I think that it made it to 550mhz in the Slot 1 version and at least 600mhz in the mobile version. I know that my PII made it to more than 500mhz -- despite what the label on the box said.;-)
Integrated Sound... ...sounds pretty good to me [16-bit].
And 500mhz Pentium II chips seem fast to lots of people. But Slashdot is more aimed at the computer enthusiast. Many sound cards are used for converting analog to digital, so that's a function that is important to many. The CPU usage is an issue for many gamers and much built-in sound hardware is pretty brutal on CPU usage. Still other people hook their computer to their stereo systems and "good enough" isn't.
That was my point. You were making a blanket statment about MS certified people. Thank you.
That was not my intention. I thought that the "all" was implicitly understood.
This is what I am talking about. Based on this small sample you make a blanket assumption about all MS cerified people (based on your original comments)
No, I did not. I thought that it was clear, from the beginning, that the word "all" was implied.
But again - you make generalisations about Harvard or Yale graduates. I've met people with Harvard qualifications, and I wasn't impressed with what I saw.
You may not have been, but it does not mean that their standards are as lax as Microsoft's.
Most people don't notice or care. I've gone to people's houses and seen TV "pictures" one notch removed from snow and they are perfectly happy.
2) DVD looks great, is easier to handle, has random access, extras, etc.
No argument there.
3) most people are too stupid to program their VCRs so losing recording capability is no biggie for Ma and Pa Kettle.
Here I must disagree. While that might have been an issue in ancient times, most modern VCRs have on-screen menus so simple that an old person can program them. It's not like the bad old days when programming the VCR meant opening up a little door on the top and manipulating a myriad of tiny buttons while LEDs blinked.
I still believe that Circuit City has a vested interest in seeing VCRs go away. They don't want you to be able to record movies off of cable/satellite on a $5 tape. They want you to come into the store and pay them $20 or so for the same movie pre-recorded on a DVD that cost under a buck to press.
but the possible killing of children who have no say in the matter.
I don't think that any bioethicist, researcher, or doctor has ever advocated killing babies for their stem cells. What the right wing has done is prohibit the harvesting of stem cells from aborted fetuses because they would rather have sick and crippled people suffer than run the dreaded (to them) risk of having something positive come from an abortion.
Nice theory. But how do make it fit the facts, i.e. that CC are phasing out the pre-recorded VHS sales, but continuing to sell both the recorders and the blank tapes?
How do you know for a "fact" that CC is not going to phase out VHS VCRs? No pre-recorded tapes will reduce the demand for VHS decks. The inability to record from DVDs (due to Macrovsion) will turn some other people off of buying a VCR. Time-shifting with PVRs like TiVo will answer the needs of other consumers. Pretty soon the demand dries up, and Circuit City stops selling them. Seen any beta machines at Circuit City? How about 8-track tape decks? Elcassette? DCC (Digital Compact Cassette)?
What's actually going on here is that CC wants to sell you a VCR and a DVD player. If you can't use a VCR to do both jobs than you're more likely to buy a DVD.
I don't buy it. VCRs are low-profit, high return rate items that take a lot of shelf space. The tapes are bulky and inexpensive. That's hardly appealing to a retailer.
I said that it had not been addressed by a court that was capable of setting precedent.
And I asked for the names of the judges and the cases in which a judge ruled "your way." You did not provide same.
What are those statistics that are so small? Oh wait - you're still in high school, aren't you? You still believe those standardized test scores mean something, don't you?
I am a 41 year old successful software consultant currently working in the aerospace industry on satellites.
Statute combines with judicial review to make law.
No, statutes are laws. They are assumed to be valid until/unless overturned in a court. Again, you cannot simply ignore federal statutes on the assumption that they will be overturned. Many laws have never been challenged and will never be. That they have not been challenged does not make them any less legally binding.
But there is a big difference between a hacked converter and a splitter, as anyone with experience will tell you.
You claim that the signal is yours to do with as you please once it enters your residence. The fact that you are legally prohibited from hooking up a hacked converter proves otherwise.
Good idea. What number did you call?
1-888-CALL-FCC
With whom did you speak?
I was eventually transferred to a Ms. Margo Davenport. If you want her direct-dial number, it is in the FCC's directory.
Are you sure it wasn't the janitor?)
Yes. She is a Senior Legal Advisor in the Office of Communications and Industry Information (but I am unsure as to whether you are a janitor).
What was the exact wording of the question(s) you asked?
I wrote the question down since I expected you to demand it:
"Is it legal for a consumer who pays only for cable modem Internet service to add a splitter in order to route basic cable television signals to one or more televisions?"
Ms. Davenport flatly, and without hesitation, stated that it was illegal. Her response to this included:
1. It is a violation of federal law. 2. It is considered a theft of service. 3. If you pay for video services, you may add splitters within your home but you must pay the cable company any per-television fee that they choose to impose.
She further agreed that the cable company does not give up the right to be paid simply because the signal exists on the line.
There's no harm in either of us sticking with our opinions, but you're not going to convince me that you're right without real evidence - court case citations, judicial opinions, etc.
Perhaps a call to the FCC would convince you that I am correct in this matter.
Anyway, since VHS is still the primary *recording* medium of the consumer, I wonder if they'll continue to sell VCRs?
