It wouldn't matter, even first thing in the morning before the breakfast tin of Tennents Super, the average Scotsman walks in a clumsy stagger anyway. The phone would be used to it.
That's a fucking huge assumption. The success of proprietary software shows the features are not the same.
Re:$15 plus the cost of a land line per month
on
TiVo Buries the VCR
·
· Score: 1
MythTV can be used in "expensive VCR" mode without a subscription to schedules, right?
Never used one. No-one sells them. If MythTV was that good surely someone would be selling them rather than DVDs or videos?
A significant number of Slashdot users have commented that they have only cable Internet and a mobile phone.
We're talking about VCRs vs PVRs in general, not on Slashdot. Like I said, crawl out of your basement and come into the daylight. I couldn't give a shit about the 0.00005% of the market that this site represents.
Courts and judges and EULAs have nothing to do with it.
It's very simple: if the game management catch people selling things on ebay, they just delete the characters involved and ban the players. That's how it happens on more respectable games.
How does a mythtv box get its schedules? From the Internet. You need the telephone line whether you use tivo or mythtv. Crawl out of your nerd-hole and realise that hardly anyone has broadband and ethernet all over the house, nor the technical ability to get a mythtv working.
The best solution is one of those DVD recorder things with a hard disk. Tivo relies on a server and home-made PVRs are worthless for anyone other than hardcore geeks.
Please explain how this makes things any easier for anyone? That system sounds even more convoluted and complicated than IRC.
If everyone you know uses MSN, and you use MSN, that's all you need. You don't need to centralise anything. This article is a solution looking for a problem.
I don't see it. It's not just about screensize or economics, it's about behaviour and convenience.
With a TIVO, you just pick a programme from the menu and that's it. Itunes means a completely different paradigm. It means using your computer in order to watch TV. Instead of just sitting on the couch, you have to go to the computer room, turn on the computer, start up itunes, download the shows (could take hours), then find a way of getting them to the TV.
A Tivo plugs into the TV, as does a video. More than likely your computer isn't underneath the TV, it's on the other side of the house. This means either dragging a cable along, or transferring the show via an ipod or DVD.
Also, I can use a VCR for free. I need to pay get something off Itunes. Maybe in the future when Internet downloading is integrated into TVs, but not now.
Problem is, when you release a game aimed at 1% of the market, you don't get 1% of the revenue. You might get a fraction of that, maybe 5%. I don't know what that $20 billion means, but it's not money in the bank. Is that worldwide? Before or after everyone in the line gets their cut? After marketing costs? After wages? After general costs of doing business?
You criticise modern games for having no long-term playability then talk about tetris and bejewelled. Tetris is a very shallow game, the playability is basic. It's the same movement over and over again. It gets tired after about 15 minutes.
Automobiles are a step forwards. Mass transit is a poor compromise. It assumes everyone lives in exactly the same places and always wants to go to exactly the same places at exactly the same times, taking minimum baggage and no large or awkward objects.
Planes are not more efficient than cars except for very long distances. Trains are not a full transport solution as they require transportation to get there in the first place.
Busses are of little use. They are no use for instance to shift workers, or people who don't live on bus routes and only travel to places on the same bus route. They are no use for old fragile pensioners would who have to wait in the rain at bus stops occupied by criminals.
I'd argue that cars are only sustainable as long a gallon of gas costs less than 25% of the hourly minimum wage.
In the UK the cost of petrol is £4.54 per gallon, whereas the minimum wage is £5.05. This is 90%. And yet cars are sustainable.
Humans can't explore space. Exploration is finding new things. There's nowhere humans can go that hasn't already been explored by probes or seen by telescopes.
If we put a human on Mars, they won't be exploring it, because it's already been done by probes. Yeah we could send them to new places, but a probe would do the job a thousand times more effectively.
Should politicans fund more space ventures? I don't like the thought of my hard-earned wages being spent on getting some blurry pictures of some distant no-one in my lifetime will ever visit.
Going by your example it is like selling apples by an apple tree. You could pay $1 for an apple, or you could just reach up and get an apple for free.
Not much use if the apples you want cost $1 and the free ones are full of worms. A company which jeopardises itself for the sake of $1000 won't get very far.
