I seem to recall at least one segment from the 24hr talking head networks, which had plastered VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CONNECTED TO SHOOTING on their screen while showing the reporter rather sheepishly explaining that there was no evidence that the guy played video games of any sort, much less violent ones. I'm guessing that segment was yanked from the rotation pretty quickly;-)
Anyways, since when is the media interested in, you know, FACTS? How many times have we seen one network get an "expert" on their segment who makes a speculative comment, which is then twisted and taken out of context by another network who reports it as an official rumor, which then leads to yet another network kicking off a story with "Network XYZ is reporting that..." restating the rumor as if it's practically a substantiated fact?
Two examples that spring to mind immediately are the Duke Lacrosse Team rape case, the missing girl from the Caribbean, and that case about the missing intern connected with that Californian politician. In all cases, the media literally tried the cases on the air, based on nothing but speculation, innuendo, and twisted comments by expert guests...or should we just call them expert witnesses now? After all, that screeching b*tch on CNN seems all to eager to act as judge, jury and executioner - even when presented with hard cold facts to the contrary...
Yes, yes, yes. Microsoft making DX10 a "Vista only" feature was clearly an effort to get folks to upgrade to Vista sooner rather than later. No one was ever fooled by Microsoft's claims about how DX10 could only be implemented with Vista's "advanced" architecture...
Unfortunately, it hasn't been working out too well for Microsoft. Between the horrible driver support, expensive hardware requirements, and the general incompatibility issues you expect whenever upgrading to a major new OS, Vista has been mostly a bust for gamers (and even general users.) Furthermore, this doesn't even include the normal warnings about buying version 1.0 of ANYTHING for your PC - much less anything from Microsoft that hasn't had at least 2 SPs released for it, much less waiting for a major refresh, like Win95b.
Then there's the whole DX10.1 debacle, which promises to make all existing "DX10" video cards obsolete before they've even gotten proper support. Whee! Microsoft sure loves them some gamers!
Most gamers I know are putting off the upgrade to Vista for as long as possible - Microsoft's profits be darned. XP ain't broke, so why "fix" it with Vista which so far has proven to be more a step backwards than anything else?
In my opinion, Microsoft wants to KILL PC gaming - and is using Vista and DX10 to do it. Think about it. How much does Microsoft make off every sale of a non-Microsoft PC game? Exactly $0. All those copies of HalfLife2 - $0. WoW - $0. Civ, BioShock, Sims - $0, $0, and $0. Sure, they make money on the sale of Vista, but that's what, one sale per gamer until Vista's replacement comes out 4-5 years later? Meanwhile, over on Microsoft's XBox side, EVERY copy of EVERY game sold results in a paycheck of $5-10 in licensing fees. This includes not just the games you see in stores, but also the titles you can download off Xbox Live Arcade. There's also the money Microsoft makes from selling Xbox SDKs to the developers - since they have no choice BUT to buy it - unlike on the PC where Microsoft has much less control on what software is used. Furthermore, the console market is exponentially larger than the PC gaming market - and has been for years. Microsoft even makes money from online play on the console with its Xbox Live service - which is yet another area they're making exactly $0 off of PC gamers.
Yes, I know about the series 3. I also know the series 3 is $300, and that Comcast doesn't support cablecard (how nice of them!)
So I'll still have to get Comcast's cable box, Comcast's digital cable, and now I'm spending $100/mo. just for programming. And don't forget about the Tivo service fee...
Oh, and since I already have the cable box, why not get DVR for just $10/mo more - that's about the same amount Tivo's 3 year service program costs.
What about satellite? Well, DirecTivo is a thing of the past - otherwise I'd have gone with DirecTV in a heartbeat. Dish has an offer for new customers that essentially gives you a free dual HD tuner DVR.
Seriously, my wife and I love our (series 1, hacked) Tivo, and were trying to find a way to keep a Tivo in our lives as we transitioned to HD, but with the current mess that things are in now, it's actually cheaper to just take the set-top DVR, bugs and all, from the local provider rather than end up spending an additional $300 + $9.95/mo for Tivo.
