fact that the ex-judge was spyed with kiddy porn, something which is a huge no no, I believe that the regular laws of telephony devices should apply. I feel that this should be considered to be an illegal wiretap. Good intentions or not it's as serious a violation of privacy as tapping someone's telephone.
Or you'll get a DVD player that up converts, like a Futureshop in Toronto tried to sell me when I asked for an HD DVD player.
Oddly, I noticed distinct bias from the manager, who, when I asked again where the HD DVD players were, pointed to the Blu Ray (take THAT, Parent!!).
As I said, always bet on stupid. You were looking for HD-DVD, and got sent to the blu-ray section. I would have expected HD DVD to result in HD-DVD but even I can't account for how stupid sales people can be.
Because of that bias (as well as my own bias in favour of HD DVD -- not a fanboy, just don't like the idea of closed formats dominating markets), I don't go to that store any longer.
I never understood why anyone shopped at futureshop my self. When they were in the states they had this annoying tendancy of never having anything resembling consistent prices, everything was always on sale. Goods sold were often returned items which didn't always include all the stuff noted on "this box comes with". I understood somewhat that at one time Canadians wanted to support a Canadian business, but they are not Canadian owned anymore.
This is true, but I think that if somebody cares enough to drop $1000 on a high-def player they're going to at least take a cursory glance at what the technology is which would usually result in them becoming aware of blu-ray if they weren't before. I mean, even if $1,000 is nothing to you, if you go into best buy and tell the clerk you want an HD-DVD player he'll likely point out the blu-ray players as well.
Ummm... I diagree. Those early adopters of HDTVs often bought them without tuners, and without HD support from the cable company.
Always bet on stupid. Even the clerks are stupid, you say an HD DVD player, odds are you'll get HD-DVD.
12 episodes could easily be 2 years worth of episodes. I'm not sure why a series has so few episodes compared to American ones, but that's the way it is.
One reason I got BBC america in the first place was for classic doctor who. I rather thought that they would be running the whole thing like the local PBS station did, in order, from begining to end. Instead they showed the first year or two of Tom Baker... over and over again. This trend also seemed to be consistent with other classic programs. I can't remember how many years they were stuck in the same sequence of tom baker, but they did for quite a while.
I don't have a problem with the series length, I did have a problem with the fact other than new programing they repeated episodes into the ground.
I did switch cable companies so I don't have to pay extra to get BBC-America.
I'm not offended by paying for programming (I happily pay for Homechoice/Tiscali TV) - I'm offended by having to pay for channels that I don't want and I'm even more offended that I face the risk of a 1000 pound fine or jail if I want to watch a competitors free to view channel while not paying for those channels that I don't want to watch. At least you get a choice - I have to pay for the BBC if I want to watch any TV.
That must be annoying, but the way I see it, so long as they have one program I enjoy, it's worth $10/month out of my pocket. That's what I give freely specifly for BBC media. I have no issue funding arts and entertainment directly and should BBC ever be available directly via a sat feed I would happily subscribe... and hell even get a tivo to timeshift to my hours, and even spend more than $10/month for the privilage.
They don't produce as much as they used to (and a lot of what they commission, they don't own, unlike years past), and a lot of it is still made with ratings pressure (as that's the main way they can show "value for the fee payer") Look at all the main BBC programmes - they all have equivalents on commercial TV. Even the arts and documentary programmes have commercial equivalents. There is very, very little that the BBC does that isn't being done by the commercial broadcasters and what little there is does not justify the fee.
rome a joint HBO/BBC production AFAIK would seem to be a program that is worth the fee. Doctor Who always worth the fee, though Torchwood was rather soso. "The Office" funny as hell.
I give PBS 10 a month, or an extra 10 if the other station carries something I like. I do pay to watch rome presently on hbo.
No, HD-DVD will win because fewer people misspell it, so more people will be able to Google it properly.
What's sad is the parent is rather insightful. Not so much that HD-DVD is easier to spell than Blu-Ray but looking on the package it's painfully clear to your average joe with a HDTV set that the HD-DVD is for HD-TVs. The Blu-Ray disc doesn't in it self say "i'm for your HDTV".
