As far as what I want to listen to while I drive, Sirius has it all, except the Yankees.
2 NPR stations, BBC, World Radio Network, Public Radio International, C-SPAN (which carries the network's sunday morning talk shows), CNBC, CNN, Bloomberg, and more.
When I want to hear music there are 60 commercial free stations. Then there are about 20 entertainment channels. And TechTV is coming!!
Do I really want my PC recording The Simposons while I play Unreal Tournament 2003?
I don't think so! I have a 3.06 P4 with an ATI 9700 and its pretty much maxed out while playing UT 2003. I bet them same will be true with the upcoming Doom title.
I'd much rather have my Replay 4500s doing their recording thing while I'm doing my computing/gaming thing.
You can get two or three Replays for the price of a Media Center PC, I think. You can hook them up to your network and share programing between them, your PCs and friends on the net. And they won't steel CPU cycles from your PC.
I watch a lot of t.v. via my replay. While I must admit that I skip some of the commercials, I don't skip about half of them. Why? Beccause frequently when I'm "watching" t.v., I am also doing other stuff; e.g. cleaning the house, paying bills, doing laundry etc.. I don't always drop what I'm doing to skip through commercials.
I wonder if the corporate pigs of the world think that not giving commercials my undivided attention while I do dishes is stealing t.v..
What do you bet the t.v. corporations force t.v. makers to build t.v.s that strap you in directly in front of the tube, pry your eyelids open, and tie your hands down so you must watch the commercials?
It is most likely for legal reason that they have to pay her. The fact that she is compensated makes it legally clear that she agreed to do the commercial and she expects that they will use her likeness in advertising. She traded the rite to use her image for some cash and an iPod. I would be very surpised if less than 99.99999% of all people who appear in adds were compensated.
TechTV's "The Screen Savers" just reviewed the new tablets and didn't think too much of them. They complained about poor hand writing recogniton, excessive heat and poor battery life (2 hours). They didn't really understand what market they were aimed at.
They web review is here,
http://www.techtv.com/news/products/story/0,24195, 3406620,00.html
I have a dual 533mhz G4 processor Mac, and I have to say that Mac OSX does not seem slow. I think the key is the dual processors, which OSX takes advantage of. There are several faster dual processor Macs out there, too.
I'm not saying it feels particularly fast, but I do not find it in any way slow.
I have read where Photoshop users are disappointed with the performance and generally run Pshop in OS 9. Photoshop will take advantage of dual processors in either OS 9 or OSX.
I have been told by my Honda dealer that a Hybrid Engine will be put in a CRV in the near future. Its not the bigest SUV, but, IMHO, only losers get big SUVs.
I saw Micheal Eisner, CEO of Disney, say that he was thinking about buying AOL/Time Warner a day or two ago. If that's not from the horse's mouth, I don't know who would be. You are right, of course, Eisner might not have his wish come true.
That doesn't, however, go to disprove the control of American media by a few powerful corporations.
I can't seem to post this link without a space in between the "U" and the "A" in "INEQUALITY". Just remove the space (or weird inserted charcters) and it should work.
Am I just really clueless? Anyone know why I might be having problems with that?
I haven't been able to read the article since it has been slashdotted, but one thing that increasingly bothers me is how the major news organizations are owned by a small number of large corporations. These corporations in turn have a greater say on how we are governed through campaign donations.
I heard that Disney is considering a buyout of AOL/Time Warner. It would then own ABC, CNN, Time Warner and AOL. Imagine that!
Coroporate news outlets are and will be stymied when trying to report things that powerful corporations don't want reported and that's a lot of things.
This combined with the growing power of the very rich means less and less democracy.:-(.
See the NY Times Magazine cover story from this Sunday about who the rich are taking over;
On the whole I believe that people are free to believe what they want. Too me, that is a truism.
There are other ideas that while I would defend your rights to believe them privately, must be vigorously challenged in public.
People used to believe that husbands should be allowed to beat their wives or children. People used to believe that women were the property of their father or husband. People used to believe that African-Americans were not human beings.