Yeah, who watches TV shows from their computers? Oh yeah...everybody who has a Tivo.
Last I looked, TIVOs plugged into the TV, not the computer. They're like a more sophisticated video.
And you did catch the part about downloading it to your new iPod, right?
Great, so instead of just watching something instantly on the TV for free, I have to buy an over-priced ipod, hook it up to the computer, spend hours downloading things, pay through the nose, then take the ipod to the TV and plug it in there? I don't think I'll bother with that.
accessibility and/or personal effort involved (if the 5 star restaurant is in the next town, and the McDonalds is right around the corner, you can guess where I'll eat. Doubly so if I have to drive home first and get a suit and tie for the 5 star restaurant.)
The number of people who will use this service will be very very small. Who wants to PAY to watch a programme, then switch on the computer, open itunes, download it (takes a long while), transfer it to the ipod, then find some way of plugging it into the TV? Easier just to switch on the TV and press the right channel.
Unless it's seamlessly integrated with TVs, this idea will not take over from normal TV.
1. It's too expensive. Are we supposed to pay £30 for a newspaper? That might work if we download new pages every day, but what if I only want a paper now and again?
2. Suppose I leave it on the bus or at work. That's £30 down the drain rather than 50p. This is expensive so you'd have to keep it, you can't give it to someone else when you've finished with it.
3. You can't cut bits out of it, or do the crossword.
4. High barrier to entry. You can't buy it on an impulse like you could with a 30p paper.
In places with arranged/forced marriages, it's very very socially unacceptable to get divorced. No doubt a lot of these arranged marriages stay together even though they hate each other, or the wife is beaten.
Whereas in more progressive places, no-one bats an eyelid at divorce.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, all mp3 players suffer from destructive scratches just by being kept in your pocket.
It wouldn't matter, even first thing in the morning before the breakfast tin of Tennents Super, the average Scotsman walks in a clumsy stagger anyway. The phone would be used to it.
That's a fucking huge assumption. The success of proprietary software shows the features are not the same.
MythTV can be used in "expensive VCR" mode without a subscription to schedules, right?
Never used one. No-one sells them. If MythTV was that good surely someone would be selling them rather than DVDs or videos?
A significant number of Slashdot users have commented that they have only cable Internet and a mobile phone.
We're talking about VCRs vs PVRs in general, not on Slashdot. Like I said, crawl out of your basement and come into the daylight. I couldn't give a shit about the 0.00005% of the market that this site represents.
Courts and judges and EULAs have nothing to do with it.
It's very simple: if the game management catch people selling things on ebay, they just delete the characters involved and ban the players. That's how it happens on more respectable games.
Then all that time and money is worthless.
How does a mythtv box get its schedules? From the Internet. You need the telephone line whether you use tivo or mythtv. Crawl out of your nerd-hole and realise that hardly anyone has broadband and ethernet all over the house, nor the technical ability to get a mythtv working.
The best solution is one of those DVD recorder things with a hard disk. Tivo relies on a server and home-made PVRs are worthless for anyone other than hardcore geeks.
Please explain how this makes things any easier for anyone? That system sounds even more convoluted and complicated than IRC.
If everyone you know uses MSN, and you use MSN, that's all you need. You don't need to centralise anything. This article is a solution looking for a problem.
It's piggy-backing another mission. That other mission involves going into orbit, not to another star.
Wow, could Slashdotters BE any more out of touch with reality?
I don't see it. It's not just about screensize or economics, it's about behaviour and convenience.
With a TIVO, you just pick a programme from the menu and that's it. Itunes means a completely different paradigm. It means using your computer in order to watch TV. Instead of just sitting on the couch, you have to go to the computer room, turn on the computer, start up itunes, download the shows (could take hours), then find a way of getting them to the TV.
A Tivo plugs into the TV, as does a video. More than likely your computer isn't underneath the TV, it's on the other side of the house. This means either dragging a cable along, or transferring the show via an ipod or DVD.
Also, I can use a VCR for free. I need to pay get something off Itunes. Maybe in the future when Internet downloading is integrated into TVs, but not now.
Problem is, when you release a game aimed at 1% of the market, you don't get 1% of the revenue. You might get a fraction of that, maybe 5%. I don't know what that $20 billion means, but it's not money in the bank. Is that worldwide? Before or after everyone in the line gets their cut? After marketing costs? After wages? After general costs of doing business?
