I just went through this and am still trying to figure this out. I just got an HDTV. See my earlier post, here.
In my previous post, I mentioned that my HTPC was the best looking device attached to my HDTV. I am now amending that to "2nd best" (hard to compete with a 1080i feed of DiscoveryHD).
Nonetheless, I have noticed one major problem that needs to be resolved with HTPC's. The sound card. I've used many many different kinds of sound cards and without exception, ALL of them output stereo ONLY through the SPDIF/Coax. I just bought a Turtle Beach Montego and finally, I have found a card that can produce true 5.1 Dolby Digital on the fly. The rest advertise 5.1 and the like -- but what they mean is 5.1 when you pump the analog signal to their speakers. NOT 5.1 out of the digital-out.
This is not a big deal for DVDs because most soundcards have Dolby digital pass through -- so they pass the 5.1 signal to your A/V receiver and it decodes the signal. However, for MP3's, downloaded movies, or anything else you are play on your HTPC, there is no real 5.1 solution --- unless you go with a Turtle Beach unit (or M-Audio, which I haven't tried). Yes, you can "simulate" but at the core, it's only a stereo feed with most sound cards.
The second thing I have noticed, with respect to HTPC's is this: Why the hell don't the frontend software makers realize that MANY of us store our media (movies, tv, music) on network shares. Why is this a big deal? Because I fire up Windows MCE and I find out that, in order to play a movie from the network, it has to copy the movie to my local library first. You can't just play it over the network. It must first be copied to the local machines. WTF? I see this design a lot and I suspect its because many ppl are trying to run HTPC's over 802.11. Here's some advice: don't. Just suck it up and run the cable. Your life will be much better for it. Trust me. I tried every setup imaginable.
These are just a few annoyances that I've encountered while setting up my HTPC. I don't yet have a capture card/TV card so I haven't gotten to setting up the TV part of this.
The good news is that my setup (finally) works pretty damn well, all things considered. I agree this is the year of the HTPC because I've just been through it.
With my Meedio system, I can do the following:
a) Play XViD, DiVX, SVCD, or any other format directly from a network share
b) Get weather, complete with radar images
c) Play my mp3's -- like a music library w/ jukebox
d) View photos as slideshow over a network share
e) View and play streaming music (Shoutcast)
f) Control the whole system with a remote control -- VERY IMPORTANT!!!
One of the easiest and quickest way to compare companies is to compare their market cap. That is, take the # of shares outstanding and multiply it by the share price. The share price already takes into account debt, cash crunch, etc and ultimately, the share price is the judge, jury, and final decision when it comes to a company's value.
Sooo, just to provide a little backup:
Microsoft is valued at $288 billion. And has $40B in cash and marketable securities. Last year's revenues were also $40B.
Google is valued at $137 billion. And has $7.6B in cash and marketable securities. Last year's revenues were $5.25B.
Now, with those numbers, can you HONESTLY say that Google is worth 1/2 of Microsoft?
(note: I know this is not a complete analysis. It is a quick and dirty method for providing a little relativity when comparing companies.)
Now...onto the comment. The problem I have is that we are NOT at war. While you can say it and imply it as much as you want, we are neither technically nor legally at war. Congress must declare war. And while you may have a good point about sidestepping things during wartime (I agree) -- we, simply, aren't in that mode at this point. Others will surely disagree and to them I only say this: if it's so obvious that we are at war, then why hasn't Congress declared?
If congress had, instead, declared war (officially) then I can assure you, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they didn't. So now, we must all play by the rules. And those rules require going in front of the FISA w/ probable cause in order to spy on Americans.
I just don't see a scenario that give anyone the right to sidestep the process. I've thought about it and thought about it and I just don't see it. If we are at war, I can see why we would need to sidestep it. If we aren't at war, then there is no reason to sidestep. It seems fairly cut and dry.
And as far as the media comment, I don't really care. What really matters is that it DID / Did NOT happen. And from what everyone says, this most definitely happened. Does it really matter how or when we found out?
Your post, sir, is exactly right. But I just have one quesiton:
Since they have 72 hours to retroactively go to the courts, why not do that instead of totally bypassing the FISA court?
I mean, I don't like LOTS of processes (and laws) that I have to go through. But I have only one option to address that: lobby to change the process (or law). I don't have the option of bypassing it altogether.