All of these beliefs were publically challenged and are now all but universally considered unacceptable and thank god for that.
Luckily for us those supremely important battles are over and we can now argue on the battlefield of sexual politics. While the tide is turning, many of you still seem to think that they can decide the bounds of what is sexually appropriate.
Some of you think same sex couples are evil if they have sex. Some of you think that only married people should have sex. Some of you think that the human body (even computer generated bodies) are somehow degrading, although you rarely explain why.
Please spare me your extreme examples. I am only talking about consenting adults here, not children or barnyard animals.
I am not saying that sex or images of sex should be thrust upon you. I am all for decorum. But no one will be able to see the naked BMXers unless they buy a copy of the game, take it home, and put it in their Playstation. How does that have any impact on you? If it were so perverting, how could that prevert anyone but the purchaser?
I think you give people very little credit if you think seeing a computer generated tit will cause them to disrespect women in any way. Personally I can hold the two ideas in my head that a woman has a gorgeous body and that they are intelligent, decent people.
If I acted in the world the way the anti-sex crowd does, then I would say close all of the churches because I don't believe that god exists and religion is a form of brainwashing or mental illness. But I don't say that. I don't try to ban the bible at bookstores or Walmart. You are free to buy any stupid thing you want to buy. Please allow me the same consideration. That is the essence of democracy. If you don't understand that, you don't know what democracy is.
So in your world, only married people can have sex or see the human body.
What a sad, boring world you live in.
I agree that a BMX game with naked women in it is a little silly, but it is in no way harmful or disrespectful and not worthy of censorship.
Why is a depiction of the human body disrespectful? You might be surprised to find that a lot of women and men like showing off their body. It doesn't take away from their humanity, their intelligence, their morals or their character.
By the way, the word pornography was coined by prutianical zelots and used to be applied to even verbal descriptions of husbands and wives kissing. Should Walmart ban the selling of that?
Cigarettes kill. Alcohol kills. SEX IS THE BEGINNING OF LIFE.
Only primtive, backwards, psycologically difficient people are so afraid of a basic human function that they would try to prevent the sale of a BMX game because it contain depictions of the human body in its natural state. The presence of this game in a store is NOT going to corrupt anyone. How fragile are you that a disk in a box in a store with tens of thousand of other products sends you into a panic.
How totally beyond reason is it that at Walmart I can't buy a freaking game with some tits in it, but I could buy a sniper rifle and become a copycat of that psyco in D.C.?
There is nothing immoral, bad, evil, corrupting, dirty or shameful about the human body. Anyone who thinks there is needs years of therapy.
Walmart is the largest retailer in the U.S., if you don't understand the dangerous precident of this stupid form of censorship, you do not deserve to live in a democracy.
Again, IMHO, it would be just as absurd for Walmart to refuse to sell a video game because it portrayed people eating or sleeping as it is for them to refuse to sell a game because it showed the human body or people engaging in sex.
These people ARE telling me how to live my life, because they won't let me, a 37 year man, even buy it. Walmart, and the wackos who have picketed retailers in the past, are puting their values over mine. In a lot of places, Walmart may be the only outlet for video games. I agree that minors should not be able to buy stuff like this, but to bannish it altogether from the store because it shows the human body in its natural state is definitively preverse.
Yes, of course, there are non-Christian zelots. This will get me in a lot of trouble, and its just my opinion, but I beileve that followers of any religion are irrational, bordering on mentaly ill.
IMHO, people who are afraid of the human body and sex are the perverted ones. I'm willing to bet that sex is one of the most frequently repeated activities on the planet. Therefore, its is a normal, healthy human activitiy.
All you christian zelots and psycologically repressed people are on the outside of normal group, not the inside. Censorship, even voluntary self-censorship, is sicker than any sexual activity between consenting adults.
Slashdot Mirror
What is your point?
Got Sirius, not interested.
As far as what I want to listen to while I drive, Sirius has it all, except the Yankees.
2 NPR stations, BBC, World Radio Network, Public Radio International, C-SPAN (which carries the network's sunday morning talk shows), CNBC, CNN, Bloomberg, and more.