This is an example of how "electronics super stores" are bad for the consumer. Circuit City wants to make money selling not only electronics, but also pre-recorded entertainment. They don't want you to be able to record a pay-per-view showing of a movie because that could cost them a sale. The sooner they can convince you to scrap your VCR and, if you don't have one, buy a DVD player (from them), the happier they will be.
That's why it was better when "record stores" sold recordings and "stereo stores" sold audio and video equipment. And this is why it was better for Sony to make consumer electronics and Columbia pictures to make films. The conflict of interest is now such that Sony would happily kill off the CD and replace it with a copy-protected equivalent -- much as they are doing to push DVD as a replacement for VHS. They want VCRs to go away so that they can sell you not only the player, but also the movie when you switch to DVD.
This isn't a generalisation, implying that MS certification holders lack ability?
No, I implied that many, not all, MS certification holders produce poor software. If it makes you more comfortable, add the word "all" to my original statement:
If licensing improved the quality of software, then all MCSEs would be turning out works of art. And I think that we can all agree that it's not happening.
Where's your proof of this?
I have worked with several MCSD-certified software developers. Their code was, to put it politely, not top-notch.
Why pick on MS certifications?
Because I am not familiar with any other widely used certifications for software engineers.
Like any group there is a huge variation of skill and ability.
Why is there this huge variation? I thought that the purpose of a certification was to assert that the holder is capable and qualified to do the work one would expect for someone in that field. That's the problem with the Microsoft certifications; there are some highly qualified people with them and others who don't have the analytical skills to work a cash register at Walmart.
You can gripe about this all you want, but a certificate, diploma, or award is only as good as the organization that stands behind it. That's why diplomas from the local community college don't garner the same respect as those from Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. The community college issues diplomas to people that have a "huge variation of skill and ability" while Ivy League colleges do not.
That licensing software engineers will not guarantee reliable, high-quality code.
You were making the mistaken generalisation that holding an MS certification implies lack of ability. Which is incorrect.
No, I was not. Read what I originally wrote:
If licensing improved the quality of software, then MCSEs would be turning out works of art. And I think that we can all agree that it's not happening.
(You rightly pointed out that I should have said MCSDs.)
Now where in that did I state that holding a Microsoft certification implies a lack of ability? MS certification holders are not, as a group, turning out the highest quality software ever seen -- yet they are trained, tested, and certified. Which gets back to the original point: Simply having some body doing licensing does not guarantee high-quality code.
Newsflash - there *are* MCSEs who are experienced, skilled people (I happen to consider myself one of them).
And there are also people with MCSEs (and MCSDs) that have no real skills, experience, or aptitude. They paid their money and took the tests (sometimes several times) and have their certifications. It's like a shopping mall karate studio. Don't expect real martial artists to be impressed that you got a black belt from the karate studio next to JC Penney.
There are a lot of other niche products that have the same quality throughout the available manufacturers. Filmmaking equipment, pro TV and video systems, etc. Anything that is truly designed with the professional user in mind stands a chance of being pretty high quality throughout *unless* it is exploited by mass attention.
You just proved my point: When the purchaser understands what they are buying, then they don't tolerate junk. With computers, the purchasers, by and large, are ignorant. The only things that they understand are price and features. They don't understand how computers work, so you get motherboards with crappy power supply filtering, sleeve bearing fans, operating systems that are unusable to anyone who is not an "administrator", and e-mail clients that execute VBScript.
Simply being a niche market is not enough. One could argue that chrome-plated, double wiper blades are a niche market, but they aren't high quality. RC model airplanes are a niche market and there are plenty of those of poor quality. In order for the product to be of high quality, it must be sold to a market that largely understands its inner workings.
I always point to the ham radio market. In general, there are very few pieces of "bad" ham radio gear sold. Some may be better than others, but none are truly bad. Why? I believe it is because the FCC requires that one understand the gear before they can get a license and use it.
Computer consumers, in contrast, often understand practically nothing about what they are purchasing. They do not understand how software (or hardware) works, how it is designed, what it is reasonable to expect a computer to do and what it is not. As a result, there are marketing droids demanding that people be able to cut & paste from video editing software to word processing documents. This leads to the software engineering team spending an inordinate amount of time creating bloatware with as many bugs as features. Adding to this problem are the EULAs that software vendors use to shield themselves from any product liability lawsuits ("it's not a product, it's just a license to use the software"), thus undermining the only thing that had any possibility of keeping the software quality in check.
If licensing improved the quality of software, then MCSEs would be turning out works of art. And I think that we can all agree that it's not happening.
Re:Do they expect to sell these?
on
IMSAI Series Two
·
· Score: 2
It seems you're the idiot who would pay $1000 for $10 worth of hardware
Have you ever priced the cost of a custom case? Silkscreened lettering on a front panel? High-quality S-100 connectors? Besides, it's not like $1000 is a lot of money.
Do you judge a painting's worth by the cost of the canvas and paint? Do you judge the value of a music CD by the manufacturing costs?
I've got five high-powered PCs in my computer room. I'd much rather have something like the IMSAI series 2 than another PC I don't need.
You claim that it is illegal because there is a law on the books which could be interpreted to allow you to be prosecuted for putting a splitter in your home.
