They didn't fail. It's still on, showing basically the same stuff. And it's still good.
We got it in the digital package with Time Warner Cable and with Cox Cable. When we switched to Dish Network, we choose the Top 120 package specifically to get TechTV.
The Screen Savers - some call in help, but mostly coverage of new computer technologies, product reviews, tips and advice on photoshop, cool tricks (liquid nitrogen ice cream). I have bits of a few of these recorded on the DVR, like the advice on which color printers produce works that don't fade after two years, or the bits on the fastest gaming laptops on the market.
X Play - Game reviews, done in a pretty good way. If you can catch it, watch the episode (on earlier this week) where they review some of the worst games they've played. (The episode called: "'LifeLine,' Shaquille O'Neal, and Games You Should Never Buy", which will reair this weekend.) I had to watch it twice, because their review of Big Rigs was SOOO funny. I hope they don't touch this show when they merge with the other gaming network.
Unscrewed - This one is a little stranger. They talk about the dark side of internet culture - discussion of porn sites, hacking tips, guys who speak Klingon, etc. Plus they show random video clips they find on the web. (This is where I first saw the badgerbadgerbadger clip before it was overused.) This content is NOT child safe.
Anime Unleashed - After midnight central, for an hour, they show dubbed japanese anime. Boogie Pop Phantom, the series they've shown for the last two weeks, is absolutely horrible. The one they showed before that was pretty good, though. It's been a good way to sample anime when I can't get to sleep.
Unfortunately, X Play is on at the same time as The Daily Show. Usually when John Stewart finishes his monologue and moves to the interview, I switch to TechTV and watch it until 1:00 when I go to bed.
While Leo might be interesting for the color he adds to the show, I have to admit that I cringe when he tries to offer help on any really technical problem. Usually he bumbles around a little bit while Patrick looks something up on the web, then Patrick can give the caller some ideas.
Contrast that with Patrick/Kevin. In this case, Kevin starts out by immediately giving some useful advice, then Patrick chimes in with advice of his own and the websites he just found. All in all, it's better advice to the callers.
My wife has stopped watching TSS due to Leo. With luck she'll start again. I just hope that they don't bump the 11:00 CST rerun of the show; that is the time slot I always catch.
Yes, and this "modern" system is part of the problem. Copyright exists in the United States purely to benefit the public domain. That's what the Constitution says.
There have been too many burdens placed on the path from creation to public domain status. With a required copyright notice you could at least count the number of years until it is in the public domain without hiring a lawyer / private detective to track down the owner of the copyright.
Every source file includes a copyright notice, correct?
Thus, they are protected under the traditional system. He says "noticed" in the text.
"no copyright until you register" is completely different.
If someone choose to publish source code without putting a copyright notice of any sort in the code, then under the traditional system that code would immediately become public domain. If, however, they bothered with a "Copyright 2004 Syd Shamino. All rights reserved except those provided by the General Public License." then their bases are covered. It's really that simple.
So does the author have the right to say "I don't want my work released, ever, so any old copies out there can degrade until they are unuseable but no one can make any new copies."????
Answer honestly. Do you believe that this is true, that an original content creator has perpetual rights to control the use of his work?
If so, congratulations, you believe in the European model of copyright, where it is an inherent right of a person.
In the US, however, copyright is not an inherent right. Instead, public domain is the inherent right, and the constitution grants a limited monopoly on creative works ONLY so that the public domain is improved. Thus, in the US, once an author/creator/etc. chooses to write down and release a work, he or she has given up perpetual control of that work. The constitution demands that, after a limited monopoly, the public domain shall inherit the work.
Frankly, I agree with the constitution. Some things belong to humanity, not to the greed or whims of those in control. The sum body of human creativity is one of them.
Wait... is Indows a derivative of Windows or of Lindows?? For the first time I'm actually confusing the two products! Oh no, Microsoft might have a valid point!
If you are a consumer that won't deal with companies who make you angry, then DirectTV isn't the way to go either.
If you lean appropriately, Rubert Murdoch's business practices could be enough to steer you clear of any of his companies. If not, then DirectTV's actions with regard to legitimate users of flash card readers should be enough to dissuade you.
I switched from crappy Cox cable to Dish Network in December. I didn't even consider DirectTV because I, like you, try to uphold my principles when I do business.
Even if he's not the best at what he does, I like the idea of a CEO being open and responsive to his customers. Charlies gets a lot of credit for that.
>> The cash credits will cost the company at least $15 million, and allowing for the fact that some of the coupons will be unused the PPV movie offer should cost the company about $10-15 million. Ironic, because $25-30 million is about the total price increase Viacom was seeking.
