Aw shucks, you're all such cowards. If I can't see it, feel it, touch it, taste it, hear it -- then golly, it must not exist!
We are not cowards. We are rational, logical, thinking, modern men and women who do not believe in things simply because the beliefs are comforting. Cowards are people who choose to believe in religion rather than accepting responsibility for their own lives and their own mortality.
Maybe the overwhelming odds against life ever happening in the first place!
And what celestial bookie did you consult that gave you the "odds"? Scientists are not astounded by life existing. In fact, many of them think that it will be found throughout the universe. Neither do they have to concoct a diety every time they can't explain something.
Read what I wrote before you criticize me. I never said that there was no one named Jesus or that he was not a powerful person. But, historical evidence of Jesus's existence does not, in any way, shape, or form, provide proof, or even evidence, of the existence of a God.
If tubes & FETs work on the same amplification principle -- voltage in begets current out (transconductance)-- why not use efficient, low-cost FETs?
Many people do use FETS, MOSFETS usually, for just that reason. The MOSFET, as a direct-coupled output stage, does not exhibit the soft clipping of a tube amp's transformer output.
You also get into the concept of "euphonic distortion" -- distortion that people like. For instance, the tight bass associated with a high damping factor, direct-coupled output actually does not sound as good to some people as the looser bass from a transformer output.
what a pointless game that is. Unless anyone comes up with evidence, why give their fairy stories the benefit of the doubt? Even saying "I don't not believe that" gives this rubbish too much intellectual respect.
Well done!
As Isaac Asimov said:
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
People act like the concept of God somehow requires one step more lightly, and less logically. How many people would say "I will neither believe, nor disbelieve, that there is an Easter Bunny until someone offers proof one way or the other"? Christians are quick to dismiss Norse gods, Roman gods, Mayan gods, Greek gods, and the gods of ancient Egypt (to name but a few examples). Yet there is no more evidence of the existence of the Christian God than their is for the existence of these other gods.
I am a modern man with logic and reasoning. I do not believe in all-powerful, invisible beings that turn people can be turned to pillers of salt, that someone put two of every animal on earth into a boat, or that someone parted the sea just because ancient people wrote down those claims 2,000 years ago.
It's their system until it enters my house. Once it's inside, i can do whatever i want with it.
No you can't.
That would be theft, but they have no more right to tell you what to do with the coaxial cables inside your house...
Yes they do. It's been decided in multiple court cases.
Tinkering with the wiring in my house is my right, so long as it does not endanger others. My house, my wiring, my splitter, my tv, my right. This has been established by precedent and is a trivial conclusion in our system of property law.
Again, untrue.
I'm tired of dealing with this made-up bullshit. Here's a copy of the law:
SECTION 633 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED (47 U.S.C. 553) (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. (2) For the purpose of this section, the term "assist in intercepting or receiving" shall include the manufacture or distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case may be) for unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable system in violation of subparagraph (1). (b)(1) Any person who willfully violates subsection (a)(1) shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both. (2) Any person who violates subsection (a)(1) willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for any subsequent offense. (3) For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of subsection (a)(1), the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate violation. (c)(1) Any person aggrieved by any violation of subsection (a)(1) may bring a civil action in a United States district court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The court may -- (A) grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain violations of subsection (a)(1); (B) award damages as described in paragraph (3); and (C) direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to an aggrieved party who prevails. (3)(A) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be computed in accordance with either of the following clauses: (i) the party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered by him as a result of the violation and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation which are not taken into account in computing the actual damages; in determining the violator's profits, the party aggrieved shall be required to prove only the violator's gross revenue, and the violator shall be required to prove his deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the violation; or (ii) the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for all violations involved in the action, in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court considers just. (B) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory under subparagraph (A), by an amount of not more than $50,000. (C) In any case where the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than $100. (D) Nothing in this title shall prevent any State or franchising authority from enacting or enforcing laws, consistent with this section, regarding the unauthorized interception or reception of any cable service or other communications service.