In 18 months, our contract with Dish expires, and we'll be free to re-evaluate our options at that time. May the best company win.
Yes, yes, but there's also a "360 Core" SKU which doesn't include a HDD at all.
This was solely created as a side-effect of Microsoft thinking that the PS3 was going to originally cost about $400. This way, Microsoft could point to the stupid Core unit and truthfully say "the 360 is cheaper."
And despite the appearance of the Elite, the Core is still going to be sold for the foreseeable future.
This isn't the first time Sony has talked about something like this. I remember them talking about a DVR for the PS2 as well. In fact, wasn't that what the short-lived "PSX" was? (yes, there was a real product called "PSX" - and it didn't refer to the PS1 prototype.)
However, with set-top boxes required to decrypt non-OTA HD channels, or even use a satellite dish, and the providers now also offer a built-in DVR for only a little more than their non-HD, non-DVR box, is there really a market for this?
As much as I love my old Tivo, I saw its usefulness coming to an end as more and more stations started moving to HD, which in turn would force us to get a set-top-box from whoever our provider would be at that time.
There's also the problem of cost. Even if the PS3 drops to $400 by next year, I can't see this tuner+DVR package costing less than $100. So you're talking $500 for a 80GB DVR/blu-ray player/game console. This also assumes there no additional service fees for the guide data.
I just don't see the justification here. I can't see the DVR functionality being totally independent here - especially if the DVR uses the PS3's existing HDD. So, while you might be able to watch a blu-ray movie while the DVR does its thing, you probably won't be able to play a game - and if that's the case, why bother with this at all? The original reason I bought my Tivo back in 2001 was so that I could play games and NOT have to worry about missing TV shows. It worked out pretty well. I could game whenever I wanted, then I'd watch The Daily Show while I ate dinner.
The other concern I have is that the PS3 isn't exactly a lightweight when it comes to power consumption. DVRs are active 24/7. (although in its defense, I really don't know how much power my HD satellite receiver/DVR eats up either...)
What if..? What if...? What if..? You're exactly the reason why we asinine rules like no liquids allowed on planes.
Sure, it COULD be possible to do what you're talking about, but the chances are so slim as to be non-existent. At this rate, we should be worrying about the terrorists building a weather machine, death ray, and nuclear powered giant robot. Hey - it's possible, right? So let's worry about it even as improbable it may be!
Even then, if the airports are checking for explosives like they're supposed to be doing in the first place (instead of making us take off our shoes and toss out our water) there's a good chance that the kid and/or the wacky adult accompanying him wouldn't make it through security anyways.
And none of this addresses the other problems that the TSA is facing now in the form of horrible track records at finding so-called "forbidden" objects - even when tested by other TSA members!
How about being honest with the public, instead of making them toss out their Starbucks and stand around barefoot all in the name of false security?
Taking off your shoes only makes sense if they set off the metal detectors. My sneakers don't contain any metal tacks, but the lady's high heels behind me probably do.
If there is a real threat about liquid-based explosives or some other threat, come up with a better way to screen for it - don't just make everyone toss out their water/coffee/etc. Either it's a threat, or it isn't. If it's not a threat, don't make me throw it out. If it IS a threat, don't let me just toss it out and continue onto my plane with no repercussions!
Again - FALSE SECURITY IS WORSE THAN NO SECURITY. If the TSA is incapable of providing security, they should just go away. More risk? Sure. But at least you KNOW there is a risk - as opposed to assuming that nice people at the TSA will make it ALLLLLL better.
I thought they had something that could do chemical analysis? I've had my carry-on and laptop rubbed down with a piece of paper which was then stuck into a device that would then detect the presence of certain (bomb related) chemicals.
Now, the problem with this is that you'd have to sample EVERYTHING that could potentially be an explosive. Think of all the water, coffee, lipstick, cosmetics, shampoo, lotions, etc. that would have to be screened. It'd be a nightmare.