No, I am claiming it is illegal because there is a law that specifically makes reception of cable TV signals illegal unless the person receiving them has been "specifically authorized" to do so.
Judges' interpretations of the law do vary, and some of them agree that it is the cable companies' responsibility to block the signals,
Which judges rendered that opinion and in what cases?
Until it gets taken to a court that can provide precedent, it will remain as written - an ambiguous statute.
Wait a minute. You just said that there were judges that already expressed agreement with your position. Now you are saying this matter has not been decided in a court. Which is it?
It's not an "ambiguous statute." Nor is my claim based on some weird interpretation of the law. The law is quite specific in this matter. Which part of "specifically authorized" is unclear to you?
You haven't provided any supporting evidence beyond the statute itself, which we have already agreed is open to interpretation.
It is "open to interpretation" by a judge with years of legal training, not by you. The law, as written, is clear and unambiguous. Unless it is struck down by a court, doing what you are proposing is illegal. One cannot simply ignore federal laws on the assumption that the laws will, at some future date, be reinterpreted or struck down by the court system. You said it was legal. I provided a statute that said otherwise. You provided your untrained, lay-person's opinion. I win. That's how such debates work.
(Would it help you get it if i used smaller words?)
The chances that you are my intellectual equal or superior are, statistically speaking, quite small. And since you don't even understand phrases like "expressly authorized", I doubt that your vocabulary is so great that you're going to stumble onto words that I don't know. But, if you used smaller words, perhaps you would lessen the chances of using words that you did not fully understand.
The cable company can block out the tv signal. If they fail to do so then they have no right to demand payment or damages.
That's just another unsubstantiated claim by you and it runs counter to both the federal law and long-standing legal principles. I am not interested in your legal theories.
The cable company knows exactly what is coming in to your house - as long as it doesn't affect others they have no right to tell you what to do with it, just like the electric company cannot tell you what you can or cannot plug into the outlets in your house.
This whole line of reasoning was shot down with satellite TV. Many satellite TV pirates used to claim that they had a right to use any signal that reached their property. The courts did not agree, nor did the FCC. Besides, while the cable company might know what signals are going down the cable, they also know which ones they have "expressly authorized" you to receive.
You're not - until they ask you to pay for (or take you to court over) a service they gave you for free.
You don't seem to understand the difference between civil suits and criminal trials. The statute that I cited makes it a crime to split off cable signals without paying for them. How would the court trying you for a violation of federal law make the cable company guilty of fraud?
Also, the cable company did not deliver the "service" to your home. They delivered broadband service to you and you stole cable TV by splitting off an additional cable to your television. A "signal" and a "service", as applied to cable TV, are not the same and when you turn the former into the latter without permission, it is theft. It doesn't matter if you steal cable TV by using a splitter to get basic cable or a hacked converter box to get premium channels. Either one is illegal.
I'm not the one whipping out the dictionary
Maybe you should be when you don't even understand the words you are using (i.e., "receiving")
but i doubt that you have anything better to do than argue semantics when you're talking out of your ass on a subject where you have neither experience nor evidence.
I am the one that is well aware of the federal statutes regulating this. I am the one that produced that "evidence" to show that your position was invalid -- a federal statute, in fact. All that you have done is try to impress people with your claimed insider knowledge -- yet you can produce nothing. No precedent. No contradictory law. No ruling. No point of law.
I went one step further. I called the Federal Communications Commission after my last message and was told, in no uncertain terms, that splitting off cable signals from a broadband connection in order to get basic cable at no cost was illegal. If you doubt me, call them yourself.
Want more? Here is a document from the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications & Energy which clearly supports my position and refutes yours.
So I have now provided a clearly worded statute, the FCC's interpretation of the legality of splitting off basic cable from a broadband link, and a document from the state of Massachusetts that explains, in laymen's terms, what I've been trying to tell you all along. All that you have provided is your opinion and (mis)interpretation of the law. If you can't do better than that, let's just drop this now.
In this case, it proves that what you are claiming is legal is not.
The following few lines sum up the whole thing:
(a)(1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.
Sorry that it pisses you off, but that's the law. You cannot legally receive cable TV unless specifically authorized to do so. And "authorized" does not mean that the cable company failed to install a filter in the line. To be "authorized", you need someone in authority giving you written or verbal permission to split off the cable TV signal.
For that matter, anyone with a cable modem and no cable tv service is automatically guilty. They are receiving the signal even if they do nothing with it!
Get a dictionary. "Receive" means: To convert incoming electromagnetic waves into visible or audible signals. Your cable modem is not receiving television programming any more than your lawn furniture is receiving satellite TV. Besides, judges use "judgement." They recognize that the purpose of the statute is to keep people from watching cable TV while not paying for it, not to keep electrons out of your cable modem.
You say it's illegal because this law says so. I tell you that it's legal because of precedent, property law, and anti-fraud statutes.
And unless a judge overturns the federal law that I cited, it will remain illegal. If it had been overturned by precedent, the law would no longer be on the books. That's how laws work.
Fraud? You contracted to get broadband Internet connectivity. You added a splitter and cable to their system to get TV without paying for it. Just how are you being defrauded?
like charging for unsolicited service!