And that is the issue here. I think most ppl will agree with your post. There are new demands being put on the intel community and they do need to act quickly and effectively. But where we differ is this: If they are hamstrung by process, then they need to change the process. Not sidestep it.
This is a major deal because there are still LOTS of things that aren't so clear about fluid flow and thermodynamics. For example, one of the things I personally deal with is two-phase flow going through safety relief valves. (ie: you have a liquid and a gas going through the valve). It looks easy. It isn't because it really is "voodoo" as to what actually goes on in that situation. Since there is a pressure drop across the valve, all kinds of weirdness takes place (flashing, etc) and it makes it difficult to predict what the ratios are for liquid / gas. And the ratios can have an impact on the size of the valve. An improperly sized valve is extremely dangerous because it could cause your system to, literally, blow up due to overpressure.
Having a mathmatical model might help us determine what the behavior should be and thus, will create safer and better understood products.
It's kind of like replacing "trial and error" with actual understanding. But this is a GIANT step forward for a very "mature" industry.
How, excatly, does this thing work? I am not an expert in search technologies but one thing that jumps out at me is this:
How do you index videos and put context around them?
Does it parse the language that is being spoken? Does it read the subtitles? For example, if I snip a 1 minute story on the G-7 summit from CNN, how do you know what the story is about if I don't tell you? To my knowledge, there is no sophisticated technology solution for this aside from reading the subtitles and indexing that.
I've thought about this alot. Everyone and their dog seems to be coming out with a video search engine of somekind and not a single implementation has explained how they are going to do the indexing.
I suppose they could take the Yahoo approach and view/sort each video that is submitted. But that is not a realistic long term solution, IMHO.
No, you dont have to get digital cable to use the CableCard. I kept my analog extended and just added a cablecard for the HDTV channels. Net cost $8/mo additional. The install guy comes out this morning so I will followup if I learn anything nes.
I have Cox in my area. Currently, I subscribe to basic extended cable. Locals + "normal" cable content (Comedy central, CNN, etc). No premium channels. My bill is exactly $40 a month.
In my area, the Cox PVR is an extra $10/mo to rent the box plus $5/mo. for the "service". If you don't want the PVR, then you pay $10/mo just for the cable box.
While I am not saying you are wrong, I am highly suspicious of your $3.50/mo charge. My bet is that it's a lot more than that and you just haven't noticed.
However, I would like to point out that - of the channels you listed - almost all are available over the Air. In HDTV. NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, UPN, Fox, and a few others all broadcast HDTV over-the-air in my area.
The ones that don't do OTA, can be had over cable (like you). They are: ESPNHD, Discovery HD, INHD 1/2, HDNET 1/2. Now, I don't know what is on the INHD and HDNET channels but from what I have seen at others houses, its lots of "promo" type stuff and travel related docu's.
So if those 6 channels are worth extra $$$ to you, then by all means, get HD Cable and be done with it. I just have a hard time paying $10-$15 extra per month for 2 "real" channels and 4 "promo" channels.
The point of my original post was that I am amazed at how little HDTV programming is actually available. Given that we have delved into discussing HDNET and INHD, I think I made my point. After all, we aren't talking about Spike, TNT, TBS, or CNN. And of course, you can always pay the big bux and get Showtime, HBO, etc.
FYI, my Cox cablecard costs me an extra $8 a month. Including all fees, etc. $8.16 to be exact. $15 for HDTV PVR + PVR "service". $10 for HDTV Cable box only.
Well, it is a subjective call, to be sure. An upconverted DVD looks better than my rips simply because most of my rips are encoded in DiVX or XViD. I supposed if you ripped HDTV into full MPEG-2, it would look MUCH better than a standard DVD.
But you are, technically, correct with your comment. DVD's are, at best, 480p but having seen several "upconversions", it is my opinion that this time around, upconverting might be worth it. And yes, I know you are "adding" to the content coming off the DVD -- and that is usually a bad thing. However, it works in this case.
I just took the plunge to HDTV the other day. In setting all this up, I would like to pass along what I have learned thus far. It has been an interesting trip, to say the least and I have learned that there is a LOT of hype around HDTV that is probably not quite warranted yet.
I subscribe to basic extended analog cable. I get locals plus standard cable content (Comedy central, lifetime, etc). No premium channels. I have this cable feed running through my Series 1 Tivo and from the Tivo, into my A/V receiver - which outputs the picture only to my TV. In this mode, the TV is essentially a monitor.