Although, I would think a comprehensive wipedown with that paper over the containers, your hands, and your bag would probably be sufficient enough... True, it would add an extra step to the security process, but at least this one would actually accomplish something.
Agreed, however, it's been proven again and again that the TSA isn't guaranteeing greater security - only greater aggravation and inconvenience.
After watching the TSA man-handle a "dangerous" looking 80 year old woman out of her wheelchair and into the bomb sniffing cabinet, there is no security being provided here. The whole 3oz. of liquid thing is not designed to increase or provide security either. Think about it - hundreds of "suspected" bombs, all sitting in a plastic garbage bin right next to the checkpoint where 100s of people are present at all times - yeah, THAT'S secure!
At best, they hope to provide an ILLUSION of security - and that's worse than having no security at all.
Our idiotic government talks about not letting the terrorists win - but frankly, they're nothing compared to the keep-us-scared-and-stupid policies the government comes up with. At this rate the terrorists need never do anything again - we're fear-mongering ourselves out of existence!
See, if more TSA folk were this thoughtful, it wouldn't be nearly so bad.
On the other hand, I've watched a gang of TSA folk nearly pull an 80 year old woman out of her wheelchair and demand she stand so they could pat her down. All the while her adult daughter was pleading with the agents not to do this because her mother was unable to stand unassisted and that a fall would severely injure her. As I left the security checkpoint, the gang managed to get the elderly woman into the bomb-sniffing cabinet, but then couldn't figure out how to open the door again... The poor woman's daughter was nearly hysterical at this point.
But this just opens the door to real, more devastating attacks:
step 1: Terrorist #1 goes through checkpoint, politely pitches his leaky "water bottle" into trashbin, boards plane, leaves airport.
step 2: Terrorist #2 goes through checkpoint, politely pitches his leaky "water bottle" into the same trashbin, boards plane, leaves airport.
step 3: liquids from terrorists' water bottles leak out, mix together, causing an explosion in the middle of the checkpoint which would at least injure many people and shut down the airport.
Now then, how do you propose to find the terrorists? Just about everyone pitches water bottles into the trash. How many 1000s of people pass through a busy checkpoint every hour?
Either the TSA considers my water bottle a threat, or not. If it's NOT a threat, why should I have to toss it? And if it IS a threat, why am I tossing it into a garbage bin RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHECKPOINT?!
I agree that checking small children or grannies in wheelchairs is just a stupid waste of time, but racial profiling doesn't work. As I recall, the Oklahoma City bomber and the Unabomber would not have fit your description of "looks like a terrorist."
There are plenty of other things that the TSA could do to restrict their search parameters in a way that wouldn't be racist - such as restricting their searches to people who look like they're between the ages of 16-70. Leave the infants and the elderly alone - they're not going to blow up your plane, much less hijack it!
Way back in '89, University of Michigan charged more for engineering than for its other programs. The price differential was essentially to support engineering's IT department and its labs of Apollos, Suns, Decs, PCs, etc.
After all, does it really make sense to force, say, the English Lit. department to pay for MENTOR Graphics when none of their students or faculty will never need to do a circuit board layout?
KH: "If the TSO throws your liquids in the trash, they don't find you a threat."
If they really think it's not a threat, why throw it in the trash?
And I can take larger bottles of saline solution on-board, but not my Venti mocha-decafe Starbucks drink I bought just yards from the checkpoint?!
Dodging the issues, indeed. I thought his first answer was just in jest and sarcasm, but after reading the article, I'm beginning to wonder if he wasn't being honest.
Tivo used to have a deal where you could get 3 years of service for about $300 or so. I don't know if they still have that deal or if the price has gone up, but let's use this as a baseline.
So, a Series 3 Tivo + 3 years of service is $600.
Dish offers a DVR with their programming packages for an extra $6/mo.