People want to pay for watching movies online with something like Film88. The problem is that the MPAA does not want the money.
No, the MPAA would rather sell you a DVD for $20 that you will watch twice than to let you watch a streamed film from Film88 for $1.
Sorry, I just find little reason for moral outrage of "piracy" of material the copyright holders refuse to sell in the first place. Certainly no financial loss is incurring; hell they don't even want the money.
The copyright holders are selling the films on DVD, VHS, and per-viewing in movie theaters. Did you ever consider that the motion picture studios have a relationship with theater owners, Best Buy, and Walmart (among thousands of others) and that they may not want to stream movies to your house?
All of that aside, you don't own the copyright to the movies. It's not your place to decide how they are distributed. If a director decides that streaming video does not do justice to his work, then he has a right to put a clause in his contract prohibiting its distribution via streaming video. If a studio wants to keep a film out of distribution so that they can build up demand for the upcoming DVD, that's their choice. It's not yours.
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2
By this logic, if I had cable and wanted to connect multiple TV's to it, I would be stealing service. Some cable companies actually believe this and charge you for every outlet. I just don't happen to buy into it.
It's their service. They get to decide how it is priced. If they decide on a per-TV price and you don't like it, get out the rabbit-ears or subscribe to satellite.
Let's change "cable TV" to "computer software" and see how your summary works:
"By this logic, if I had a single license to software and installed it on multiple computers, I would be pirating. Some computer software companies actually believe this and charge you for every computer. I just don't happen to buy into it."
Legally and ethically, you have no obligation to not hook up your tv if you subscribe only to cable modem service.
It's their cable system and you don't have a legal right to add splitters and cables to it so that you can get TV signals that you don't pay for.
If a con man sends me an unsolicited product i am not required to pay for it or give it back. This is the same thing.
No it is not. The cable company did not send you an unsolicited product. You tapped into their cable and stole it.
You asked for cable modem service and got cable tv service delivered on top of it.
When the cable guy left after installing your cable modem, did you magically have basic cable on your TV? No. You hooked up additional splitters and/or cables in order to steal the signal.
The signal is already coming to your house, so it is essentially wasted if it does not go to your tv. If you are paying for everything you asked for and are not depriving anyone else of service, or quality of service, where's the ethical problem?
Ethical and legal problems are different. Legally, it is theft. Ask any competent attorney and he'll verify that. Ethically, you have to ask yourself a question: If you could not get basic cable that way, would you:
a. pay for it. b. pay for satellite. c. buy an antenna.
If you answered yes to any of the above, your theft of the cable service is depriving someone of income. To me, that's an ethical problem.
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2
If you didn't pay for it, they shouldn't give it to you for free.
They didn't "give it to you for free." They may have underestimated your willingness to steal the signal, but they did not "give" you the signal. Did they run a cable to your TV? Did they say "feel free to hook up a cable and enjoy basic cable channels for free"? If not, they didn't give you anything.
They can easily stop people from receiving the free channels by filtering it out.
So now they are supposed to buy filters, pay someone to install them all over your service area, and reduce the overall system reliability by adding these filters and increasing the number of connections(all of which are potential failure points), and pass the costs on to all of their honest customers who are paying for the service. Otherwise, you're going to steal it.
Face facts: If you pay for cable modem service and start adding splitters and/or cables to run to your TV, you are stealing the service. You physically added something to their cable system so that you could get a service that you did not pay for. End of story.
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2
Everybody I know displays disrespect for at least one or two laws (or did in the past) - speeding, cheating on taxes and smoking weed being probably the most common and I'll say this: I find it quite doubtful that "pirating" cable kills anyone, while there's absolutely no question whatsoever that speeding does. So lighten up, buddy
I'm not your "buddy" so don't tell me to "lighten up."
It wouldn't "kill" you if someone stole your car, but that doesn't mean that we should all just turn a blind eye to it. On the other hand, maybe we should...
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2
Splicing cable costs the cable company nothing. The reports claiming that the industry loses $6.2 billion per year assume that every single casual pirate would've been a full, $500-per-year customer had he not stumbled across the free signal coming into his house. Fat chance.