You criticise modern games for having no long-term playability then talk about tetris and bejewelled. Tetris is a very shallow game, the playability is basic. It's the same movement over and over again. It gets tired after about 15 minutes.
Automobiles are a step forwards. Mass transit is a poor compromise. It assumes everyone lives in exactly the same places and always wants to go to exactly the same places at exactly the same times, taking minimum baggage and no large or awkward objects.
Planes are not more efficient than cars except for very long distances. Trains are not a full transport solution as they require transportation to get there in the first place.
Busses are of little use. They are no use for instance to shift workers, or people who don't live on bus routes and only travel to places on the same bus route. They are no use for old fragile pensioners would who have to wait in the rain at bus stops occupied by criminals.
I'd argue that cars are only sustainable as long a gallon of gas costs less than 25% of the hourly minimum wage.
In the UK the cost of petrol is £4.54 per gallon, whereas the minimum wage is £5.05. This is 90%. And yet cars are sustainable.
Depends on who the politicans are. If you've got someone like Thatcher in, unions are just going to speed the downfall.
Other industries have large unions, yet jobs are being outsourced there. You can't unionise against economic reality. Just ask the miners.
Four kilometres long.
That's a lot of places to throw bodies off...
Humans can't explore space. Exploration is finding new things. There's nowhere humans can go that hasn't already been explored by probes or seen by telescopes.
If we put a human on Mars, they won't be exploring it, because it's already been done by probes. Yeah we could send them to new places, but a probe would do the job a thousand times more effectively.
Should politicans fund more space ventures? I don't like the thought of my hard-earned wages being spent on getting some blurry pictures of some distant no-one in my lifetime will ever visit.
Yeah, just like the US laid down all the cables and runs all the Internet routers worldwide...
15 minutes? It's not that much, it can't be that long by law I don't think. And there are no ads on the BBC. Not many programmes last an hour anyway.
And I'd rather 15 minutes of adverts than 15 hours of downloading.
Going by your example it is like selling apples by an apple tree. You could pay $1 for an apple, or you could just reach up and get an apple for free.
Not much use if the apples you want cost $1 and the free ones are full of worms. A company which jeopardises itself for the sake of $1000 won't get very far.
Yeah, who watches TV shows from their computers? Oh yeah...everybody who has a Tivo.
Last I looked, TIVOs plugged into the TV, not the computer. They're like a more sophisticated video.
And you did catch the part about downloading it to your new iPod, right?
Great, so instead of just watching something instantly on the TV for free, I have to buy an over-priced ipod, hook it up to the computer, spend hours downloading things, pay through the nose, then take the ipod to the TV and plug it in there? I don't think I'll bother with that.
accessibility and/or personal effort involved (if the 5 star restaurant is in the next town, and the McDonalds is right around the corner, you can guess where I'll eat. Doubly so if I have to drive home first and get a suit and tie for the 5 star restaurant.)
I thought restaurants only went up to 3 stars?
The number of people who will use this service will be very very small. Who wants to PAY to watch a programme, then switch on the computer, open itunes, download it (takes a long while), transfer it to the ipod, then find some way of plugging it into the TV? Easier just to switch on the TV and press the right channel.
Unless it's seamlessly integrated with TVs, this idea will not take over from normal TV.
Why pay to watch programmes on the ipod when you can watch them on TV for free?
I can't see this idea getting off the ground.
1. It's too expensive. Are we supposed to pay £30 for a newspaper? That might work if we download new pages every day, but what if I only want a paper now and again?
2. Suppose I leave it on the bus or at work. That's £30 down the drain rather than 50p. This is expensive so you'd have to keep it, you can't give it to someone else when you've finished with it.
3. You can't cut bits out of it, or do the crossword.
4. High barrier to entry. You can't buy it on an impulse like you could with a 30p paper.
5. No pull-out segments like the TV guide.
In places with arranged/forced marriages, it's very very socially unacceptable to get divorced. No doubt a lot of these arranged marriages stay together even though they hate each other, or the wife is beaten.
Whereas in more progressive places, no-one bats an eyelid at divorce.