I'm pretty sure a MythTV box will cost more than $600 to build, but then again, I'm pretty sure you'll be putting in 2 or more tuners, and a very large drive array. Problem is, MythTV can't record the encrypted HD channels off cable (eg. Discovery HD)
Re: Tivo would be a cool thing if the cable co did
on
The Trouble With TiVo
·
· Score: 1
That's really nothing new. How many times have you heard people complaining about how the PC makers won't support your computer unless it's running their default load of software on it? Or, about how ISPs wouldn't support Macintosh computers?
It's all about dealing with customer support. Can you imagine the headaches these companies would be in for if they had to try to support EVERYONE's customize setup, containing any one of thousands of different products - which may or may not be intended to be used that way?
Well, you could still connect the video out from your satellite receiver into your Tivo, instead of into your TV. However you then face the problem of having your Tivo being able to talk to your receiver to change the channel when it wants to record something.
While this isn't impossible, it's not always fool-proof.
In addition, Dish offers a dual-tuner, HD-capable DVR for $6/mo. on top of your normal programming fees.
Going with a Series 3 Tivo instead would cost you just over $600 (includes the Tivo + 3 years of prepaid service.) Dish's DVR, on the other hand, will cost 1/3 that much. Also, since you don't own the DVR it's easier to upgrade or discontinue service since you won't have to worry what to do with this old, probably obsolete box.
I really like Tivo's interface and software a lot better, but between their higher cost of hardware, and the fact that both cable and satellite offer their own integrated DVRs for HD and digital channels, it's awfully hard to justify nowadays.
The problem - and strength - with Tivo is in its single-mindedness and simplicity.
Yes, it only does one thing, but it does it really really well.
We just switched from cable to Dish, reluctantly leaving our loyal series 1 Tivo behind.
While the receiver we has a DVR in it, it's by far no where as easy to use as the Tivo. I've already encountered several minor bugs and inconsistancies, to say nothing of the fact that the DVR's menu system just isn't as well thought out as Tivo's.
This seems awfully bizarre to me, since Tivo has been praised since day one for its UI layout. Why haven't the other DVR makers taken the hint and started shamelessly copying it?
Actually, the 360 has already started up its Platinum Hits line. Unfortunately the games are $30, not $20.
However that's not to say you can't get away with cheap gaming. Sales, coupons, used titles (if you don't mind used titles that is...), even GameFly are all ways to get access to games for way less than their original MSRP.
Yeah, yeah, "Why...it's second life!" - only the currency is real.
Even so, if I'm going to be forced to use Sony's HOME to do anything online, I'd rather it look like an explosion at a virtual fandom cosplay con, rather than having everyone wear the same drab, Old Navy-ish garb we seen so far. Ooh. I have a blue shirt. He has a slightly bluer shirt. Wow, that's so amazing!
From what I've seen of HOME, I agree with you. Sony has some opportunities to do something new and interesting with HOME, but so far, they seem intent on clubbing themselves in the head. Case in point - Sony claims you will NOT be able to customize your avatar with gear from other games for fear that having a whole group of people dressed up as Dante from Devil May Cry, for instance, would detract from the online experience. Idiots. I'm betting that people would pay REAL MONEY to purchase costume elements from their favorite games to decorate their avatars. Combine this with the personalization that the Wii's Mii system offers, and you get a sort of virtual cosplay gamer community. Better yet, get the games to allow you to use your avatar (with its costume) as well. For instance, take your avatar, dressed up as Dante, into Tony Hawk's latest title. Or, play a round of football with your friends, each dressed in their own unique fashion...
That would be nifty, unique (mostly), and something I'm sure many would at least try once or twice.
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to recall at least one segment from the 24hr talking head networks, which had plastered VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CONNECTED TO SHOOTING on their screen while showing the reporter rather sheepishly explaining that there was no evidence that the guy played video games of any sort, much less violent ones. I'm guessing that segment was yanked from the rotation pretty quickly ;-)
Anyways, since when is the media interested in, you know, FACTS? How many times have we seen one network get an "expert" on their segment who makes a speculative comment, which is then twisted and taken out of context by another network who reports it as an official rumor, which then leads to yet another network kicking off a story with "Network XYZ is reporting that..." restating the rumor as if it's practically a substantiated fact?