I wouldn't consider all of the used PPV movies as a "cost" to the company either. I have NEVER bought a pay-per-view movie from any cable or satellite provider, ever. However, I received a free PPV movie in my last bill, and I'll get another free movie next month. Since they are free, I'll probably use them.
This doesn't cost Dish Network anything, since it costs them nothing to provide the service and they are not losing out on money I would have otherwise paid them.
After a few nights of "Off line - Press Info" on a host of Viacom-owned channels in my lineup, I've realized how little I cared for those channels anyway. I almost never watched VH1 or Nickelodeon or CBS, but I kept them in my channel list on the off chance a decent show popped up.
Now, I think I can safely remove them from my favorites list and reduce the scrolling in the guide between useful channels.
There's nothing like being deprived of something to learn how little you needed it in the first place.
>> But, I have DirecTV and I don't think I'm supporting Viacom's business practices.
Sure you are. You are supporting Rupert Murdoch's business practices, which are scummy enough as it is. But DirectTV recently signed a new contract with Viacom, and it has or will pass those prices on to its customers. I don't doubt that DirectTV caved to Viacom's demands so quickly because they knew they could pick up market share with the Dish Network debate. In effect, DirectTV and Viacom are supporting each other in this, and you are supporting both with your monthly check.
Of those, I'd pay 50 cents or a dollar a month each for Comedy Central and VH1 Classis. For the rest of them - good riddance. I have them filtered from my channel list anyway.
Heck, if they would offer channels on a per-channel basis, I could cut my bill even more than I already did switching to Dish Network. VH1 Classis is the only reason I would consider the Top 150 package over the Top 100.
>> Who would ever subscribe to Dishnet? DirecTV rules! Seriously, I've seen both, and DirecTV won hands down!
How about because DirectTV has used the legal system to enforce its opinion that technology can itself be illegal? And that people who buy the technology for legitimate reasons - even those who don't own a TV or who subscribe to local cable - must pay a $3500 protection fee or be sued?
>> In my opinion, there's only one answer: amend the US Constitution so that Reps and Sens can only serve two terms (like the President)
What job do you have? Are you in an IT or other computer-related field?
Most elected positions are held by lawyers for one of two reasons: 1. People who grew up intending to run for office went to law school because that's what most politicans do.
2. If a person chooses to enter politics as an adult, that isn't easy to do and hold an 8-5 job.
I, personally, might be interested in politics. But if I do enter public service, I realize that this will end my career as an engineer. Sure, I could go back and do engineering management or business work later, but my skills would be so out of date after 5-15 years and a few elected positions so as to be worthless.
The concept of the "statesman" is still a very noble ideal. Term limits simply take these people who intend to serve for life and force them to look for jobs in the private sector, and the best jobs will come to those who voted for their future employers. All the while, new elected politicians with no idea how the government works come in and are completely useless for a few years, during which time they can be easily recruited by the big companies as future employees in return for some time (and votes).
Go read about the Republican takeover of the house in 1994 on the term limit plank, the difficulty they had starting out with the basic day-to-day activities of the office, and their eventual decisions to all stay past their self-imposed limits.
If you want to fix the political system in the US, look more at the definition of corporations as persons by a clerk in the late 1800s and perpetuated ever since. The only reason the bill of rights didn't include an amendment denying the those rights to corporations was that most states at the time already had laws that prevented corporations from being recognized as "persons" or from lasting more than ~40 years.
This certainly needs to be combined with a revamped SMTP system (or complete replacement) that enforces DNS-style From: lookups.
So no, this certainly isn't a solution all by itself. It's the best one I've seen so far that doesn't involve more laws, though.
Most of the other ideas surrounding DNS lookups are to enforce accurate From: lines. But then the ideas break down, with the best suggestions to be new laws to punish the sender of the spam. With the proposal here today, it can be done with technology instead of waiting for legislation.
As it happens, Tommy Heath is a software engineer who still releases albums on the side. His most recent album, "tommy.rtf" is pretty clearly named from his other work.
Well, the first google search result for '"redhat 7.3" security update' yields: this link where a security bug in 7.3 is patched. That bug fix was released less than 15 days ago, so it seems like it still gets support.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't fail. It's still on, showing basically the same stuff. And it's still good.
We got it in the digital package with Time Warner Cable and with Cox Cable. When we switched to Dish Network, we choose the Top 120 package specifically to get TechTV.
TechTV has recently covered several issues the night before they are posted to slashdot. (Including the "tech news" part of TSS.)
If TechTV needs to go, then Slashdot should go too...
(Besides, we all know that people who follow the advice peddled on Slashdot are equally heading for trouble.)
Amen. I fear this will be changed, and I like it just as it is.
Did you catch the show with the Big Rigs review? I had to watch it twice, and I'll record it when it reairs this weekend. That cracked me up.
