You're right -- I had missed the "HD" in "can't believe there are two ESPN HD channels" in your earlier post.
I think the point is that many channels are recording shows in HD as a planning measure. A friend told me that new "Good Eats" eps are taping in high definition -- and there's no Food Network HD channel yet! Because ESPN has two HD channels they'll be able to use them for the times when they're most needed, like March Madness and the various major league playoffs.
There's also a need for that much bandwidth in major sports markets. In New York, for example, I've seen The Weather Channel bumped off the air because Cablevision needed the bandwidth to broadcast six sporting events at once.
When I had Dish Network, I had access to ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes, ESPN Alternate Feed, ESPN2 Alternate Feed, and ESPN-HD. There's also ESPN2-HD but Dish didn't carry it.
The alternate feed channels didn't always broadcast, and ESPN(2)-HD is pretty much the same content as ESPN(2), but that's a lot of sports. I'm not even counting OLN, FSN, or any of the other sports channels.
KDE centralizes these features so you don't have to be in a web browser to use them.
KDE: When you're in any application press ALT+F2, type gg:foo, press ENTER Firefox: Start or switch to Firefox, CTRL+K, type foo, press ENTER -or- Start or switch to Firefox, CTRL+L, type "searchkeyword foo", press ENTER
Of course on the Mac there's LaunchBar and Butler and Qu1K$iLv3r to automate searches as well.
Comcast has an "on demand" feature that lets you stream movies and TV shows (some free, some for $) using just the cable box hooked up to the TV. Do they win?
The New York Times headline: "Amazon Considering Downloads" (emphasis added)
So according to Slashdot's Apple section, Amazon.com is considering starting a service that would compete with a service Apple doesn't offer. All we need is some Google speculation ("Google's Online Movie Service in JavaScript") and we've got a trifecta!
I don't expect Outlook to work with anything other than Outlook, and I don't expect any non-Outlook program to operate well with Outlook. Because of this, Outlook has a reputation* as "the program that is good because everyone uses it."
* Except among geeks, who know it as "EVIL MICRO DOLLAR SIGN OFT DOLLAR SIGN HIT LOL CARET UNDERSCORE CARET"
iCal supports this: there are tons of calendars you can subscribe to on-line. You can also publish a calendar to any WebDAV share. Of course, you have to spend at least $600+mouse+kbd+display+yearly$130upgrade to use iCal, plus $100/year for.Mac or the cost of running your own DAV server.
No, it doesn't. I've invited Outlook users to meetings by sending invites generated from iCal (Mac OS X). The messages show up as totally empty in Outlook or have directions like "Click the link below" that mean nothing to non-iCal-users. Likewise, I've had Outlook users who chose "When sending calendar invites over the Internet, use iCalendar format" send me calendar invites over the intranet and they arrived in TNEF format (winmail.dat). iCal seems to play nice with Evolution and other non-Outlook programs, though.
I've never had to deal with a PA system for any extended length of time; you can accomplish similar things with e-mail or corporate IM if you know everyone's at their desk with their "interrupt me" applications constantly polling for input. At least with a PA system you can wear headphones to drown it out.
I've had my $300 Dell for more than six months now.
With the pages Yahoo, Google, MSN, Slashdot, and CNN.com loaded, the totals are:
IEXPLORE.EXE - 54,380 KB (IE 6 SP2, Google Toolbar) Firefox.exe - 35,304 KB (Firefox 1.0.7, no extensions)
Both have some version of Flash installed. Ad-Aware reports no spyware; my "normal browsing" doesn't take me to sites that install it.
Trivia: After signing in to gmail, Firefox's memory usage grew to 44,220 KB and IE grew to about 64,000 KB, each an increase of 10 MB of memory for one web application. I guess I should have tested with more JavaScripty sites.
I think the poster above you claims he doesn't need to watch TV because he has (big air quotes) "better things to do" with his life than watch CTU get owned because Samwise Gamghee got his ass beat by his sister's crackhead boyfriend and then lost his ID card so the russian guy could get in with it and release the centox gas into the vent system forcing everyone to get into the situation room!! CODE SIX!!
I'd rather have one box than two to receive TV (not counting the TV itself, of course). A CableCARD TiVo would fit the bill nicely. Something just rubs me the wrong way of having the TiVo send a few commands to another box then record a few seconds of "switching channels..." before the program starts. It just strikes me as low-tech like those "VCR wizard" devices that are just timers built in to a remote control: they hit "record" at time 1 and "stop" at time 2.