Two examples that spring to mind immediately are the Duke Lacrosse Team rape case, the missing girl from the Caribbean, and that case about the missing intern connected with that Californian politician. In all cases, the media literally tried the cases on the air, based on nothing but speculation, innuendo, and twisted comments by expert guests...or should we just call them expert witnesses now? After all, that screeching b*tch on CNN seems all to eager to act as judge, jury and executioner - even when presented with hard cold facts to the contrary...
Yes, yes, yes. Microsoft making DX10 a "Vista only" feature was clearly an effort to get folks to upgrade to Vista sooner rather than later. No one was ever fooled by Microsoft's claims about how DX10 could only be implemented with Vista's "advanced" architecture...
Unfortunately, it hasn't been working out too well for Microsoft. Between the horrible driver support, expensive hardware requirements, and the general incompatibility issues you expect whenever upgrading to a major new OS, Vista has been mostly a bust for gamers (and even general users.) Furthermore, this doesn't even include the normal warnings about buying version 1.0 of ANYTHING for your PC - much less anything from Microsoft that hasn't had at least 2 SPs released for it, much less waiting for a major refresh, like Win95b.
Then there's the whole DX10.1 debacle, which promises to make all existing "DX10" video cards obsolete before they've even gotten proper support. Whee! Microsoft sure loves them some gamers!
Most gamers I know are putting off the upgrade to Vista for as long as possible - Microsoft's profits be darned. XP ain't broke, so why "fix" it with Vista which so far has proven to be more a step backwards than anything else?
In my opinion, Microsoft wants to KILL PC gaming - and is using Vista and DX10 to do it. Think about it. How much does Microsoft make off every sale of a non-Microsoft PC game? Exactly $0. All those copies of HalfLife2 - $0. WoW - $0. Civ, BioShock, Sims - $0, $0, and $0. Sure, they make money on the sale of Vista, but that's what, one sale per gamer until Vista's replacement comes out 4-5 years later? Meanwhile, over on Microsoft's XBox side, EVERY copy of EVERY game sold results in a paycheck of $5-10 in licensing fees. This includes not just the games you see in stores, but also the titles you can download off Xbox Live Arcade. There's also the money Microsoft makes from selling Xbox SDKs to the developers - since they have no choice BUT to buy it - unlike on the PC where Microsoft has much less control on what software is used. Furthermore, the console market is exponentially larger than the PC gaming market - and has been for years. Microsoft even makes money from online play on the console with its Xbox Live service - which is yet another area they're making exactly $0 off of PC gamers.
Only until 1/1/2008. After that, unless you're a big corporate customer, it's going to be mighty hard to find XP.
Even now, it's awfully difficult to buy a new PC that DOESN'T have some form of Vista on it - whether you want it or not.
Yes, I know about the series 3. I also know the series 3 is $300, and that Comcast doesn't support cablecard (how nice of them!)
So I'll still have to get Comcast's cable box, Comcast's digital cable, and now I'm spending $100/mo. just for programming. And don't forget about the Tivo service fee...
Oh, and since I already have the cable box, why not get DVR for just $10/mo more - that's about the same amount Tivo's 3 year service program costs.
What about satellite? Well, DirecTivo is a thing of the past - otherwise I'd have gone with DirecTV in a heartbeat. Dish has an offer for new customers that essentially gives you a free dual HD tuner DVR.
Seriously, my wife and I love our (series 1, hacked) Tivo, and were trying to find a way to keep a Tivo in our lives as we transitioned to HD, but with the current mess that things are in now, it's actually cheaper to just take the set-top DVR, bugs and all, from the local provider rather than end up spending an additional $300 + $9.95/mo for Tivo.
In 18 months, our contract with Dish expires, and we'll be free to re-evaluate our options at that time. May the best company win.