When I want to hear music there are 60 commercial free stations. Then there are about 20 entertainment channels. And TechTV is coming!!
I couldn't be happier with it.
Do I really want my PC recording The Simposons while I play Unreal Tournament 2003?
I don't think so! I have a 3.06 P4 with an ATI 9700 and its pretty much maxed out while playing UT 2003. I bet them same will be true with the upcoming Doom title.
I'd much rather have my Replay 4500s doing their recording thing while I'm doing my computing/gaming thing.
You can get two or three Replays for the price of a Media Center PC, I think. You can hook them up to your network and share programing between them, your PCs and friends on the net. And they won't steel CPU cycles from your PC.
Uh...
I don't believe Tai Chi is a Martial Art.
I watch a lot of t.v. via my replay. While I must admit that I skip some of the commercials, I don't skip about half of them. Why? Beccause frequently when I'm "watching" t.v., I am also doing other stuff; e.g. cleaning the house, paying bills, doing laundry etc.. I don't always drop what I'm doing to skip through commercials.
I wonder if the corporate pigs of the world think that not giving commercials my undivided attention while I do dishes is stealing t.v..
What do you bet the t.v. corporations force t.v. makers to build t.v.s that strap you in directly in front of the tube, pry your eyelids open, and tie your hands down so you must watch the commercials?
Now that she has spoken, let her have her life back.
Move on to the next foolish thing to get infatuated over.
Hey everyone!! Look here!!! I have an inanimate carbon rod!!!
It is most likely for legal reason that they have to pay her. The fact that she is compensated makes it legally clear that she agreed to do the commercial and she expects that they will use her likeness in advertising. She traded the rite to use her image for some cash and an iPod. I would be very surpised if less than 99.99999% of all people who appear in adds were compensated.
TechTV's "The Screen Savers" just reviewed the new tablets and didn't think too much of them. They complained about poor hand writing recogniton, excessive heat and poor battery life (2 hours). They didn't really understand what market they were aimed at. They web review is here, http://www.techtv.com/news/products/story/0,24195, 3406620,00.html
I have a dual 533mhz G4 processor Mac, and I have to say that Mac OSX does not seem slow. I think the key is the dual processors, which OSX takes advantage of. There are several faster dual processor Macs out there, too.
I'm not saying it feels particularly fast, but I do not find it in any way slow.
I have read where Photoshop users are disappointed with the performance and generally run Pshop in OS 9. Photoshop will take advantage of dual processors in either OS 9 or OSX.
I have been told by my Honda dealer that a Hybrid Engine will be put in a CRV in the near future. Its not the bigest SUV, but, IMHO, only losers get big SUVs.
N/T
I saw Micheal Eisner, CEO of Disney, say that he was thinking about buying AOL/Time Warner a day or two ago. If that's not from the horse's mouth, I don't know who would be. You are right, of course, Eisner might not have his wish come true.
That doesn't, however, go to disprove the control of American media by a few powerful corporations.
Very Well said.
I can't seem to post this link without a space in between the "U" and the "A" in "INEQUALITY". Just remove the space (or weird inserted charcters) and it should work.
Am I just really clueless? Anyone know why I might be having problems with that?
This link should work;
E QU ALITY.HTML
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/20IN
I haven't been able to read the article since it has been slashdotted, but one thing that increasingly bothers me is how the major news organizations are owned by a small number of large corporations. These corporations in turn have a greater say on how we are governed through campaign donations.
:-(.
E QU ALITY.html
I heard that Disney is considering a buyout of AOL/Time Warner. It would then own ABC, CNN, Time Warner and AOL. Imagine that!
Coroporate news outlets are and will be stymied when trying to report things that powerful corporations don't want reported and that's a lot of things.
This combined with the growing power of the very rich means less and less democracy.
See the NY Times Magazine cover story from this Sunday about who the rich are taking over;
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/20/magazine/20IN
You are anal.
I thought Disney discoverd this in the eighties. http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/6822/
On the whole I believe that people are free to believe what they want. Too me, that is a truism.