I also have a PC w/ Meedio hooked up to this. I used to use the S-video to an old analog TV and that worked ok. Once I hooked it up to my HDTV (TV has PC/VGA in), words can not describe how much of an improvement that makes. The PC has a Soundblaster Live! on it and digital optical out to the A/V receiver....more on that piece later.
The 3rd device I have is a DVD player (Philips DVP-642). Audio is coax digital. Video is components. Both Audio and video feed into my A/V receiver. My receiver has components in and out to the HDTV.
Now that you have an idea of the setup I use, let me lay out some issues I have run into that the Tivo3 may simplify.
1. Of all the devices I have hooked up, my PC w/ Meedio looks the best. And so do all of my downloaded movies and shows. Most of the rips I have are in HDTV and that seems to be the standard nowadays. Why is this important? Because the old "downloaded videos sacrifice quality" no longer holds true. It may not be as good as upscaled DVD's but it is MORE than reasonable.
2. My soundcard sucks. The optical out only outputs stereo sound. I think it will pass through Dolby and DTS but who cares -- that's what my DVD is for. THIS IS A VERY BIG DEAL IF YOU WANT SURROUND SOUND out of your PC. Get a card that can output 5.1 on the fly. As I understand it, most Creative products ONLY output stereo through the digital out. (note: they may "pass thru" DTS/DD but that is different). I wound up ordering a Turtle Beach Montego. Haven't set it up yet.
3. There is very limited HDTV content available. Over-the-Air (antennas), I can pick up all the major networks. Another alternative is to go w/ DirecTV -- but if you subscribe to them, you only get about 2-3 extra channels (I don't count preview channels, etc) more than an antenna. For Dish, its a little bit better -- you get about 4-5 extra channels. Same with Cable. The Point: Each of the above costs an extra $10-$15/mo. And for that, you get at most, 4-5 extra "real" channels that you couldn't get by just sticking an antenna behind your TV.
4. I just ordered a CableCard from my provider (Cox). This allows me to keep my standard "analog" cable that feeds my Tivo while at the same time, allowing me to view the 5-8 HDTV channels that are available. If I had a Tivo3, I could just slap that card into my Tivo3 instead of using my Tivo 1 (for analog) + HDTV tuner on TV set. The Tivo 3 will record whatever you throw at it (HDTV, standard digital, analog, etc) in one nice, neat, little box.
I hope this is helpful to people. There is a lot to think about on how to set things up and these are the major issues that I ran into. I think the biggest disappointment I see is the lack of HDTV content. Just go look at the HD offerings from Dish or DirecTV and you will see that it is very minimal. Perhaps that will change with time but I definitely have that "pay more for less" feeling with respect to my cable/sat bill.
So, if you want to record HDTV, you have the following options:
a) Build a PC w/ HDTV card and use an antenna (unless your HDTV capture card supports CableCard)
b) Build a PC w/ HDTV capture card and use the cable company's Cable box to tune. Note: consider the remote control implications if you choose this. Changing channels = change channels on Cable box.
c) Use the cable companies HDTV DVR (@ $15/mo from Cox. YMMV)
d) USE A TIVO3 w/ CableCard (simplest, easiest, hopefully cheapest)
Hope this helps others who decide to take the plunge.
I think I see what he is saying by the last sentence in the summary. I, too, have noticed a focus on "social interaction" stuff lately. Chat, messages, etc. While these are valuable for strategerizing and chatting with friends in the game, I don't go online to dink around and "chat" with strangers. Not to say that I don't talk to strangers -- I do. But I don't look to make new friends or anything and it seems like a lot of these services are aimed at linking people in a social way. As in -- meeting new people and making new friends.
The difference is subtle but there. When I game, the chatting, etc is pertinent only for the game. If I want to meet new ppl or find a date, I go elsewhere. Taking my online gaming and trying to make it a "social interaction" *IS* the wrong approach.
And I think that is what he is talking about here.
What? How does this make Firefox anymore of a target than the upteen other bittorrent clients out there?
Just because its a tool that CAN be used for illegal purposes does not mean it IS being used for that. That's like saying Firefox is liable because there is an FTP client embedded in it and FTP is used for piracy.
""Hollywood", like any other content creator, wouldn't have much of anything to worry about if their content was desired by the public."
Uhh, not to be a jerk here but I think that's why this law is being considered in the first place. Because their stuff is desired. If ppl REALLY didn't want the programs, then piracy would go to zero.