Did they put the splitter into your cable? Did they run the cable to your television? If not, they are not providing you an "unsolicited service." You are stealing the service if you added splitters and/or cables to run the signal to your TV.
That's like claiming that the electric company has provided you with an "unsolicited service" because you split off a power cable (to steal electricity) before it entered your electric meter.
I do know what the cable company i worked for could or could not pursue as cable theft.
I suppose you were in their legal department? Maybe you were the corporate counsel? All you know is what they chose to prosecute.
If you are so damned sure that you are legally within your rights, go to www.cabletheft.com and turn yourself in. Fight the cable company in court and let me know how you do. I have no more time for your semantics games ('it depends on what the meaning of the word "received" is...').
Re:Do they expect to sell these?
on
IMSAI Series Two
·
· Score: 2
This box would be more comparable to some overpriced kit car that tries to look like a 1932 Ford, rather than an actual 1932 Ford.
It is a "class thing". However, you're the one that doesn't "get it".
Having owned an original Imsai 8080, I "get it" a lot better than you do. The original machine is a classic and there simply aren't enough of them to suit the demand. For someone who wants a classy reproduction that functions, this is hard to beat.
Comparing it to some modern system and belittling its CPU horsepower shows a complete cluelessness.
Re:Do they expect to sell these?
on
IMSAI Series Two
·
· Score: 2
You're the same kind of idiot that can't figure out why people would pay a lot of money for a 1932 Ford when they could get a brand new Mustang for less money.
I'm tired of the self-righteous indignation of cable modem companies and even some of their subscribers regarding bandwidth usage. The cable companies made offers to everyone for "unlimited usage" and "T1 speeds" and "always on" connectivity.
Now that some small percentage of users are actually using the bandwidth that they were sold, the cable companies are demonizing them. They want to charge them extra, calling them "bandwidth hogs" and other such childish names. I don't see the cable companies scrambling to offer lower prices to people who just check e-mail occasionally and maybe move 750K a week through web surfing. I don't see them being called "bandwidth anorexics."
I'd have a lot more sympathy for the cable companies if they had been honest from the beginning, figured out what kind of bandwidth they could support, and spelled that out in the agreements.
They remind me of the airlines. Now the airlines have squeezed the seats so close together that they don't have adequate room for carry-ons, they portray passengers with "oversized" carry-on bags as self-centered buffoons -- despite the fact that many of these "oversized" bags met the airline's size requirements at the time that they were purchased.
I bought a Kenwood KD-SH99 in-dash CD/MP3 player and I love it. I probably have about 80 CD's worth of music (average sampling rate 224kbps) in one of the little half-full zip-shut CD holders. I keep it in the pocket in the driver's door.
If I want to hear local news, traffic, or weather, I have the radio. If I want to just listen to some new music, again, I have the radio.
Satellite radio has zero appeal to me. One of the advantages to going on long drives is that one can listen to local radio stations. It's interesting to hear radio stations in other parts of the country. I don't have any desire to listen to some corporate, coast-to-coast radio station with no local news, traffic, or weather. Let's get real here: $120 per year for 100 radio stations is silly. When those radio stations are are staffed by no-name, second-rate DJs that stick to programming designed to be inoffensive and bland, it's downright absurd.
Take a look at the offerings. See how many of the stations you would listen to. You might be surprised at just how few might play something that you want to hear.
Great! Now I have to go home and find out if the repetitive drivel I downloaded was really Britney Spears' music or if it was something planted there by the record companies...
It needs to have a basic unix shell, and be POSIX compliant.
Unix shell?. Posix compliant? Get real. It's a PDA, not a personal computer. It's something to keep appointments, phone numbers, and addresses in, and, occasionally play chess or some other low CPU load game on. You might have the need for the occasional calculator functionality and you might want to download some unit conversion software into it. But a Unix shell? That's ugly enough under Unix. There's sure no need to put something that heinous on a PDA.
It should play video games at least as well as the original gameboy.
If you think a PDA has to play Gameboy-like games, you aren't old enough for a PDA yet.
I appreciate your efforts to inform and explain, but we are still left with what boils down to this:
If you believe the Bible, then you believe in God. If you are unwilling to take the Bible as fact, then there is not evidence to support the notion of God.
Our faith is founded on facts, which were recorded as any other history is recorded but with far more numerable and trustworthy records.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- and no claim could be more extraordinary that the claim that there is an all-powerful being that can turn people into salt, impregnate virgins, and control the weather over the entire earth.
While I have little doubt about the existence of Jesus Christ, believing in the existence of God takes a great leap of... faith. And that's one I am unwilling to make without extraordinary evidence.
Written histories by ancient peoples are, at best, suspect. What is fact and what is interpretation? What is a first-hand account and what is derived from stories passed down through the generations?
There are a million and seven excuses by Christians about why God is so elusive. "Free will" is so often cited as a reason why God does not intervene to stop genocide, torture, murder, rape, suffering, etc. "The Lord works in mysterious ways" is often heard when horrible tragedies strike good people. Babies are born horribly deformed or with tumors that snuff them out in infancy. Decent people die of colon cancer, AIDS, and Ebola leaving their families grieving.