I agree that the numbers are grossly inflated, but to pretend that none of these people would have become customers is equally fallacious reasoning. Some people are stealing basic cable in lieu of paying for it. So it is costing the cable industry something. Is it costing them $6.2 billion per year in lost sales? Probably not. But neither is it costing them nothing.
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2
splitting your cable also allows you to watch tv in different rooms, why should you only be able to watch tv in your living room?
The article was about paying for cable modem service and splitting off basic cable television service that you never paid for.
suckass writes: "Apparently if you've got a cable broadband connection from AT&T you can get free basic cable just by splitting the line that goes into your cable modem. News.com has a story about it here."
I stand corrected regarding the dual-triodes. It's been a long time since I dabbled with tubes and was thinking of power output tubes rather than line-level stuff.
The comment about not having a transformer is well-taken and was one of my reasons for being so critical. One of the selling points of "tube" sound is the soft clipping from the output transformer. On a transformerless design, you obviously lose those advantages.
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2
What about me? I pay almost $100 a month (was ~$200 but cut some stuff back), I feel perfectly justified splitting the line and getting another expanded basic line feed.
I didn't say that you would not feel justified in doing it. I simply said it was illegal.
I might feel justified pirating Windows XP because the copy of Windows 95 I purchased did not perform as advertised, but my feeling justified would not make it legal.
Tubes tend to produce even-order harmonics when they distort. Transistors (except MOSFETS -- others?) produce odd-order harmonics. Of the two, odd-order harmonics are much more annoying from a psycho-acoustic standpoint and lead to what many describe as a "harsh" sound. Tubes also have the advantage of not clipping hard (producing a DC output) because they have to run through transformers to drive speakers and, as we all know, transformers don't pass DC.
That's a gross oversimplification that leaves out much that I know, some that I think I know but don't really, and stuff other people actually know that I don't know at all. But that's the gist of it.
Is it of any use on a motherboard? Sure. It's great gimmick to sell to idiots. So how do they get stereo out of a single tube? It looks too small to be the two-tubes-in-one variety.
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2
My philosophy, which is probaly legally wrong, is that if they give me cable, I am going to hook it up.
It is illegal. Sorry.
But I think that you'll like satellite better. I could add basic cable to my broadband connection for $3 more. I am not going to waste $36 per year for substandard picture, sound, and reliability.
Re:Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter.
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2
Don't be ridiculous.
I'm being perfectly logical. If you did not pay for cable television and you installed additional cable and/or hardware to get it to your TV, it's theft.
Slashdot: News for thieves. Like ethics matter...
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The double standards on Slashdot are amazing. What's next? An article on how easy it is to shoplift at convenience stores while they take deliveries?
This is not news. I always assumed that I'd be able to steal basic cable from my provider (Cox Communications) by simply hooking into the splitter on my outside wall. But I don't pay for basic cable so I did not do it.
To people in the software industry who are stealing cable: don't get mad if you find out that the cable guy is pirating the software that your company sells.
I don't want data created at taxypayer expense to be stored in your proprietary format.
What happens when you are no longer there to support the program and adapt it to new hardware and operating systems?
What happens if, in ten years, you decide that you'd rather license your software for $10,000 per year rather than $50? The government will either have to pay it or lose access to the data that the taxpayers paid for the creation of.
I think that you should be able to store data in any format that you choose, but I don't think that the government should license your software unless it stores data in an open format that encourages competition and interoperability.
The idea here is that we do not want to dictate the software used, but we want to ensure that whatever software is used, OTHER software is free to interoperate with it, including open source software. By levelling the playing field through open file formats, open source software would actually be able to compete without all the belly aching you hear about "not being able to read and write Office formats" and the such.
Bravo. Your summary of my implied position was excellent.
And I will add one more thought:
By requiring open file formats, our government would be much less likely to find itself with files that are unreadable in ten years.