...as the BBC doesn't do anything that the commercial broadcasters don't do.
Except they do it commercial free, and produce much of their own material without commercial pressure.
OK you get about 80 stations for $26 How many are actually worth watching? and would your like them better if they had no ads :-) and better still could be critical about any company without worrying about loss of Ad revenue.
There is also Freeview which is getting increaingly good 40 odd free channels with about 5-10 digital only commercial channels with anything worth watching (Freeview would have died without Aunty comming in an giving the kiss of life, she's rather keen on going digital)
I'm not saying the system is prefect but for the most part I like what there doing with my money
You are talking to a person who does donate PBS... esp for programs from the BBC. It's different now that doctor who is on commercial television, CBC and Sci-Fi. IIRC during the days local stations bought Doctor Who (pre-1988), a recent episode cost $1000 for the local station. I guess 12 to 13 episodes was the norm at the time, so a given city which carried this particular program shelled out $12k or so/year, of which a joe like my self would toss $10/month their way, a very small donation but I never asked for the newsletter.
My only complaint is the fact that someone like my self can't just subscribe to the UK feed. BBC-america is somewhat of a joke, though there are programs which I can watch. There is "some" new programing on it, but most of the time it seems like old shows... with the same 12 episodes repeated over and over again. But needless to say i'm not offended by paying for programing.
But how much is worth watching at $26/month. This is what I actually use
-news-
Northwest Cable News - Traffic reports / local news
The Weather Channel
CNN
CBUT-Canadian (CBC) (olympic coverage is excelent)
-Educational-
Discovery
Food Network
History Channel
National Geographic
-Entertainment-
USA - monk
TNT - Movies sometimes
Comedy Central
A&E / Independent Film Channel
Sci-Fi - Stargate Eureka
Cartoon Network - Anime
BBC America
CBUT-Canadian (CBC)
I'd say 14 out of out of 55 stations have at least one program I enjoy.
The other 25 stations are mostly off the air stuff.
[broadcast]
PBS - Nova, some BBC material
PBS - two pbs affiliates in my area, somewhat commercial free. For example the yankie workshop starts off with an advert for power tools, but then continues commercial free.
ABC
NBC - Heroes
NBC old movies
CBS
UPN
FOX - Simpsons, House M.D.
There are some other stations off the air, some religious, some to be honest i've never heard of or seen. But out of 8 mainstream broadcast stations, i'd say 4 of them I watch on a regular basis. My tv watching has been limited as the big three networks have been hip on reality shows, game shows, and desprite housewives.
Currently worth watching on HBO is ROME, a joint HBO/BBC production.
Showtime had "Dead like Me" Showtime / Hbo is another $15 each there and abouts, or $56.50 for digital and two premium stations. Both are commercial free.
A better way to recover the internal combustion dissipated energy is probably through some small steam engine. Didn't BMW try that? http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/
I did think about doing something similar to power an air conditioner. There is alot of wasted heat which can be used to generate engery.
Personally I'm rather happy with the Licence Fee For 11 pounds ($21) a month I get 5 TV channels 11 radio channels .... What do you get for $21/month?
For $7.50 I could get basic cable. That would be ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, PBS, a couple of independents, c-span, local cable news and some other crap. Most of this I could get off the air, but i'm lazy. Radio, well... I lost track of how many stations there are. There are 25 stations in the basic lineup. Many people who subscribe to basic via other services (typicaly under $15/month) often get standard cable as they are too lazy to install the filter.
For $26.75/month is standard cable, another 53 channels above and beyond the basic 25 channels. There are a couple of shows I watch in this range, including Monk and Stargate.
Most of these are commercial stations.
PBS, off the air, is funded by donations and is somewhat commercial free. In the past they carried much in the way of BBC material.
I'm not trying to be critical of the UK tv license, only trying to put things into perspective.