You would have me believe that there is a God that, through simply willing it, could stop all of this needless suffering. You would have me believe that he loves all of us. Yet he is unwilling to intervene even to when priests are sexually molesting young children? Sorry, but that's just illogical.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that it made it to 550mhz in the Slot 1 version and at least 600mhz in the mobile version. I know that my PII made it to more than 500mhz -- despite what the label on the box said. ;-)
Integrated Sound...
...sounds pretty good to me [16-bit].
And 500mhz Pentium II chips seem fast to lots of people. But Slashdot is more aimed at the computer enthusiast. Many sound cards are used for converting analog to digital, so that's a function that is important to many. The CPU usage is an issue for many gamers and much built-in sound hardware is pretty brutal on CPU usage. Still other people hook their computer to their stereo systems and "good enough" isn't.
That was my point. You were making a blanket statment about MS certified people. Thank you.
That was not my intention. I thought that the "all" was implicitly understood.
This is what I am talking about. Based on this small sample you make a blanket assumption about all MS cerified people (based on your original comments)
No, I did not. I thought that it was clear, from the beginning, that the word "all" was implied.
But again - you make generalisations about Harvard or Yale graduates. I've met people with Harvard qualifications, and I wasn't impressed with what I saw.
You may not have been, but it does not mean that their standards are as lax as Microsoft's.
1) VHS looks like poo-poo for movies
Most people don't notice or care. I've gone to people's houses and seen TV "pictures" one notch removed from snow and they are perfectly happy.
2) DVD looks great, is easier to handle, has random access, extras, etc.
No argument there.
3) most people are too stupid to program their VCRs so losing recording capability is no biggie for Ma and Pa Kettle.
Here I must disagree. While that might have been an issue in ancient times, most modern VCRs have on-screen menus so simple that an old person can program them. It's not like the bad old days when programming the VCR meant opening up a little door on the top and manipulating a myriad of tiny buttons while LEDs blinked.
I still believe that Circuit City has a vested interest in seeing VCRs go away. They don't want you to be able to record movies off of cable/satellite on a $5 tape. They want you to come into the store and pay them $20 or so for the same movie pre-recorded on a DVD that cost under a buck to press.
but the possible killing of children who have no say in the matter.
I don't think that any bioethicist, researcher, or doctor has ever advocated killing babies for their stem cells. What the right wing has done is prohibit the harvesting of stem cells from aborted fetuses because they would rather have sick and crippled people suffer than run the dreaded (to them) risk of having something positive come from an abortion.
Nice theory. But how do make it fit the facts, i.e. that CC are phasing out the pre-recorded VHS sales, but continuing to sell both the recorders and the blank tapes?
How do you know for a "fact" that CC is not going to phase out VHS VCRs? No pre-recorded tapes will reduce the demand for VHS decks. The inability to record from DVDs (due to Macrovsion) will turn some other people off of buying a VCR. Time-shifting with PVRs like TiVo will answer the needs of other consumers. Pretty soon the demand dries up, and Circuit City stops selling them. Seen any beta machines at Circuit City? How about 8-track tape decks? Elcassette? DCC (Digital Compact Cassette)?
What's actually going on here is that CC wants to sell you a VCR and a DVD player. If you can't use a VCR to do both jobs than you're more likely to buy a DVD.
I don't buy it. VCRs are low-profit, high return rate items that take a lot of shelf space. The tapes are bulky and inexpensive. That's hardly appealing to a retailer.
I said that it had not been addressed by a court that was capable of setting precedent.
And I asked for the names of the judges and the cases in which a judge ruled "your way." You did not provide same.
What are those statistics that are so small? Oh wait - you're still in high school, aren't you? You still believe those standardized test scores mean something, don't you?
I am a 41 year old successful software consultant currently working in the aerospace industry on satellites.
Statute combines with judicial review to make law.
No, statutes are laws. They are assumed to be valid until/unless overturned in a court. Again, you cannot simply ignore federal statutes on the assumption that they will be overturned. Many laws have never been challenged and will never be. That they have not been challenged does not make them any less legally binding.
But there is a big difference between a hacked converter and a splitter, as anyone with experience will tell you.
You claim that the signal is yours to do with as you please once it enters your residence. The fact that you are legally prohibited from hooking up a hacked converter proves otherwise.
Good idea. What number did you call?
1-888-CALL-FCC
With whom did you speak?
I was eventually transferred to a Ms. Margo Davenport. If you want her direct-dial number, it is in the FCC's directory.
Are you sure it wasn't the janitor?)
Yes. She is a Senior Legal Advisor in the Office of Communications and Industry Information (but I am unsure as to whether you are a janitor).
What was the exact wording of the question(s) you asked?
I wrote the question down since I expected you to demand it:
"Is it legal for a consumer who pays only for cable modem Internet service to add a splitter in order to route basic cable television signals to one or more televisions?"
Ms. Davenport flatly, and without hesitation, stated that it was illegal. Her response to this included:
1. It is a violation of federal law.
2. It is considered a theft of service.
3. If you pay for video services, you may add splitters within your home but you must pay the cable company any per-television fee that they choose to impose.
She further agreed that the cable company does not give up the right to be paid simply because the signal exists on the line.
There's no harm in either of us sticking with our opinions, but you're not going to convince me that you're right without real evidence - court case citations, judicial opinions, etc.
Perhaps a call to the FCC would convince you that I am correct in this matter.