Yes, yes, but there's also a "360 Core" SKU which doesn't include a HDD at all.
This was solely created as a side-effect of Microsoft thinking that the PS3 was going to originally cost about $400. This way, Microsoft could point to the stupid Core unit and truthfully say "the 360 is cheaper."
And despite the appearance of the Elite, the Core is still going to be sold for the foreseeable future.
This isn't the first time Sony has talked about something like this. I remember them talking about a DVR for the PS2 as well. In fact, wasn't that what the short-lived "PSX" was? (yes, there was a real product called "PSX" - and it didn't refer to the PS1 prototype.)
However, with set-top boxes required to decrypt non-OTA HD channels, or even use a satellite dish, and the providers now also offer a built-in DVR for only a little more than their non-HD, non-DVR box, is there really a market for this?
As much as I love my old Tivo, I saw its usefulness coming to an end as more and more stations started moving to HD, which in turn would force us to get a set-top-box from whoever our provider would be at that time.
There's also the problem of cost. Even if the PS3 drops to $400 by next year, I can't see this tuner+DVR package costing less than $100. So you're talking $500 for a 80GB DVR/blu-ray player/game console. This also assumes there no additional service fees for the guide data.
I just don't see the justification here. I can't see the DVR functionality being totally independent here - especially if the DVR uses the PS3's existing HDD. So, while you might be able to watch a blu-ray movie while the DVR does its thing, you probably won't be able to play a game - and if that's the case, why bother with this at all? The original reason I bought my Tivo back in 2001 was so that I could play games and NOT have to worry about missing TV shows. It worked out pretty well. I could game whenever I wanted, then I'd watch The Daily Show while I ate dinner.
The other concern I have is that the PS3 isn't exactly a lightweight when it comes to power consumption. DVRs are active 24/7. (although in its defense, I really don't know how much power my HD satellite receiver/DVR eats up either...)
Sure, it COULD be possible to do what you're talking about, but the chances are so slim as to be non-existent. At this rate, we should be worrying about the terrorists building a weather machine, death ray, and nuclear powered giant robot. Hey - it's possible, right? So let's worry about it even as improbable it may be!
Even then, if the airports are checking for explosives like they're supposed to be doing in the first place (instead of making us take off our shoes and toss out our water) there's a good chance that the kid and/or the wacky adult accompanying him wouldn't make it through security anyways. And none of this addresses the other problems that the TSA is facing now in the form of horrible track records at finding so-called "forbidden" objects - even when tested by other TSA members!
How about being honest with the public, instead of making them toss out their Starbucks and stand around barefoot all in the name of false security?
Taking off your shoes only makes sense if they set off the metal detectors. My sneakers don't contain any metal tacks, but the lady's high heels behind me probably do.
If there is a real threat about liquid-based explosives or some other threat, come up with a better way to screen for it - don't just make everyone toss out their water/coffee/etc. Either it's a threat, or it isn't. If it's not a threat, don't make me throw it out. If it IS a threat, don't let me just toss it out and continue onto my plane with no repercussions!
Again - FALSE SECURITY IS WORSE THAN NO SECURITY. If the TSA is incapable of providing security, they should just go away. More risk? Sure. But at least you KNOW there is a risk - as opposed to assuming that nice people at the TSA will make it ALLLLLL better.
I thought they had something that could do chemical analysis? I've had my carry-on and laptop rubbed down with a piece of paper which was then stuck into a device that would then detect the presence of certain (bomb related) chemicals.
Now, the problem with this is that you'd have to sample EVERYTHING that could potentially be an explosive. Think of all the water, coffee, lipstick, cosmetics, shampoo, lotions, etc. that would have to be screened. It'd be a nightmare.
Although, I would think a comprehensive wipedown with that paper over the containers, your hands, and your bag would probably be sufficient enough... True, it would add an extra step to the security process, but at least this one would actually accomplish something.
Agreed, however, it's been proven again and again that the TSA isn't guaranteeing greater security - only greater aggravation and inconvenience.