The idea of TV licensing has always troubled me, and radio licenses doubly so. There's a saying here in the US that derives from an early Supreme Court case, and it says "the power to tax is the power to destroy". Now, think about that for a moment. Are you comfortable giving the government power to destroy television and/or radio communications? After seeing a few Holocaust-type films [imdb.com] where people secretly listen to the BBC broadcasts on shortwave while their nation is occupied by the Axis during World War II, you might begin to get the notion that this freedom sort of freedom is a good thing. Why should it ever be a crime to listen to someone else's over-the-air broadcasts?
That's not really the issue is it? The issue is citizens in the UK must a license fee to enjoy TV. There seems to be No radio license. Their world service according to this website is funded by the goverment, not by the TV license.
I don't pretend to know everything about the system in the UK, but the way I see it from cross the pond, they pay money for their programing rather than media being paid for by commercials. Both systems have their merits, but the point becomes moot as cable TV has become popular. It has become even more moot as the net has replaced the need for short wave for planatary broadcasts.
But it looks like you can still listen to the radio including shortwave in your basement without fear of being taxed or arrested. You don't have to do it in secret... but if you enjoy being secret... great.
There are some areas where CFLs are just plain not appropriate however, like in Ovens and Refrigerators. That's why blanket bans on all Incandescent bulbs are not a good idea.
This is at least a valid point. I am unsure how CFLs would work in an oven. In a fridge, CFL or LED would be a most spiffy alternative esp since bulbs do tend to create "some" heat.
There is something else not quite considered. Automobiles. I can't see CLF being a viable alternative anytime soon. Perhaps LEDs for for indicators, but headlights are another story.
You really don't understand the situation out in the sticks.
- Things have to be maintained - and usually built - using supplies available at rural stores.
- Even the rural stores may be an hour or two away by road in the best of weather, and inaccessible for days in the winter. The nearest city may be a small town, too, with something substantial enough to have a suitable industrial supply maybe a couple hundred mile round trip. Add the gas price and the opportunity cost of spending a day driving just to get a part...
I think I understand *urual* perfectly well. You have a choice between a lightbulb which lasts 1000 or so hours, or a heating element which to be fair, would outlast a bulb by a long shot, these things are rated for 10,000 hours. As you explained, given the cost of fuel, the distance to the mom/pop... even at $25/each these things are far more practical given your application.
When was the last time you saw a "small ceramic heating element" available in a mom-and-pop grocery? When was the last time you DIDN'T find light bulbs in one - especially if it was the only store for 40 miles?
You also don't want the type used in gas ovens: In addition to the high drain, they reach a temperature suitable for igniting gas (or anything else flammable that comes in contact with them. That's not what you want in the battery shed when the wind is blowing and the windcharger has topped of the batteries and the dump load controller has decided to give them an equalizing charge - so they're now putting out enough hydrogen gas to create an explosion if the venting got clogged by a snowdrift or silverthaw.
Urual mom/pop shops do tend to carry many practical items, including gear oil. If incandescent lights are phased out, given your application, the mom and pops would be fools not to carry this alternative.
I imagine in a pinch you could create something with gear oil, a pickle jar, and something of the right resistance. It's rather how transmiters were tested in the olden days.
As for ceramics like those used in gas ovens, that was just a for example. Such things can easily be mounted inside a glass bulb and attached to an edison socket. Or better yet, a standard heater coil inside a ceramic fixture.
But needless to say, there presently exists an alternative for your application in an edison socket. It is something which you presently have to mail order. Until your mom/pop gets them in, you do have a valid argument for keeping some incandescent bulbs in service. I would go with a battery heater personaly, something which I don't have to replace every 1000 hours.
So have the Aussies outlawed owning pets who need heat lamps, people who like heat lamps, lava lamps, and burger joints who use them to dry out their burgers? As with all legislation that aims for a quick, easy fix, this is foolhardy and will likely cause more harm than good.
A lavalamp can easily be designed/retrofited with a small heating element and a LED.
Heat lamps on the other hand... that's a valid point. I imagine that the ban would be on incandescent lights as a light source.