Anyway, since VHS is still the primary *recording* medium of the consumer, I wonder if they'll continue to sell VCRs?
This is an example of how "electronics super stores" are bad for the consumer. Circuit City wants to make money selling not only electronics, but also pre-recorded entertainment. They don't want you to be able to record a pay-per-view showing of a movie because that could cost them a sale. The sooner they can convince you to scrap your VCR and, if you don't have one, buy a DVD player (from them), the happier they will be.
That's why it was better when "record stores" sold recordings and "stereo stores" sold audio and video equipment. And this is why it was better for Sony to make consumer electronics and Columbia pictures to make films. The conflict of interest is now such that Sony would happily kill off the CD and replace it with a copy-protected equivalent -- much as they are doing to push DVD as a replacement for VHS. They want VCRs to go away so that they can sell you not only the player, but also the movie when you switch to DVD.
This isn't a generalisation, implying that MS certification holders lack ability?
No, I implied that many, not all, MS certification holders produce poor software. If it makes you more comfortable, add the word "all" to my original statement:
If licensing improved the quality of software, then all MCSEs would be turning out works of art. And I think that we can all agree that it's not happening.
Where's your proof of this?
I have worked with several MCSD-certified software developers. Their code was, to put it politely, not top-notch.
Why pick on MS certifications?
Because I am not familiar with any other widely used certifications for software engineers.
Like any group there is a huge variation of skill and ability.
Why is there this huge variation? I thought that the purpose of a certification was to assert that the holder is capable and qualified to do the work one would expect for someone in that field. That's the problem with the Microsoft certifications; there are some highly qualified people with them and others who don't have the analytical skills to work a cash register at Walmart.
You can gripe about this all you want, but a certificate, diploma, or award is only as good as the organization that stands behind it. That's why diplomas from the local community college don't garner the same respect as those from Harvard, Princeton, or Yale. The community college issues diplomas to people that have a "huge variation of skill and ability" while Ivy League colleges do not.
That licensing software engineers will not guarantee reliable, high-quality code.
You were making the mistaken generalisation that holding an MS certification implies lack of ability. Which is incorrect.
No, I was not. Read what I originally wrote:
(You rightly pointed out that I should have said MCSDs.)
Now where in that did I state that holding a Microsoft certification implies a lack of ability? MS certification holders are not, as a group, turning out the highest quality software ever seen -- yet they are trained, tested, and certified. Which gets back to the original point: Simply having some body doing licensing does not guarantee high-quality code.
Perhaps you're thinking of the MSCD.
I stand corrected.
Newsflash - there *are* MCSEs who are experienced, skilled people (I happen to consider myself one of them).
And there are also people with MCSEs (and MCSDs) that have no real skills, experience, or aptitude. They paid their money and took the tests (sometimes several times) and have their certifications. It's like a shopping mall karate studio. Don't expect real martial artists to be impressed that you got a black belt from the karate studio next to JC Penney.
There are a lot of other niche products that have the same quality throughout the available manufacturers. Filmmaking equipment, pro TV and video systems, etc. Anything that is truly designed with the professional user in mind stands a chance of being pretty high quality throughout *unless* it is exploited by mass attention.
You just proved my point: When the purchaser understands what they are buying, then they don't tolerate junk. With computers, the purchasers, by and large, are ignorant. The only things that they understand are price and features. They don't understand how computers work, so you get motherboards with crappy power supply filtering, sleeve bearing fans, operating systems that are unusable to anyone who is not an "administrator", and e-mail clients that execute VBScript.
Simply being a niche market is not enough. One could argue that chrome-plated, double wiper blades are a niche market, but they aren't high quality. RC model airplanes are a niche market and there are plenty of those of poor quality. In order for the product to be of high quality, it must be sold to a market that largely understands its inner workings.
I always point to the ham radio market. In general, there are very few pieces of "bad" ham radio gear sold. Some may be better than others, but none are truly bad. Why? I believe it is because the FCC requires that one understand the gear before they can get a license and use it.
Computer consumers, in contrast, often understand practically nothing about what they are purchasing. They do not understand how software (or hardware) works, how it is designed, what it is reasonable to expect a computer to do and what it is not. As a result, there are marketing droids demanding that people be able to cut & paste from video editing software to word processing documents. This leads to the software engineering team spending an inordinate amount of time creating bloatware with as many bugs as features. Adding to this problem are the EULAs that software vendors use to shield themselves from any product liability lawsuits ("it's not a product, it's just a license to use the software"), thus undermining the only thing that had any possibility of keeping the software quality in check.
If licensing improved the quality of software, then MCSEs would be turning out works of art. And I think that we can all agree that it's not happening.
It seems you're the idiot who would pay $1000 for $10 worth of hardware
Have you ever priced the cost of a custom case? Silkscreened lettering on a front panel? High-quality S-100 connectors? Besides, it's not like $1000 is a lot of money.
Do you judge a painting's worth by the cost of the canvas and paint? Do you judge the value of a music CD by the manufacturing costs?
I've got five high-powered PCs in my computer room. I'd much rather have something like the IMSAI series 2 than another PC I don't need.
You claim that it is illegal because there is a law on the books which could be interpreted to allow you to be prosecuted for putting a splitter in your home.