The shows I catch are:
The Screen Savers - some call in help, but mostly coverage of new computer technologies, product reviews, tips and advice on photoshop, cool tricks (liquid nitrogen ice cream). I have bits of a few of these recorded on the DVR, like the advice on which color printers produce works that don't fade after two years, or the bits on the fastest gaming laptops on the market.
X Play - Game reviews, done in a pretty good way. If you can catch it, watch the episode (on earlier this week) where they review some of the worst games they've played. (The episode called: "'LifeLine,' Shaquille O'Neal, and Games You Should Never Buy", which will reair this weekend.) I had to watch it twice, because their review of Big Rigs was SOOO funny. I hope they don't touch this show when they merge with the other gaming network.
Unscrewed - This one is a little stranger. They talk about the dark side of internet culture - discussion of porn sites, hacking tips, guys who speak Klingon, etc. Plus they show random video clips they find on the web. (This is where I first saw the badgerbadgerbadger clip before it was overused.) This content is NOT child safe.
Anime Unleashed - After midnight central, for an hour, they show dubbed japanese anime. Boogie Pop Phantom, the series they've shown for the last two weeks, is absolutely horrible. The one they showed before that was pretty good, though. It's been a good way to sample anime when I can't get to sleep.
Unfortunately, X Play is on at the same time as The Daily Show. Usually when John Stewart finishes his monologue and moves to the interview, I switch to TechTV and watch it until 1:00 when I go to bed.
While Leo might be interesting for the color he adds to the show, I have to admit that I cringe when he tries to offer help on any really technical problem. Usually he bumbles around a little bit while Patrick looks something up on the web, then Patrick can give the caller some ideas.
Contrast that with Patrick/Kevin. In this case, Kevin starts out by immediately giving some useful advice, then Patrick chimes in with advice of his own and the websites he just found. All in all, it's better advice to the callers.
My wife has stopped watching TSS due to Leo. With luck she'll start again. I just hope that they don't bump the 11:00 CST rerun of the show; that is the time slot I always catch.
That sounds fine with me. However, let me take some time to read your site tonight, and then I'll email you with me real name.
Yes, and this "modern" system is part of the problem. Copyright exists in the United States purely to benefit the public domain. That's what the Constitution says.
There have been too many burdens placed on the path from creation to public domain status. With a required copyright notice you could at least count the number of years until it is in the public domain without hiring a lawyer / private detective to track down the owner of the copyright.
>> Keep in mind that money does not have to change hands in order for there to be a "benefit".
Indeed. The GPL is in part based on this (though it is clearly different from the public domain).
Every source file includes a copyright notice, correct?
Thus, they are protected under the traditional system. He says "noticed" in the text.
"no copyright until you register" is completely different.
If someone choose to publish source code without putting a copyright notice of any sort in the code, then under the traditional system that code would immediately become public domain. If, however, they bothered with a "Copyright 2004 Syd Shamino. All rights reserved except those provided by the General Public License." then their bases are covered. It's really that simple.
So does the author have the right to say "I don't want my work released, ever, so any old copies out there can degrade until they are unuseable but no one can make any new copies."????
Answer honestly. Do you believe that this is true, that an original content creator has perpetual rights to control the use of his work?
If so, congratulations, you believe in the European model of copyright, where it is an inherent right of a person.
In the US, however, copyright is not an inherent right. Instead, public domain is the inherent right, and the constitution grants a limited monopoly on creative works ONLY so that the public domain is improved. Thus, in the US, once an author/creator/etc. chooses to write down and release a work, he or she has given up perpetual control of that work. The constitution demands that, after a limited monopoly, the public domain shall inherit the work.
Frankly, I agree with the constitution. Some things belong to humanity, not to the greed or whims of those in control. The sum body of human creativity is one of them.
Dell closed their physical outlet store (i.e. the one on north 183 around Burnet) in like 2001.
AFAIK, their "outlet" store is online only now.
Wait... is Indows a derivative of Windows or of Lindows?? For the first time I'm actually confusing the two products! Oh no, Microsoft might have a valid point!
- head explodes -
It's not falling out of the sky. The picture was taken with a 15-second exposure, causing the streak.
If you are a consumer that won't deal with companies who make you angry, then DirectTV isn't the way to go either.
If you lean appropriately, Rubert Murdoch's business practices could be enough to steer you clear of any of his companies. If not, then DirectTV's actions with regard to legitimate users of flash card readers should be enough to dissuade you.
I switched from crappy Cox cable to Dish Network in December. I didn't even consider DirectTV because I, like you, try to uphold my principles when I do business.
Even if he's not the best at what he does, I like the idea of a CEO being open and responsive to his customers. Charlies gets a lot of credit for that.