The question is not when a proprietary file format should be made public domain. The question we should be asking is whether our tax dollars should be spent on software that produces proprietary format files.
I think that the U.S. government should phase out all proprietary format software purchasing, forcing vendors to make the file formats open standards if they want to do business with the U.S. government.
While I am not opposed to government legislating business behavior, I would prefer that the free market be allowed to work so long as the consumer will not suffer for it.
It is not in Microsoft's interest to change to open source. They have a tremendously successful business model making them one of the richest companies in the world. They are the sole-source supplier for the most popular computer software in the world. There is no rational reason for them to switch to selling and/or supporting open-source software.
Sure, we can all bitch about Microsoft products' security holes. We can gripe about performance and architectural issues. And many of those complaints are valid ones, but Microsoft is not in business to produces the most secure, high-performance, well-designed software in the world. Microsoft is in business to make money -- which they do very well.
The only rational points to argue are:
1. Microsoft's continued attacks on the open source movement are damaging their credibility and hurting their customers, many of whom want to integrate open source products into their Microsoft networks.
2. Microsoft's data storage and transmission formats should be opened up to allow value-added third-party vendors to produce products that use and manipulate the data. All that leaving the formats closed accomplishes is a delay while third-parties reverse engineer them.
3. Continued battles with the open source community are going to result in more public outcry for anti-trust action.
4. Microsoft has a PR problem right now due to their insistence on software audits at cash-strapped school systems, security holes, the Justice Department case against them, etc. Extending an olive branch to the open source movement might help reduce that PR problem.
Above all, remember that Microsoft is a for-profit business. They aren't going to get teary-eyed when you tell them about the comaraderie and inspiration that you feel when working on open-source products. They don't want to be part of some big, happy family. They want to rule the world.
Using your logic attempted murder is the same thing as sending commercial email.
Using an analogy is not the same as saying that two things are of equal magnitude.
That said, the analogy stands. Blaming the mailbox, whether physical or electronic, for the contents someone puts into it is absurd. The only real flaw in the analogy is that the Anthrax tainted letters were delivered at the sender's expense while the recipients bear the brunt of the cost of spam.
Slashdot Mirror
Aw shucks, you're all such cowards. If I can't see it, feel it, touch it, taste it, hear it -- then golly, it must not exist!
We are not cowards. We are rational, logical, thinking, modern men and women who do not believe in things simply because the beliefs are comforting. Cowards are people who choose to believe in religion rather than accepting responsibility for their own lives and their own mortality.
Maybe the overwhelming odds against life ever happening in the first place!
And what celestial bookie did you consult that gave you the "odds"? Scientists are not astounded by life existing. In fact, many of them think that it will be found throughout the universe. Neither do they have to concoct a diety every time they can't explain something.
Do some research before you discredit me.
Read what I wrote before you criticize me. I never said that there was no one named Jesus or that he was not a powerful person. But, historical evidence of Jesus's existence does not, in any way, shape, or form, provide proof, or even evidence, of the existence of a God.
If tubes & FETs work on the same amplification principle -- voltage in begets current out (transconductance)--
why not use efficient, low-cost FETs?
Many people do use FETS, MOSFETS usually, for just that reason. The MOSFET, as a direct-coupled output stage, does not exhibit the soft clipping of a tube amp's transformer output.
You also get into the concept of "euphonic distortion" -- distortion that people like. For instance, the tight bass associated with a high damping factor, direct-coupled output actually does not sound as good to some people as the looser bass from a transformer output.
The above just a few examples.
Well done!
As Isaac Asimov said:
People act like the concept of God somehow requires one step more lightly, and less logically. How many people would say "I will neither believe, nor disbelieve, that there is an Easter Bunny until someone offers proof one way or the other"? Christians are quick to dismiss Norse gods, Roman gods, Mayan gods, Greek gods, and the gods of ancient Egypt (to name but a few examples). Yet there is no more evidence of the existence of the Christian God than their is for the existence of these other gods.