No, I am claiming it is illegal because there is a law that specifically makes reception of cable TV signals illegal unless the person receiving them has been "specifically authorized" to do so.
Judges' interpretations of the law do vary, and some of them agree that it is the cable companies' responsibility to block the signals,
Which judges rendered that opinion and in what cases?
Until it gets taken to a court that can provide precedent, it will remain as written - an ambiguous statute.
Wait a minute. You just said that there were judges that already expressed agreement with your position. Now you are saying this matter has not been decided in a court. Which is it?
It's not an "ambiguous statute." Nor is my claim based on some weird interpretation of the law. The law is quite specific in this matter. Which part of "specifically authorized" is unclear to you?
You haven't provided any supporting evidence beyond the statute itself, which we have already agreed is open to interpretation.
It is "open to interpretation" by a judge with years of legal training, not by you. The law, as written, is clear and unambiguous. Unless it is struck down by a court, doing what you are proposing is illegal. One cannot simply ignore federal laws on the assumption that the laws will, at some future date, be reinterpreted or struck down by the court system. You said it was legal. I provided a statute that said otherwise. You provided your untrained, lay-person's opinion. I win. That's how such debates work.
(Would it help you get it if i used smaller words?)
The chances that you are my intellectual equal or superior are, statistically speaking, quite small. And since you don't even understand phrases like "expressly authorized", I doubt that your vocabulary is so great that you're going to stumble onto words that I don't know. But, if you used smaller words, perhaps you would lessen the chances of using words that you did not fully understand.
The cable company can block out the tv signal. If they fail to do so then they have no right to demand payment or damages.
That's just another unsubstantiated claim by you and it runs counter to both the federal law and long-standing legal principles. I am not interested in your legal theories.
The cable company knows exactly what is coming in to your house - as long as it doesn't affect others they have no right to tell you what to do with it, just like the electric company cannot tell you what you can or cannot plug into the outlets in your house.
This whole line of reasoning was shot down with satellite TV. Many satellite TV pirates used to claim that they had a right to use any signal that reached their property. The courts did not agree, nor did the FCC. Besides, while the cable company might know what signals are going down the cable, they also know which ones they have "expressly authorized" you to receive.
You're not - until they ask you to pay for (or take you to court over) a service they gave you for free.
You don't seem to understand the difference between civil suits and criminal trials. The statute that I cited makes it a crime to split off cable signals without paying for them. How would the court trying you for a violation of federal law make the cable company guilty of fraud?
Also, the cable company did not deliver the "service" to your home. They delivered broadband service to you and you stole cable TV by splitting off an additional cable to your television. A "signal" and a "service", as applied to cable TV, are not the same and when you turn the former into the latter without permission, it is theft. It doesn't matter if you steal cable TV by using a splitter to get basic cable or a hacked converter box to get premium channels. Either one is illegal.
I'm not the one whipping out the dictionary
Maybe you should be when you don't even understand the words you are using (i.e., "receiving")
but i doubt that you have anything better to do than argue semantics when you're talking out of your ass on a subject where you have neither experience nor evidence.
I am the one that is well aware of the federal statutes regulating this. I am the one that produced that "evidence" to show that your position was invalid -- a federal statute, in fact. All that you have done is try to impress people with your claimed insider knowledge -- yet you can produce nothing. No precedent. No contradictory law. No ruling. No point of law.
I went one step further. I called the Federal Communications Commission after my last message and was told, in no uncertain terms, that splitting off cable signals from a broadband connection in order to get basic cable at no cost was illegal. If you doubt me, call them yourself.
Want more? Here is a document from the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications & Energy which clearly supports my position and refutes yours.
So I have now provided a clearly worded statute, the FCC's interpretation of the legality of splitting off basic cable from a broadband link, and a document from the state of Massachusetts that explains, in laymen's terms, what I've been trying to tell you all along. All that you have provided is your opinion and (mis)interpretation of the law. If you can't do better than that, let's just drop this now.
Merely citing a statute proves nothing.
In this case, it proves that what you are claiming is legal is not.
The following few lines sum up the whole thing:
(a)(1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.
Sorry that it pisses you off, but that's the law. You cannot legally receive cable TV unless specifically authorized to do so. And "authorized" does not mean that the cable company failed to install a filter in the line. To be "authorized", you need someone in authority giving you written or verbal permission to split off the cable TV signal.
For that matter, anyone with a cable modem and no cable tv service is automatically guilty. They are receiving the signal even if they do nothing with it!
Get a dictionary. "Receive" means: To convert incoming electromagnetic waves into visible or audible signals. Your cable modem is not receiving television programming any more than your lawn furniture is receiving satellite TV. Besides, judges use "judgement." They recognize that the purpose of the statute is to keep people from watching cable TV while not paying for it, not to keep electrons out of your cable modem.
You say it's illegal because this law says so. I tell you that it's legal because of precedent, property law, and anti-fraud statutes.
And unless a judge overturns the federal law that I cited, it will remain illegal. If it had been overturned by precedent, the law would no longer be on the books. That's how laws work.
Fraud? You contracted to get broadband Internet connectivity. You added a splitter and cable to their system to get TV without paying for it. Just how are you being defrauded?
like charging for unsolicited service!