There are other ideas that while I would defend your rights to believe them privately, must be vigorously challenged in public.
People used to believe that husbands should be allowed to beat their wives or children. People used to believe that women were the property of their father or husband. People used to believe that African-Americans were not human beings.
All of these beliefs were publically challenged and are now all but universally considered unacceptable and thank god for that.
Luckily for us those supremely important battles are over and we can now argue on the battlefield of sexual politics. While the tide is turning, many of you still seem to think that they can decide the bounds of what is sexually appropriate.
Some of you think same sex couples are evil if they have sex. Some of you think that only married people should have sex. Some of you think that the human body (even computer generated bodies) are somehow degrading, although you rarely explain why.
Please spare me your extreme examples. I am only talking about consenting adults here, not children or barnyard animals.
I am not saying that sex or images of sex should be thrust upon you. I am all for decorum. But no one will be able to see the naked BMXers unless they buy a copy of the game, take it home, and put it in their Playstation. How does that have any impact on you? If it were so perverting, how could that prevert anyone but the purchaser?
I think you give people very little credit if you think seeing a computer generated tit will cause them to disrespect women in any way. Personally I can hold the two ideas in my head that a woman has a gorgeous body and that they are intelligent, decent people.
If I acted in the world the way the anti-sex crowd does, then I would say close all of the churches because I don't believe that god exists and religion is a form of brainwashing or mental illness. But I don't say that. I don't try to ban the bible at bookstores or Walmart. You are free to buy any stupid thing you want to buy. Please allow me the same consideration. That is the essence of democracy. If you don't understand that, you don't know what democracy is.
No, get out now!
So in your world, only married people can have sex or see the human body.
What a sad, boring world you live in.
I agree that a BMX game with naked women in it is a little silly, but it is in no way harmful or disrespectful and not worthy of censorship.
Why is a depiction of the human body disrespectful? You might be surprised to find that a lot of women and men like showing off their body. It doesn't take away from their humanity, their intelligence, their morals or their character.
By the way, the word pornography was coined by prutianical zelots and used to be applied to even verbal descriptions of husbands and wives kissing. Should Walmart ban the selling of that?
Cigarettes kill. Alcohol kills. SEX IS THE BEGINNING OF LIFE.
Only primtive, backwards, psycologically difficient people are so afraid of a basic human function that they would try to prevent the sale of a BMX game because it contain depictions of the human body in its natural state. The presence of this game in a store is NOT going to corrupt anyone. How fragile are you that a disk in a box in a store with tens of thousand of other products sends you into a panic.
How totally beyond reason is it that at Walmart I can't buy a freaking game with some tits in it, but I could buy a sniper rifle and become a copycat of that psyco in D.C.?
There is nothing immoral, bad, evil, corrupting, dirty or shameful about the human body. Anyone who thinks there is needs years of therapy.
Walmart is the largest retailer in the U.S., if you don't understand the dangerous precident of this stupid form of censorship, you do not deserve to live in a democracy.
IMHO, God does not exist.
You are free to believe anything you want.
Again, IMHO, it would be just as absurd for Walmart to refuse to sell a video game because it portrayed people eating or sleeping as it is for them to refuse to sell a game because it showed the human body or people engaging in sex.
These people ARE telling me how to live my life, because they won't let me, a 37 year man, even buy it. Walmart, and the wackos who have picketed retailers in the past, are puting their values over mine. In a lot of places, Walmart may be the only outlet for video games. I agree that minors should not be able to buy stuff like this, but to bannish it altogether from the store because it shows the human body in its natural state is definitively preverse.
Yes, of course, there are non-Christian zelots. This will get me in a lot of trouble, and its just my opinion, but I beileve that followers of any religion are irrational, bordering on mentaly ill.
IMHO, people who are afraid of the human body and sex are the perverted ones. I'm willing to bet that sex is one of the most frequently repeated activities on the planet. Therefore, its is a normal, healthy human activitiy.
All you christian zelots and psycologically repressed people are on the outside of normal group, not the inside. Censorship, even voluntary self-censorship, is sicker than any sexual activity between consenting adults.