After watching the TSA man-handle a "dangerous" looking 80 year old woman out of her wheelchair and into the bomb sniffing cabinet, there is no security being provided here. The whole 3oz. of liquid thing is not designed to increase or provide security either. Think about it - hundreds of "suspected" bombs, all sitting in a plastic garbage bin right next to the checkpoint where 100s of people are present at all times - yeah, THAT'S secure!
At best, they hope to provide an ILLUSION of security - and that's worse than having no security at all.
Our idiotic government talks about not letting the terrorists win - but frankly, they're nothing compared to the keep-us-scared-and-stupid policies the government comes up with. At this rate the terrorists need never do anything again - we're fear-mongering ourselves out of existence!
See, if more TSA folk were this thoughtful, it wouldn't be nearly so bad.
On the other hand, I've watched a gang of TSA folk nearly pull an 80 year old woman out of her wheelchair and demand she stand so they could pat her down. All the while her adult daughter was pleading with the agents not to do this because her mother was unable to stand unassisted and that a fall would severely injure her. As I left the security checkpoint, the gang managed to get the elderly woman into the bomb-sniffing cabinet, but then couldn't figure out how to open the door again... The poor woman's daughter was nearly hysterical at this point.
But this just opens the door to real, more devastating attacks:
step 1: Terrorist #1 goes through checkpoint, politely pitches his leaky "water bottle" into trashbin, boards plane, leaves airport.
step 2: Terrorist #2 goes through checkpoint, politely pitches his leaky "water bottle" into the same trashbin, boards plane, leaves airport.
step 3: liquids from terrorists' water bottles leak out, mix together, causing an explosion in the middle of the checkpoint which would at least injure many people and shut down the airport.
Now then, how do you propose to find the terrorists? Just about everyone pitches water bottles into the trash. How many 1000s of people pass through a busy checkpoint every hour?
Either the TSA considers my water bottle a threat, or not. If it's NOT a threat, why should I have to toss it? And if it IS a threat, why am I tossing it into a garbage bin RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHECKPOINT?!
I agree that checking small children or grannies in wheelchairs is just a stupid waste of time, but racial profiling doesn't work. As I recall, the Oklahoma City bomber and the Unabomber would not have fit your description of "looks like a terrorist."
There are plenty of other things that the TSA could do to restrict their search parameters in a way that wouldn't be racist - such as restricting their searches to people who look like they're between the ages of 16-70. Leave the infants and the elderly alone - they're not going to blow up your plane, much less hijack it!
Way back in '89, University of Michigan charged more for engineering than for its other programs. The price differential was essentially to support engineering's IT department and its labs of Apollos, Suns, Decs, PCs, etc.
After all, does it really make sense to force, say, the English Lit. department to pay for MENTOR Graphics when none of their students or faculty will never need to do a circuit board layout?
KH: "If the TSO throws your liquids in the trash, they don't find you a threat."
If they really think it's not a threat, why throw it in the trash?
And I can take larger bottles of saline solution on-board, but not my Venti mocha-decafe Starbucks drink I bought just yards from the checkpoint?!
Dodging the issues, indeed. I thought his first answer was just in jest and sarcasm, but after reading the article, I'm beginning to wonder if he wasn't being honest.
Tivo used to have a deal where you could get 3 years of service for about $300 or so. I don't know if they still have that deal or if the price has gone up, but let's use this as a baseline.
So, a Series 3 Tivo + 3 years of service is $600.
Dish offers a DVR with their programming packages for an extra $6/mo.
I'm pretty sure a MythTV box will cost more than $600 to build, but then again, I'm pretty sure you'll be putting in 2 or more tuners, and a very large drive array. Problem is, MythTV can't record the encrypted HD channels off cable (eg. Discovery HD)
That's really nothing new. How many times have you heard people complaining about how the PC makers won't support your computer unless it's running their default load of software on it? Or, about how ISPs wouldn't support Macintosh computers?