You know, I've often wondered about this. I have "friends" who have been engaged in piracy for looooong time. More than 15 years.
During that time, my "friends" have NEVER seen anyone prosecuted for downloading. Rather, ALL of the prosecutions seem to be for uploading. And that includes nasty stuff like child porn, etc.
Does anyone know of a single case where someone was prosecuted ONLY for downloading? Kazaa, etc don't count because they upload while you download and from what I have read, all of the people sued thus far, have been sued for "distributing", which is code-speak for uploading.
Please, please. Someone take a stab at this. I really would like to know if there has EVER been a case where someone was prosecuted only for downloading restricted material.
Leverage, the way it is used here, comes from the financial world where you leverage in order to take on more risk. For example, lets say you owned 100 shares of MSFT. You could take a margin loan on that stock - and as long as it didn't go down - use the loan money to buy, say, 100 shares of Apple.
So, by taking on more risk (you are now betting that both MSFT and Apple will go up), you can increase your returns substantially. Without this "leverage" you would only get the returns of the one investment (MSFT) because you don't have the cash upfront to buy Apple.
In the biz world, companies do this stuff ALL the time. Remember LBO's in the 80's? Leveraged buy-outs. In other words, buyouts where the buyer takes on a ton of debt in order to buy the company (vs. using their earnings). They couldn't have bought the company if that debt was not available.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they ALL want to lock you into "their format". And will do anything to avoid playing "the other guy's" format. See DiVX and XViD support.
In my mind, anything that CAN'T play DiVX or XViD is already dead on arrival.
I just went through this and am still trying to figure this out. I just got an HDTV. See my earlier post, here.
In my previous post, I mentioned that my HTPC was the best looking device attached to my HDTV. I am now amending that to "2nd best" (hard to compete with a 1080i feed of DiscoveryHD).
Nonetheless, I have noticed one major problem that needs to be resolved with HTPC's. The sound card. I've used many many different kinds of sound cards and without exception, ALL of them output stereo ONLY through the SPDIF/Coax. I just bought a Turtle Beach Montego and finally, I have found a card that can produce true 5.1 Dolby Digital on the fly. The rest advertise 5.1 and the like -- but what they mean is 5.1 when you pump the analog signal to their speakers. NOT 5.1 out of the digital-out.
This is not a big deal for DVDs because most soundcards have Dolby digital pass through -- so they pass the 5.1 signal to your A/V receiver and it decodes the signal. However, for MP3's, downloaded movies, or anything else you are play on your HTPC, there is no real 5.1 solution --- unless you go with a Turtle Beach unit (or M-Audio, which I haven't tried). Yes, you can "simulate" but at the core, it's only a stereo feed with most sound cards.
The second thing I have noticed, with respect to HTPC's is this: Why the hell don't the frontend software makers realize that MANY of us store our media (movies, tv, music) on network shares. Why is this a big deal? Because I fire up Windows MCE and I find out that, in order to play a movie from the network, it has to copy the movie to my local library first. You can't just play it over the network. It must first be copied to the local machines. WTF? I see this design a lot and I suspect its because many ppl are trying to run HTPC's over 802.11. Here's some advice: don't. Just suck it up and run the cable. Your life will be much better for it. Trust me. I tried every setup imaginable.
These are just a few annoyances that I've encountered while setting up my HTPC. I don't yet have a capture card/TV card so I haven't gotten to setting up the TV part of this.
The good news is that my setup (finally) works pretty damn well, all things considered. I agree this is the year of the HTPC because I've just been through it.
With my Meedio system, I can do the following:
a) Play XViD, DiVX, SVCD, or any other format directly from a network share
b) Get weather, complete with radar images
c) Play my mp3's -- like a music library w/ jukebox
d) View photos as slideshow over a network share
e) View and play streaming music (Shoutcast)
f) Control the whole system with a remote control -- VERY IMPORTANT!!!
You sir are, indeed, enlightened!
One of the easiest and quickest way to compare companies is to compare their market cap. That is, take the # of shares outstanding and multiply it by the share price. The share price already takes into account debt, cash crunch, etc and ultimately, the share price is the judge, jury, and final decision when it comes to a company's value.
Sooo, just to provide a little backup:
Microsoft is valued at $288 billion. And has $40B in cash and marketable securities. Last year's revenues were also $40B.