>> The cash credits will cost the company at least $15 million, and allowing for the fact that some of the coupons will be unused the PPV movie offer should cost the company about $10-15 million. Ironic, because $25-30 million is about the total price increase Viacom was seeking.
I wouldn't consider all of the used PPV movies as a "cost" to the company either. I have NEVER bought a pay-per-view movie from any cable or satellite provider, ever. However, I received a free PPV movie in my last bill, and I'll get another free movie next month. Since they are free, I'll probably use them.
This doesn't cost Dish Network anything, since it costs them nothing to provide the service and they are not losing out on money I would have otherwise paid them.
After a few nights of "Off line - Press Info" on a host of Viacom-owned channels in my lineup, I've realized how little I cared for those channels anyway. I almost never watched VH1 or Nickelodeon or CBS, but I kept them in my channel list on the off chance a decent show popped up.
Now, I think I can safely remove them from my favorites list and reduce the scrolling in the guide between useful channels.
There's nothing like being deprived of something to learn how little you needed it in the first place.
Dude, WINE Is Not an Emulator. Get a clue.
>> But, I have DirecTV and I don't think I'm supporting Viacom's business practices.
Sure you are. You are supporting Rupert Murdoch's business practices, which are scummy enough as it is. But DirectTV recently signed a new contract with Viacom, and it has or will pass those prices on to its customers. I don't doubt that DirectTV caved to Viacom's demands so quickly because they knew they could pick up market share with the Dish Network debate. In effect, DirectTV and Viacom are supporting each other in this, and you are supporting both with your monthly check.
Of those, I'd pay 50 cents or a dollar a month each for Comedy Central and VH1 Classis. For the rest of them - good riddance. I have them filtered from my channel list anyway.
Heck, if they would offer channels on a per-channel basis, I could cut my bill even more than I already did switching to Dish Network. VH1 Classis is the only reason I would consider the Top 150 package over the Top 100.
>> Who would ever subscribe to Dishnet? DirecTV rules! Seriously, I've seen both, and DirecTV won hands down!
How about because DirectTV has used the legal system to enforce its opinion that technology can itself be illegal? And that people who buy the technology for legitimate reasons - even those who don't own a TV or who subscribe to local cable - must pay a $3500 protection fee or be sued?
DirectTV and Racketeering
DirectTV's quality is meaningless when the company's business practices are dirt.
>> In my opinion, there's only one answer: amend the US Constitution so that Reps and Sens can only serve two terms (like the President)
What job do you have? Are you in an IT or other computer-related field?
Most elected positions are held by lawyers for one of two reasons:
1. People who grew up intending to run for office went to law school because that's what most politicans do.
2. If a person chooses to enter politics as an adult, that isn't easy to do and hold an 8-5 job.
I, personally, might be interested in politics. But if I do enter public service, I realize that this will end my career as an engineer. Sure, I could go back and do engineering management or business work later, but my skills would be so out of date after 5-15 years and a few elected positions so as to be worthless.
The concept of the "statesman" is still a very noble ideal. Term limits simply take these people who intend to serve for life and force them to look for jobs in the private sector, and the best jobs will come to those who voted for their future employers. All the while, new elected politicians with no idea how the government works come in and are completely useless for a few years, during which time they can be easily recruited by the big companies as future employees in return for some time (and votes).
Go read about the Republican takeover of the house in 1994 on the term limit plank, the difficulty they had starting out with the basic day-to-day activities of the office, and their eventual decisions to all stay past their self-imposed limits.
If you want to fix the political system in the US, look more at the definition of corporations as persons by a clerk in the late 1800s and perpetuated ever since. The only reason the bill of rights didn't include an amendment denying the those rights to corporations was that most states at the time already had laws that prevented corporations from being recognized as "persons" or from lasting more than ~40 years.
This certainly needs to be combined with a revamped SMTP system (or complete replacement) that enforces DNS-style From: lookups.
So no, this certainly isn't a solution all by itself. It's the best one I've seen so far that doesn't involve more laws, though.
Most of the other ideas surrounding DNS lookups are to enforce accurate From: lines. But then the ideas break down, with the best suggestions to be new laws to punish the sender of the spam. With the proposal here today, it can be done with technology instead of waiting for legislation.
As it happens, Tommy Heath is a software engineer who still releases albums on the side. His most recent album, "tommy.rtf" is pretty clearly named from his other work.
From this page, or here.
I'm sure tomorrow they'll clarify that they meant 90 "business" days...
Well, the first google search result for '"redhat 7.3" security update' yields: this link where a security bug in 7.3 is patched. That bug fix was released less than 15 days ago, so it seems like it still gets support.
I appears to come from the Fedora team.