My parents have a TiVo "hooked up" to a cable box in this way. It didn't take long to set up, but I was disappointed that I couldn't send signals in any more elegant way than an IR blaster.
When you first run IE7, you're asked whether you want to turn the phishing blocker on. If memory serves me correctly the default is "no." I expect that Firefox will follow IE7's lead here lest it be labeled as spyware.
Hopefully the Firefox version will actually work. To test IE7's phishing blocker, I clicked an e-mailed "PayPal" link that went to some Italian ISP. IE7 checked the URL (I have phishing blocker turned on; you're asked if you want it on at first browser-launch) and considered it clean. In fact, I haven't ever tripped IE7's phishing blocker in my (admittedly light) testing.
Analog broadcasts will end in three years' time. That makes TiVo much more annoying because, in the absence of a digital-tuner TiVo unit ("mid-year" according to the article) you have to hook up an IR blaster to simulate a remote to another cable box. That also restricts you to just one tuner and makes setup a royal pain. You also have to buy or lease a digital cable box from your cable provider to get these channels.
Of the total ad proceeds, Google gets a piece and the domain owner gets a piece. You didn't think Google got rich by writing a bunch of checks, did you?
This may be nothing more than Google anti-fanboy-ism, but if Google's making money off a Wikipedia clone (regardless of it's a "source of abuse") why not continue to list it so that you can gain AdSense revenue?
Likewise, if I were to switch my Wikipedia clone sites from Google ads to MSN ads, might I stand a better chance of showing up in MSN search?
Slashdot Mirror
If the most admired company in tech doesn't give a crap about valid HTML (and the second-most-reviled company in tech does*), what does that tell you?
* Microsoft's web site is only HTML 4.01 compliant. However, MSN Search is valid XHTML 1.0 Strict.
You're right -- I had missed the "HD" in "can't believe there are two ESPN HD channels" in your earlier post.
I think the point is that many channels are recording shows in HD as a planning measure. A friend told me that new "Good Eats" eps are taping in high definition -- and there's no Food Network HD channel yet! Because ESPN has two HD channels they'll be able to use them for the times when they're most needed, like March Madness and the various major league playoffs.
There's also a need for that much bandwidth in major sports markets. In New York, for example, I've seen The Weather Channel bumped off the air because Cablevision needed the bandwidth to broadcast six sporting events at once.
Do you have any ideas for improving our country, or would you rather just take potshots at the hoi polloi?
When I had Dish Network, I had access to ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes, ESPN Alternate Feed, ESPN2 Alternate Feed, and ESPN-HD. There's also ESPN2-HD but Dish didn't carry it.
The alternate feed channels didn't always broadcast, and ESPN(2)-HD is pretty much the same content as ESPN(2), but that's a lot of sports. I'm not even counting OLN, FSN, or any of the other sports channels.
Current TV exists, but I have an extra-long attention span* and so I cannot watch a TV network where the average program is 5 minutes long.
* Mitch Hedberg reference
KDE centralizes these features so you don't have to be in a web browser to use them.
KDE: When you're in any application press ALT+F2, type gg:foo, press ENTER
Firefox: Start or switch to Firefox, CTRL+K, type foo, press ENTER -or- Start or switch to Firefox, CTRL+L, type "searchkeyword foo", press ENTER
Of course on the Mac there's LaunchBar and Butler and Qu1K$iLv3r to automate searches as well.
Comcast has an "on demand" feature that lets you stream movies and TV shows (some free, some for $) using just the cable box hooked up to the TV. Do they win?
So according to Slashdot's Apple section, Amazon.com is considering starting a service that would compete with a service Apple doesn't offer. All we need is some Google speculation ("Google's Online Movie Service in JavaScript") and we've got a trifecta!
I don't expect Outlook to work with anything other than Outlook, and I don't expect any non-Outlook program to operate well with Outlook. Because of this, Outlook has a reputation* as "the program that is good because everyone uses it."
* Except among geeks, who know it as "EVIL MICRO DOLLAR SIGN OFT DOLLAR SIGN HIT LOL CARET UNDERSCORE CARET"
iCal supports this: there are tons of calendars you can subscribe to on-line. You can also publish a calendar to any WebDAV share. Of course, you have to spend at least $600+mouse+kbd+display+yearly$130upgrade to use iCal, plus $100/year for .Mac or the cost of running your own DAV server.