Google is valued at $137 billion. And has $7.6B in cash and marketable securities. Last year's revenues were $5.25B.
Now, with those numbers, can you HONESTLY say that Google is worth 1/2 of Microsoft?
(note: I know this is not a complete analysis. It is a quick and dirty method for providing a little relativity when comparing companies.)
Another good post. Thanks for your reply.
Now...onto the comment. The problem I have is that we are NOT at war. While you can say it and imply it as much as you want, we are neither technically nor legally at war. Congress must declare war. And while you may have a good point about sidestepping things during wartime (I agree) -- we, simply, aren't in that mode at this point. Others will surely disagree and to them I only say this: if it's so obvious that we are at war, then why hasn't Congress declared?
If congress had, instead, declared war (officially) then I can assure you, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they didn't. So now, we must all play by the rules. And those rules require going in front of the FISA w/ probable cause in order to spy on Americans.
I just don't see a scenario that give anyone the right to sidestep the process. I've thought about it and thought about it and I just don't see it. If we are at war, I can see why we would need to sidestep it. If we aren't at war, then there is no reason to sidestep. It seems fairly cut and dry.
And as far as the media comment, I don't really care. What really matters is that it DID / Did NOT happen. And from what everyone says, this most definitely happened. Does it really matter how or when we found out?
Your post, sir, is exactly right. But I just have one quesiton:
Since they have 72 hours to retroactively go to the courts, why not do that instead of totally bypassing the FISA court?
I mean, I don't like LOTS of processes (and laws) that I have to go through. But I have only one option to address that: lobby to change the process (or law). I don't have the option of bypassing it altogether.
And that is the issue here. I think most ppl will agree with your post. There are new demands being put on the intel community and they do need to act quickly and effectively. But where we differ is this: If they are hamstrung by process, then they need to change the process. Not sidestep it.
This is a major deal because there are still LOTS of things that aren't so clear about fluid flow and thermodynamics. For example, one of the things I personally deal with is two-phase flow going through safety relief valves. (ie: you have a liquid and a gas going through the valve). It looks easy. It isn't because it really is "voodoo" as to what actually goes on in that situation. Since there is a pressure drop across the valve, all kinds of weirdness takes place (flashing, etc) and it makes it difficult to predict what the ratios are for liquid / gas. And the ratios can have an impact on the size of the valve. An improperly sized valve is extremely dangerous because it could cause your system to, literally, blow up due to overpressure.
Having a mathmatical model might help us determine what the behavior should be and thus, will create safer and better understood products.
It's kind of like replacing "trial and error" with actual understanding. But this is a GIANT step forward for a very "mature" industry.
How, excatly, does this thing work? I am not an expert in search technologies but one thing that jumps out at me is this:
How do you index videos and put context around them?
Does it parse the language that is being spoken? Does it read the subtitles? For example, if I snip a 1 minute story on the G-7 summit from CNN, how do you know what the story is about if I don't tell you? To my knowledge, there is no sophisticated technology solution for this aside from reading the subtitles and indexing that.
I've thought about this alot. Everyone and their dog seems to be coming out with a video search engine of somekind and not a single implementation has explained how they are going to do the indexing.
I suppose they could take the Yahoo approach and view/sort each video that is submitted. But that is not a realistic long term solution, IMHO.
Ok, this is just pathetic. Not only is this "review" an advertisement -- it even fucking says it right under the headline!!!!!
Right there in a graphic "Advertisement".
News for nerds, my ass.
Ok, I don't understand about 3/4 of what you wrote. But I do know what cropping and rotating is.
It is unforgivable if those two features are not available. Jesus christ...it's 2005. They might as well rename it "MS Paint" if there is no cropping.
Yes, I noticed the same thing too with my glasses. I fixed it as well.
Custom lasik.
It, truly, changed my life. I had no idea things actually had texture.
No, you dont have to get digital cable to use the CableCard. I kept my analog extended and just added a cablecard for the HDTV channels. Net cost $8/mo additional. The install guy comes out this morning so I will followup if I learn anything nes.
"inciting detrimental group behavior is far from a new thing, and should be punished."
So I suppose you are for punishing Ghandi? Or Martin Luther King, Jr? Or any one of many other civil disobedians.
I realize this isn't civil disobedience but my point is this: punishment is not always the best answer.