I am a modern man with logic and reasoning. I do not believe in all-powerful, invisible beings that turn people can be turned to pillers of salt, that someone put two of every animal on earth into a boat, or that someone parted the sea just because ancient people wrote down those claims 2,000 years ago.
It's their system until it enters my house. Once it's inside, i can do whatever i want with it.
No you can't.
That would be theft, but they have no more right to tell you what to do with the coaxial cables inside your house...
Yes they do. It's been decided in multiple court cases.
Tinkering with the wiring in my house is my right, so long as it does not endanger others. My house, my wiring, my splitter, my tv, my right. This has been established by precedent and is a trivial conclusion in our system of property law.
Again, untrue.
I'm tired of dealing with this made-up bullshit. Here's a copy of the law:
SECTION 633 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED (47 U.S.C. 553)
(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.
(2) For the purpose of this section, the term "assist in intercepting or receiving" shall include the
manufacture or distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case may be)
for unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable system in violation of
subparagraph (1).
(b)(1) Any person who willfully violates subsection (a)(1) shall be fined not more than $1,000 or
imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.
(2) Any person who violates subsection (a)(1) willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage
or private financial gain shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or
both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than
5 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.
(3) For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of subsection (a)(1), the
prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate
violation.
(c)(1) Any person aggrieved by any violation of subsection (a)(1) may bring a civil action in a
United States district court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The court may --
(A) grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to
prevent or restrain violations of subsection (a)(1);
(B) award damages as described in paragraph (3); and
(C) direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to an
aggrieved party who prevails.
(3)(A) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be computed in
accordance with either of the following clauses:
(i) the party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered by him as a result of the
violation and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation which are not taken into
account in computing the actual damages; in determining the violator's profits, the party
aggrieved shall be required to prove only the violator's gross revenue, and the violator shall be
required to prove his deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other
than the violation; or
(ii) the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for all violations
involved in the action, in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court considers
just.
(B) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes
of commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of
damages, whether actual or statutory under subparagraph (A), by an amount of not more than $50,000.
(C) In any case where the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to
believe that his acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award
of damages to a sum of not less than $100.
(D) Nothing in this title shall prevent any State or franchising authority from enacting or enforcing
laws, consistent with this section, regarding the unauthorized interception or reception of any cable
service or other communications service.
People want to pay for watching movies online with something like Film88. The problem is that the MPAA does not want the money.
No, the MPAA would rather sell you a DVD for $20 that you will watch twice than to let you watch a streamed film from Film88 for $1.
Sorry, I just find little reason for moral outrage of "piracy" of material the copyright holders refuse to sell in the first place. Certainly no financial loss is incurring; hell they don't even want the money.
The copyright holders are selling the films on DVD, VHS, and per-viewing in movie theaters. Did you ever consider that the motion picture studios have a relationship with theater owners, Best Buy, and Walmart (among thousands of others) and that they may not want to stream movies to your house?
All of that aside, you don't own the copyright to the movies. It's not your place to decide how they are distributed. If a director decides that streaming video does not do justice to his work, then he has a right to put a clause in his contract prohibiting its distribution via streaming video. If a studio wants to keep a film out of distribution so that they can build up demand for the upcoming DVD, that's their choice. It's not yours.
It's their service. They get to decide how it is priced. If they decide on a per-TV price and you don't like it, get out the rabbit-ears or subscribe to satellite.
Let's change "cable TV" to "computer software" and see how your summary works:
So how is that analogy flawed?
Legally and ethically, you have no obligation to not hook up your tv if you subscribe only to cable modem service.
It's their cable system and you don't have a legal right to add splitters and cables to it so that you can get TV signals that you don't pay for.
If a con man sends me an unsolicited product i am not required to pay for it or give it back. This is the same thing.
No it is not. The cable company did not send you an unsolicited product. You tapped into their cable and stole it.
You asked for cable modem service and got cable tv service delivered on top of it.
When the cable guy left after installing your cable modem, did you magically have basic cable on your TV? No. You hooked up additional splitters and/or cables in order to steal the signal.