No, it doesn't. I've invited Outlook users to meetings by sending invites generated from iCal (Mac OS X). The messages show up as totally empty in Outlook or have directions like "Click the link below" that mean nothing to non-iCal-users. Likewise, I've had Outlook users who chose "When sending calendar invites over the Internet, use iCalendar format" send me calendar invites over the intranet and they arrived in TNEF format (winmail.dat). iCal seems to play nice with Evolution and other non-Outlook programs, though.
Translation: I'm really enjoying this season of 24 with Sean Astin (Samwise from the Lord of the Rings trilogy) as a know-nothing boss.
I've never had to deal with a PA system for any extended length of time; you can accomplish similar things with e-mail or corporate IM if you know everyone's at their desk with their "interrupt me" applications constantly polling for input. At least with a PA system you can wear headphones to drown it out.
I've had my $300 Dell for more than six months now.
With the pages Yahoo, Google, MSN, Slashdot, and CNN.com loaded, the totals are:
IEXPLORE.EXE - 54,380 KB (IE 6 SP2, Google Toolbar)
Firefox.exe - 35,304 KB (Firefox 1.0.7, no extensions)
Both have some version of Flash installed. Ad-Aware reports no spyware; my "normal browsing" doesn't take me to sites that install it.
Trivia: After signing in to gmail, Firefox's memory usage grew to 44,220 KB and IE grew to about 64,000 KB, each an increase of 10 MB of memory for one web application. I guess I should have tested with more JavaScripty sites.
I think the poster above you claims he doesn't need to watch TV because he has (big air quotes) "better things to do" with his life than watch CTU get owned because Samwise Gamghee got his ass beat by his sister's crackhead boyfriend and then lost his ID card so the russian guy could get in with it and release the centox gas into the vent system forcing everyone to get into the situation room!! CODE SIX!!
I'd rather have one box than two to receive TV (not counting the TV itself, of course). A CableCARD TiVo would fit the bill nicely. Something just rubs me the wrong way of having the TiVo send a few commands to another box then record a few seconds of "switching channels..." before the program starts. It just strikes me as low-tech like those "VCR wizard" devices that are just timers built in to a remote control: they hit "record" at time 1 and "stop" at time 2.
My parents have a TiVo "hooked up" to a cable box in this way. It didn't take long to set up, but I was disappointed that I couldn't send signals in any more elegant way than an IR blaster.
When you first run IE7, you're asked whether you want to turn the phishing blocker on. If memory serves me correctly the default is "no." I expect that Firefox will follow IE7's lead here lest it be labeled as spyware.
Hopefully the Firefox version will actually work. To test IE7's phishing blocker, I clicked an e-mailed "PayPal" link that went to some Italian ISP. IE7 checked the URL (I have phishing blocker turned on; you're asked if you want it on at first browser-launch) and considered it clean. In fact, I haven't ever tripped IE7's phishing blocker in my (admittedly light) testing.
I hope it means a TiVo replacement for the godawful Motorola 6412 they lease to me, but it will likely just mean a software update for existing cable boxes that will, among other things, provide Tivo's "advertising capability."
Analog broadcasts will end in three years' time. That makes TiVo much more annoying because, in the absence of a digital-tuner TiVo unit ("mid-year" according to the article) you have to hook up an IR blaster to simulate a remote to another cable box. That also restricts you to just one tuner and makes setup a royal pain. You also have to buy or lease a digital cable box from your cable provider to get these channels.
Of the total ad proceeds, Google gets a piece and the domain owner gets a piece. You didn't think Google got rich by writing a bunch of checks, did you?
Makes sense that you see it on Google, since Google offers a service where you can turn your "parked" domains into bait for unsuspecting web users. Yahoo! doesn't seem to advertise such a service, though...
The frightening thing is that thanks to Bob FM and Jack FM, we actually have automated radio stations with no DJs and pre-programmed chatter.
This may be nothing more than Google anti-fanboy-ism, but if Google's making money off a Wikipedia clone (regardless of it's a "source of abuse") why not continue to list it so that you can gain AdSense revenue?
Likewise, if I were to switch my Wikipedia clone sites from Google ads to MSN ads, might I stand a better chance of showing up in MSN search?
</paranoia>