I have Cox in my area. Currently, I subscribe to basic extended cable. Locals + "normal" cable content (Comedy central, CNN, etc). No premium channels. My bill is exactly $40 a month.
In my area, the Cox PVR is an extra $10/mo to rent the box plus $5/mo. for the "service". If you don't want the PVR, then you pay $10/mo just for the cable box.
While I am not saying you are wrong, I am highly suspicious of your $3.50/mo charge. My bet is that it's a lot more than that and you just haven't noticed.
Ok, so perhaps I am not watching enough HDTV.
However, I would like to point out that - of the channels you listed - almost all are available over the Air. In HDTV. NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, UPN, Fox, and a few others all broadcast HDTV over-the-air in my area.
The ones that don't do OTA, can be had over cable (like you). They are: ESPNHD, Discovery HD, INHD 1/2, HDNET 1/2. Now, I don't know what is on the INHD and HDNET channels but from what I have seen at others houses, its lots of "promo" type stuff and travel related docu's.
So if those 6 channels are worth extra $$$ to you, then by all means, get HD Cable and be done with it. I just have a hard time paying $10-$15 extra per month for 2 "real" channels and 4 "promo" channels.
The point of my original post was that I am amazed at how little HDTV programming is actually available. Given that we have delved into discussing HDNET and INHD, I think I made my point. After all, we aren't talking about Spike, TNT, TBS, or CNN. And of course, you can always pay the big bux and get Showtime, HBO, etc.
FYI, my Cox cablecard costs me an extra $8 a month. Including all fees, etc. $8.16 to be exact. $15 for HDTV PVR + PVR "service". $10 for HDTV Cable box only.
Well, it is a subjective call, to be sure. An upconverted DVD looks better than my rips simply because most of my rips are encoded in DiVX or XViD. I supposed if you ripped HDTV into full MPEG-2, it would look MUCH better than a standard DVD.
But you are, technically, correct with your comment. DVD's are, at best, 480p but having seen several "upconversions", it is my opinion that this time around, upconverting might be worth it. And yes, I know you are "adding" to the content coming off the DVD -- and that is usually a bad thing. However, it works in this case.
I just took the plunge to HDTV the other day. In setting all this up, I would like to pass along what I have learned thus far. It has been an interesting trip, to say the least and I have learned that there is a LOT of hype around HDTV that is probably not quite warranted yet.
I subscribe to basic extended analog cable. I get locals plus standard cable content (Comedy central, lifetime, etc). No premium channels. I have this cable feed running through my Series 1 Tivo and from the Tivo, into my A/V receiver - which outputs the picture only to my TV. In this mode, the TV is essentially a monitor.
I also have a PC w/ Meedio hooked up to this. I used to use the S-video to an old analog TV and that worked ok. Once I hooked it up to my HDTV (TV has PC/VGA in), words can not describe how much of an improvement that makes. The PC has a Soundblaster Live! on it and digital optical out to the A/V receiver....more on that piece later.
The 3rd device I have is a DVD player (Philips DVP-642). Audio is coax digital. Video is components. Both Audio and video feed into my A/V receiver. My receiver has components in and out to the HDTV.
Now that you have an idea of the setup I use, let me lay out some issues I have run into that the Tivo3 may simplify.
1. Of all the devices I have hooked up, my PC w/ Meedio looks the best. And so do all of my downloaded movies and shows. Most of the rips I have are in HDTV and that seems to be the standard nowadays. Why is this important? Because the old "downloaded videos sacrifice quality" no longer holds true. It may not be as good as upscaled DVD's but it is MORE than reasonable.
2. My soundcard sucks. The optical out only outputs stereo sound. I think it will pass through Dolby and DTS but who cares -- that's what my DVD is for. THIS IS A VERY BIG DEAL IF YOU WANT SURROUND SOUND out of your PC. Get a card that can output 5.1 on the fly. As I understand it, most Creative products ONLY output stereo through the digital out. (note: they may "pass thru" DTS/DD but that is different). I wound up ordering a Turtle Beach Montego. Haven't set it up yet.
3. There is very limited HDTV content available. Over-the-Air (antennas), I can pick up all the major networks. Another alternative is to go w/ DirecTV -- but if you subscribe to them, you only get about 2-3 extra channels (I don't count preview channels, etc) more than an antenna. For Dish, its a little bit better -- you get about 4-5 extra channels. Same with Cable. The Point: Each of the above costs an extra $10-$15/mo. And for that, you get at most, 4-5 extra "real" channels that you couldn't get by just sticking an antenna behind your TV.