The signal is already coming to your house, so it is essentially wasted if it does not go to your tv. If you are paying for everything you asked for and are not depriving anyone else of service, or quality of service, where's the ethical problem?
Ethical and legal problems are different. Legally, it is theft. Ask any competent attorney and he'll verify that. Ethically, you have to ask yourself a question: If you could not get basic cable that way, would you:
a. pay for it.
b. pay for satellite.
c. buy an antenna.
If you answered yes to any of the above, your theft of the cable service is depriving someone of income. To me, that's an ethical problem.
If you didn't pay for it, they shouldn't give it to you for free.
They didn't "give it to you for free." They may have underestimated your willingness to steal the signal, but they did not "give" you the signal. Did they run a cable to your TV? Did they say "feel free to hook up a cable and enjoy basic cable channels for free"? If not, they didn't give you anything.
They can easily stop people from receiving the free channels by filtering it out.
So now they are supposed to buy filters, pay someone to install them all over your service area, and reduce the overall system reliability by adding these filters and increasing the number of connections(all of which are potential failure points), and pass the costs on to all of their honest customers who are paying for the service. Otherwise, you're going to steal it.
Face facts: If you pay for cable modem service and start adding splitters and/or cables to run to your TV, you are stealing the service. You physically added something to their cable system so that you could get a service that you did not pay for. End of story.
Everybody I know displays disrespect for at least one or two laws (or did in the past) - speeding, cheating on taxes and smoking weed being probably the most common and I'll say this: I find it quite doubtful that "pirating" cable kills anyone, while there's absolutely no question whatsoever that speeding does. So lighten up, buddy
I'm not your "buddy" so don't tell me to "lighten up."
It wouldn't "kill" you if someone stole your car, but that doesn't mean that we should all just turn a blind eye to it. On the other hand, maybe we should...
Splicing cable costs the cable company nothing. The reports claiming that the industry loses $6.2 billion per year assume that every single casual pirate would've been a full, $500-per-year customer had he not stumbled across the free signal coming into his house. Fat chance.
I agree that the numbers are grossly inflated, but to pretend that none of these people would have become customers is equally fallacious reasoning. Some people are stealing basic cable in lieu of paying for it. So it is costing the cable industry something. Is it costing them $6.2 billion per year in lost sales? Probably not. But neither is it costing them nothing.
The article was about paying for cable modem service and splitting off basic cable television service that you never paid for.
I stand corrected regarding the dual-triodes. It's been a long time since I dabbled with tubes and was thinking of power output tubes rather than line-level stuff.
The comment about not having a transformer is well-taken and was one of my reasons for being so critical. One of the selling points of "tube" sound is the soft clipping from the output transformer. On a transformerless design, you obviously lose those advantages.
What about me? I pay almost $100 a month (was ~$200 but cut some stuff back), I feel perfectly justified splitting the line and getting another expanded basic line feed.
I didn't say that you would not feel justified in doing it. I simply said it was illegal.
I might feel justified pirating Windows XP because the copy of Windows 95 I purchased did not perform as advertised, but my feeling justified would not make it legal.
Tubes tend to produce even-order harmonics when they distort. Transistors (except MOSFETS -- others?) produce odd-order harmonics. Of the two, odd-order harmonics are much more annoying from a psycho-acoustic standpoint and lead to what many describe as a "harsh" sound. Tubes also have the advantage of not clipping hard (producing a DC output) because they have to run through transformers to drive speakers and, as we all know, transformers don't pass DC.
That's a gross oversimplification that leaves out much that I know, some that I think I know but don't really, and stuff other people actually know that I don't know at all. But that's the gist of it.
Is it of any use on a motherboard? Sure. It's great gimmick to sell to idiots. So how do they get stereo out of a single tube? It looks too small to be the two-tubes-in-one variety.
My philosophy, which is probaly legally wrong, is that if they give me cable, I am going to hook it up.
It is illegal. Sorry.
But I think that you'll like satellite better. I could add basic cable to my broadband connection for $3 more. I am not going to waste $36 per year for substandard picture, sound, and reliability.