It's all about dealing with customer support. Can you imagine the headaches these companies would be in for if they had to try to support EVERYONE's customize setup, containing any one of thousands of different products - which may or may not be intended to be used that way?
Well, you could still connect the video out from your satellite receiver into your Tivo, instead of into your TV. However you then face the problem of having your Tivo being able to talk to your receiver to change the channel when it wants to record something.
While this isn't impossible, it's not always fool-proof.
In addition, Dish offers a dual-tuner, HD-capable DVR for $6/mo. on top of your normal programming fees.
Going with a Series 3 Tivo instead would cost you just over $600 (includes the Tivo + 3 years of prepaid service.) Dish's DVR, on the other hand, will cost 1/3 that much. Also, since you don't own the DVR it's easier to upgrade or discontinue service since you won't have to worry what to do with this old, probably obsolete box.
I really like Tivo's interface and software a lot better, but between their higher cost of hardware, and the fact that both cable and satellite offer their own integrated DVRs for HD and digital channels, it's awfully hard to justify nowadays.
The problem - and strength - with Tivo is in its single-mindedness and simplicity.
Yes, it only does one thing, but it does it really really well.
We just switched from cable to Dish, reluctantly leaving our loyal series 1 Tivo behind.
While the receiver we has a DVR in it, it's by far no where as easy to use as the Tivo. I've already encountered several minor bugs and inconsistancies, to say nothing of the fact that the DVR's menu system just isn't as well thought out as Tivo's.
This seems awfully bizarre to me, since Tivo has been praised since day one for its UI layout. Why haven't the other DVR makers taken the hint and started shamelessly copying it?
But unlike the parent, you aren't breaking any laws by buying used games.
For every used title, one copy was bought - the money paid to the copyright holders.
All the owner did was transfer the license - first to GameStop, who then transfered it to you when you bought the used title from them.
1 copy was sold, 1 copy remains in circulation. The royalties on that copy have already been paid.
Pirating increases the number of copies in circulation without extra money being paid to the copyright holders.
Actually, the 360 has already started up its Platinum Hits line. Unfortunately the games are $30, not $20.
However that's not to say you can't get away with cheap gaming. Sales, coupons, used titles (if you don't mind used titles that is...), even GameFly are all ways to get access to games for way less than their original MSRP.
Amen to that!
There were very few games I found worth spending $50 on - and most of those ended up becoming 'greatest hits' for $20 a year later.
$60? I can't honestly think of a game I'd pay $60 for - especially not when you KNOW it's going to drop to $20-40 down the road.
After a bit of discipline, it's not hard to build up with a solid backlog of games - all of which were purchased at lower prices.
Use the savings to buy additional consoles, or a better PC - this just opens up even more chances for you to find bargain titles...
Corrupt politicians? In MY Government?!
Well....duh.
Yeah, yeah, "Why...it's second life!" - only the currency is real.
Even so, if I'm going to be forced to use Sony's HOME to do anything online, I'd rather it look like an explosion at a virtual fandom cosplay con, rather than having everyone wear the same drab, Old Navy-ish garb we seen so far. Ooh. I have a blue shirt. He has a slightly bluer shirt. Wow, that's so amazing!
From what I've seen of HOME, I agree with you. Sony has some opportunities to do something new and interesting with HOME, but so far, they seem intent on clubbing themselves in the head. Case in point - Sony claims you will NOT be able to customize your avatar with gear from other games for fear that having a whole group of people dressed up as Dante from Devil May Cry, for instance, would detract from the online experience. Idiots. I'm betting that people would pay REAL MONEY to purchase costume elements from their favorite games to decorate their avatars. Combine this with the personalization that the Wii's Mii system offers, and you get a sort of virtual cosplay gamer community. Better yet, get the games to allow you to use your avatar (with its costume) as well. For instance, take your avatar, dressed up as Dante, into Tony Hawk's latest title. Or, play a round of football with your friends, each dressed in their own unique fashion...
That would be nifty, unique (mostly), and something I'm sure many would at least try once or twice.