4. I just ordered a CableCard from my provider (Cox). This allows me to keep my standard "analog" cable that feeds my Tivo while at the same time, allowing me to view the 5-8 HDTV channels that are available. If I had a Tivo3, I could just slap that card into my Tivo3 instead of using my Tivo 1 (for analog) + HDTV tuner on TV set. The Tivo 3 will record whatever you throw at it (HDTV, standard digital, analog, etc) in one nice, neat, little box.
I hope this is helpful to people. There is a lot to think about on how to set things up and these are the major issues that I ran into. I think the biggest disappointment I see is the lack of HDTV content. Just go look at the HD offerings from Dish or DirecTV and you will see that it is very minimal. Perhaps that will change with time but I definitely have that "pay more for less" feeling with respect to my cable/sat bill.
So, if you want to record HDTV, you have the following options:
a) Build a PC w/ HDTV card and use an antenna (unless your HDTV capture card supports CableCard)
b) Build a PC w/ HDTV capture card and use the cable company's Cable box to tune. Note: consider the remote control implications if you choose this. Changing channels = change channels on Cable box.
c) Use the cable companies HDTV DVR (@ $15/mo from Cox. YMMV)
d) USE A TIVO3 w/ CableCard (simplest, easiest, hopefully cheapest)
Hope this helps others who decide to take the plunge.
I think I see what he is saying by the last sentence in the summary. I, too, have noticed a focus on "social interaction" stuff lately. Chat, messages, etc. While these are valuable for strategerizing and chatting with friends in the game, I don't go online to dink around and "chat" with strangers. Not to say that I don't talk to strangers -- I do. But I don't look to make new friends or anything and it seems like a lot of these services are aimed at linking people in a social way. As in -- meeting new people and making new friends.
The difference is subtle but there. When I game, the chatting, etc is pertinent only for the game. If I want to meet new ppl or find a date, I go elsewhere. Taking my online gaming and trying to make it a "social interaction" *IS* the wrong approach.
And I think that is what he is talking about here.
"And whose job is it to keep us safe? Army? NSA? CIA? FBI? Local police? Department of Homeland Security?"
Its YOUR job. Not the government's.
This is for the New York case only. What about the Texas case brought by the Attorney General of TX?
There are lots of cases against Sony. This is only one of them.
Knowing the FBI, I am putting my money on a "scalabale implementation of the lastest in RDBMS technology called....Microsoft Access"
What? How does this make Firefox anymore of a target than the upteen other bittorrent clients out there?
Just because its a tool that CAN be used for illegal purposes does not mean it IS being used for that. That's like saying Firefox is liable because there is an FTP client embedded in it and FTP is used for piracy.
""Hollywood", like any other content creator, wouldn't have much of anything to worry about if their content was desired by the public."
Uhh, not to be a jerk here but I think that's why this law is being considered in the first place. Because their stuff is desired. If ppl REALLY didn't want the programs, then piracy would go to zero.
You know, I've often wondered about this. I have "friends" who have been engaged in piracy for looooong time. More than 15 years.
During that time, my "friends" have NEVER seen anyone prosecuted for downloading. Rather, ALL of the prosecutions seem to be for uploading. And that includes nasty stuff like child porn, etc.
Does anyone know of a single case where someone was prosecuted ONLY for downloading? Kazaa, etc don't count because they upload while you download and from what I have read, all of the people sued thus far, have been sued for "distributing", which is code-speak for uploading.
Please, please. Someone take a stab at this. I really would like to know if there has EVER been a case where someone was prosecuted only for downloading restricted material.
Leverage, the way it is used here, comes from the financial world where you leverage in order to take on more risk. For example, lets say you owned 100 shares of MSFT. You could take a margin loan on that stock - and as long as it didn't go down - use the loan money to buy, say, 100 shares of Apple.
So, by taking on more risk (you are now betting that both MSFT and Apple will go up), you can increase your returns substantially. Without this "leverage" you would only get the returns of the one investment (MSFT) because you don't have the cash upfront to buy Apple.
In the biz world, companies do this stuff ALL the time. Remember LBO's in the 80's? Leveraged buy-outs. In other words, buyouts where the buyer takes on a ton of debt in order to buy the company (vs. using their earnings). They couldn't have bought the company if that debt was not available.