Don't be ridiculous.
I'm being perfectly logical. If you did not pay for cable television and you installed additional cable and/or hardware to get it to your TV, it's theft.
The double standards on Slashdot are amazing. What's next? An article on how easy it is to shoplift at convenience stores while they take deliveries?
This is not news. I always assumed that I'd be able to steal basic cable from my provider (Cox Communications) by simply hooking into the splitter on my outside wall. But I don't pay for basic cable so I did not do it.
To people in the software industry who are stealing cable: don't get mad if you find out that the cable guy is pirating the software that your company sells.
I don't want data created at taxypayer expense to be stored in your proprietary format.
What happens when you are no longer there to support the program and adapt it to new hardware and operating systems?
What happens if, in ten years, you decide that you'd rather license your software for $10,000 per year rather than $50? The government will either have to pay it or lose access to the data that the taxpayers paid for the creation of.
I think that you should be able to store data in any format that you choose, but I don't think that the government should license your software unless it stores data in an open format that encourages competition and interoperability.
The idea here is that we do not want to dictate the software used, but we want to ensure that whatever software is used, OTHER software is free to interoperate with it, including open source software. By levelling the playing field through open file formats, open source software would actually be able to compete without all the belly aching you hear about "not being able to read and write Office formats" and the such.
Bravo. Your summary of my implied position was excellent.
And I will add one more thought:
By requiring open file formats, our government would be much less likely to find itself with files that are unreadable in ten years.
Actually, the question was:
When Should File Formats Be Placed in the Public Domain?
And then I redefined the question into something more meaningful.
The question is not when a proprietary file format should be made public domain. The question we should be asking is whether our tax dollars should be spent on software that produces proprietary format files.
I think that the U.S. government should phase out all proprietary format software purchasing, forcing vendors to make the file formats open standards if they want to do business with the U.S. government.
While I am not opposed to government legislating business behavior, I would prefer that the free market be allowed to work so long as the consumer will not suffer for it.
It is not in Microsoft's interest to change to open source. They have a tremendously successful business model making them one of the richest companies in the world. They are the sole-source supplier for the most popular computer software in the world. There is no rational reason for them to switch to selling and/or supporting open-source software.
Sure, we can all bitch about Microsoft products' security holes. We can gripe about performance and architectural issues. And many of those complaints are valid ones, but Microsoft is not in business to produces the most secure, high-performance, well-designed software in the world. Microsoft is in business to make money -- which they do very well.
The only rational points to argue are:
1. Microsoft's continued attacks on the open source movement are damaging their credibility and hurting their customers, many of whom want to integrate open source products into their Microsoft networks.
2. Microsoft's data storage and transmission formats should be opened up to allow value-added third-party vendors to produce products that use and manipulate the data. All that leaving the formats closed accomplishes is a delay while third-parties reverse engineer them.
3. Continued battles with the open source community are going to result in more public outcry for anti-trust action.
4. Microsoft has a PR problem right now due to their insistence on software audits at cash-strapped school systems, security holes, the Justice Department case against them, etc. Extending an olive branch to the open source movement might help reduce that PR problem.
Above all, remember that Microsoft is a for-profit business. They aren't going to get teary-eyed when you tell them about the comaraderie and inspiration that you feel when working on open-source products. They don't want to be part of some big, happy family. They want to rule the world.
Using your logic attempted murder is the same thing as sending commercial email.
Using an analogy is not the same as saying that two things are of equal magnitude.
That said, the analogy stands. Blaming the mailbox, whether physical or electronic, for the contents someone puts into it is absurd. The only real flaw in the analogy is that the Anthrax tainted letters were delivered at the sender's expense while the recipients bear the brunt of the cost of spam.
By setting up a mail server to accept random ads, you're taking the risk that someone might send them to you.
I did not set it up to accept random ads. I set it up to accept e-mail sent to me.
Using your logic, everyone who received letters with Anthrax should blame themselves because their mailboxes accepted the Anthrax-tainted letters.