Clearly you've never actually used them, just like regurgitating what someone with an agenda wants to tell you.
For your information they are extremely bright (in fact they're probably underrated - I find the '100 watt equivalent' ones too bright for an average room). They also work just like any other light and are fully bright immediately.
The ones i've used were notably dimmer than their incandescent counterparts. However... two or three 60 watt equlivents are, IMHO, better than one incandescent 100 in the fact that the light is distrubted more evenly, and you are only burning 25 to 40 watts. For me to use them in an average room, I would need an overhead one and a lamp. The bulb to circular florecent light are very spiffy.
My other complaint is many screw in CFLs are not bulb shaped, but this can be resolved by using a defuser.
They're also used as an inexpensive heating element for things like battery houses and pump houses (to keep the tanks and pipes from freezing and the batteries at a temperature where they operate efficiently) in rural areas with cold climates. A 60 watt bulb on a thermostat will keep an insulated pumphouse above freezing in subzero weather. (Of course you use more than one for when they burn out...)
More roadblocks for people trying alternative energy in areas where it makes economic sense.
It seems to me that such things can easily be replaced by a small heating element, perhaps a small ceramic one like one uses for gas ovens or a foil battery warmer. Not as cheap as a lightbulb but certainly would outlast one by decades.
Funny, because I remember people mentioning that Apple had plenty of time to test iTunes to make sure it worked with Vista. So, if that's true, why hasn't Microsoft had time to test drivers? And isn't it the manufacturer's job to provide drivers? If drivers aren't available through first party channels, why is the OEM even selling a machine where the hardware isn't supported by the software provided?
Firstly... i'm not sure that iTunes works with vista. I thought there were issues with iTunes and aero but I could be wrong. I don't use iTunes nor visa.
Second... if apple did test iTunes on vista, then they basicly tested one software package on one OS. Perhaps they even took the time to go with a few different PCs... but still one piece of software, on one OS, on a limited number of machines. Not every piece of hardware in existance.
And lastly... it's the hardware manufacturers job to make hardware. They do also either make the drivers, or outsource that to someone else, many times via microsoft. They are under no obligation to support your platform, only the platform they advertise it being compatable with. They are under no obligation to make drivers for something you already bought. How much hardware was tossed away between win3.1 and win9x? How much between win9x and win2k/xp?
So what the hell interface did it use? Did you think it mightn't be the wisest idea to purchase something with a wacky proprietary interface and hope that it'd support what was quite a dramatically changed operating system? :)
The hell interface it used was so propriority I don't know the name of it. The adapter card was called the "Microtek, MS-PCY". This was just when twain was pretty new. I, after all, did buy the scanner before win95 was released, by a good couple of years.
It "may" have not been the best idea to go with something so proprietary, but oddly enough support for this wacko jacko interface was better than it's scsi counterpart. The hell version at least had a beta win95 driver which sometimes worked, and the proprietary scan software worked. This was sort of when twain was "newish", but the software I was using had direct support for this scanner.
Was it the best idea was buying this scanner? I "could" have gone with a scsi model but even scsi scanners had their issues. Ones from that time period were rather locked into using a host adapter based on the NCR xxc509 chipset, something which was painful to find. Just so happened media vision released one sound card with the NCR chipset onboard. But I had a choice... $400ish for this propriority scanner, or $800 for SCSI model which may or may not have been supported in the next generation of windows. It was faster for single pass, my software supported it directly without having to go through twain, a big bonus when scanning hundrads of pages for OCR. I saved enough money going propriority that buying another scanner 5 years which was less propriority cost less. I evaluated my options very carefuly, and made a reasonable choice based on what was available at the time period. It wasn't until win2k that I had to ditch that sucker, but 7 years is a good run for hardware.
Why do third parties even need to complile these lists? Shoudln't Microsoft be on top of this?
It reminds me when win95 was new and I had a microtek 600z scanner, something I shelled out well over $400 for. Not scsi nor parallel. There technicaly was a beta driver burried deep in microtek's FTP site. It was a flacky piece of filth but was good enough... well... until scanner prices dropped. I'm sure others experenced annoyance with early generation scanners, even many scsi ones.