Did they put the splitter into your cable? Did they run the cable to your television? If not, they are not providing you an "unsolicited service." You are stealing the service if you added splitters and/or cables to run the signal to your TV.
That's like claiming that the electric company has provided you with an "unsolicited service" because you split off a power cable (to steal electricity) before it entered your electric meter.
I do know what the cable company i worked for could or could not pursue as cable theft.
I suppose you were in their legal department? Maybe you were the corporate counsel? All you know is what they chose to prosecute.
If you are so damned sure that you are legally within your rights, go to www.cabletheft.com and turn yourself in. Fight the cable company in court and let me know how you do. I have no more time for your semantics games ('it depends on what the meaning of the word "received" is...').
This box would be more comparable to some overpriced kit car that tries to look like a 1932 Ford, rather than an actual 1932 Ford.
It is a "class thing". However, you're the one that doesn't "get it".
Having owned an original Imsai 8080, I "get it" a lot better than you do. The original machine is a classic and there simply aren't enough of them to suit the demand. For someone who wants a classy reproduction that functions, this is hard to beat.
Comparing it to some modern system and belittling its CPU horsepower shows a complete cluelessness.
Age: 83
Bra Size: 38 Long
You're the same kind of idiot that can't figure out why people would pay a lot of money for a 1932 Ford when they could get a brand new Mustang for less money.
It's a class thing. You wouldn't understand.
I'm tired of the self-righteous indignation of cable modem companies and even some of their subscribers regarding bandwidth usage. The cable companies made offers to everyone for "unlimited usage" and "T1 speeds" and "always on" connectivity.
Now that some small percentage of users are actually using the bandwidth that they were sold, the cable companies are demonizing them. They want to charge them extra, calling them "bandwidth hogs" and other such childish names. I don't see the cable companies scrambling to offer lower prices to people who just check e-mail occasionally and maybe move 750K a week through web surfing. I don't see them being called "bandwidth anorexics."
I'd have a lot more sympathy for the cable companies if they had been honest from the beginning, figured out what kind of bandwidth they could support, and spelled that out in the agreements.
They remind me of the airlines. Now the airlines have squeezed the seats so close together that they don't have adequate room for carry-ons, they portray passengers with "oversized" carry-on bags as self-centered buffoons -- despite the fact that many of these "oversized" bags met the airline's size requirements at the time that they were purchased.
I bought a Kenwood KD-SH99 in-dash CD/MP3 player and I love it. I probably have about 80 CD's worth of music (average sampling rate 224kbps) in one of the little half-full zip-shut CD holders. I keep it in the pocket in the driver's door.
If I want to hear local news, traffic, or weather, I have the radio. If I want to just listen to some new music, again, I have the radio.
Satellite radio has zero appeal to me. One of the advantages to going on long drives is that one can listen to local radio stations. It's interesting to hear radio stations in other parts of the country. I don't have any desire to listen to some corporate, coast-to-coast radio station with no local news, traffic, or weather. Let's get real here: $120 per year for 100 radio stations is silly. When those radio stations are are staffed by no-name, second-rate DJs that stick to programming designed to be inoffensive and bland, it's downright absurd.
Take a look at the offerings. See how many of the stations you would listen to. You might be surprised at just how few might play something that you want to hear.
Great! Now I have to go home and find out if the repetitive drivel I downloaded was really Britney Spears' music or if it was something planted there by the record companies...
It needs to have a basic unix shell, and be POSIX compliant.
Unix shell?. Posix compliant? Get real. It's a PDA, not a personal computer. It's something to keep appointments, phone numbers, and addresses in, and, occasionally play chess or some other low CPU load game on. You might have the need for the occasional calculator functionality and you might want to download some unit conversion software into it. But a Unix shell? That's ugly enough under Unix. There's sure no need to put something that heinous on a PDA.
It should play video games at least as well as the original gameboy.
If you think a PDA has to play Gameboy-like games, you aren't old enough for a PDA yet.
I appreciate your efforts to inform and explain, but we are still left with what boils down to this:
If you believe the Bible, then you believe in God. If you are unwilling to take the Bible as fact, then there is not evidence to support the notion of God.
Our faith is founded on facts, which were recorded as any other history is recorded but with far more numerable and trustworthy records.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- and no claim could be more extraordinary that the claim that there is an all-powerful being that can turn people into salt, impregnate virgins, and control the weather over the entire earth.
While I have little doubt about the existence of Jesus Christ, believing in the existence of God takes a great leap of... faith. And that's one I am unwilling to make without extraordinary evidence.
Written histories by ancient peoples are, at best, suspect. What is fact and what is interpretation? What is a first-hand account and what is derived from stories passed down through the generations?
There are a million and seven excuses by Christians about why God is so elusive. "Free will" is so often cited as a reason why God does not intervene to stop genocide, torture, murder, rape, suffering, etc. "The Lord works in mysterious ways" is often heard when horrible tragedies strike good people. Babies are born horribly deformed or with tumors that snuff them out in infancy. Decent people die of colon cancer, AIDS, and Ebola leaving their families grieving.
You would have me believe that there is a God that, through simply willing it, could stop all of this needless suffering. You would have me believe that he loves all of us. Yet he is unwilling to intervene even to when priests are sexually molesting young children? Sorry, but that's just illogical.