My point is i'm sure microsoft provides links to drivers which it takes the time to test for compatability, but one can not expect them to cover everything, esp not this soon into the release.
Even if they did, the drivers microsoft reccomends are not always the best.
I definitely believe that the fact that some people steal software raises the cost of said software for people like me who buy it legally
And I definitely believe the fact that some people who pay too much for software encourages software companies to keep prices high. But what we believe may or may not be the truth.
I diagree with Microsoft's pricing of certain products. Office is a big issue IMHO for home users. Works is priced on a home user level, but Works doesn't really work, not to read other people's Word or Excel documents. Heck, Excel can't read Works documents. A $500 version that reccomends 2.5gigs of ram? The new Vista prices are bordering on insane.
People who choose to disobey the law, whether it be murder, or uploading copyrighted material, cause material damage to those of us who choose to obey the law.
Bill Gates himself said that if a user has to pirate a product, he hopes they pirate a microsoft product. In the early age of computers, one reason MS-Dos took hold of the market was the fact that you could get a system without dos and save alot of money. IMHO the propagation of this product without compensation offered more benifits than any possible material harm. Them the user's hooked, then find a way to make them pay for it.
So, 24 and the Simpsons are on FOX. I have an antenna on my roof to get local channels. I've paid nothing to watch these shows.
So why is it a problem to provide a copy of something that was already given away for free?
It's not given away exactly. It is aired prime time when commercial ad time is at it's highest. That's what pays for the show you can watch for free off the air. Here we are, the cost paid for by your friendly sponcers for a 30 second spot. The show is 42min, leaving room for 36 spots which were sold for close to $300,000 each in 2003. That works out to be about 10 million. I don't know what the present value is, or how much the network affiliates charge for their local commercials, but it's big money.
Given it's a fact that the value of showing an episode for the first time results millions of dollars revenue, those who take the show and release it early, that seriously affects viewership, and affects the value of the ad-time.
"after" it's aired, the value of ad-time does go down, and one can argue that copies floting around encourage people to watch a show during prime time, which would increase the value of these spots. But taking it before it's aired, without a doubt, does do the networks, producers, and advertisers harm.
Many deaf people will feel much more comfortable if they can sign than if they have to use text messaging.
Well... TDD/TTY terminals are used by deaf users. They permit deaf people to use the phone. IM services have been accepted by hearing people. This is a case where both hearing and deaf can use the same thing. I can't speak for the deaf, but but any way you look at it, it's a practical solution.
The real question would have to be put to the deaf community... whether they prefer typing or simplified video communication. I imagine this could be tested by seeing how man deaf users who use IM services actually bother to use video communication.
When you send text messages back and forth, there's a delay with every delivery. For the equivalent of speech, this would be like calling the moon. Plus, you have to go into the inbox and open new messages all the time -- not very conversation-like or, for that matter, IM-like.
I agree with the delay... but with T-mobile is it rather IM like on my nokia 6800 and 6010. In fact there is IM support. Again, speaking only for T-mobile... there seems to be two systems for IM... one is via a relay. It's rather transparent but for example on my 6800 which was geared for AT&T you have to plop in the correct relay number, or if not using the IM login you can receive texts and respond to them.
On good days it seems as efficent as IM services, on others there is a massive delay. There is also GPRS based IM software which is well, as IM like as you can get, because it is.
The big issue with TTD/TTY IMHO is a lack of compatability with, well, standard modems which come shipped with every PC, at least the last time I looked at it. Also there is a big issue with cost. I don't have contact with any deaf people who I don't know the current state of the deaf community, but the last I heard IM services and e-mail were gaining popularity over terminals since... well... your average PC is cheaper. If what I suspect is true, deaf uses already use IM for their basic communication needs, and does a great job of bridging the gap between the hearing and deaf world.
Now if they were going to propose... let's say... ASL data entry... i'd be hip to that jive. I might even learn it my self just for laughs.