For P1 and P6, my idea of having the ID tracked, and verified as mentioned before would (I believe) effectively combat those problems, without much of a chance of increasing P7, since they'll be allowed to vote, and any additional vote in any other state will be nullified. I can hear the argument from someone out there, so let me just say it out loud. If they're registered to vote in different states, they better pick a state and stick with it.
The main reason that I pointed problems out P1 and P6 was because your proposed ID tracking system (and most other ID schemes surrounding elections) is meant to address them. I believe that the solutions to P6 and P1 usually do far more harm (P7) than good.
AFAIK, P1 isn't actually illegal. And I think that's OK. Some people split their time between two states, and as long as they legitimately live in both and only vote one place, we're fine.
I would be very interested to see data from any independent studies regarding how widespread P6 actually is. My guess is that it's a very small problem. OTOH, I believe that P7 is fairly widespread, especially in certain areas. (An example would be the Florida voters in 2000 whose names were incorrectly included on a list of felons, and hence prevented from voting.) The Help America Vote Act, while it has flaws, did go some ways in addressing this with provisional ballots.
The larger concern with requiring ID at the polling station is that this requirement will disenfranchise some voters, and may contribute to the disenfranchisement of many voters. Some people simply don't have ID. Would you deny them the vote? What about people who have ID, but don't normally carry it, or who legitimately forget their ID when they go to vote? They might be able to rush home and get it, but then again they might not. My most frustrating moment as a poll worker was when I had to tell the man who came 10 minutes before closing that he was at the wrong precinct, and he couldn't vote here - he didn't have time to get to the right polling place, so he couldn't vote. If we require ID to vote, this situation will be much more widespread.
If you're of legal age to vote, aren't you required by law to have ID? After all, you need ID to buy beer and cigarettes. Just my thoughts, unless my US Gov't teacher in high school was teaching us out of a different book than the ones we were using.
Not in the US.
There is absolutely no legal compulsion to have any form of ID in the US. At least at the federal level. It's possible that certain states have their own requirements.
That said, there are many situations where you are required by law to show ID in order to perform an activity. You named two of them: purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. Using authority granted under certain provisions of the Patriot Act, the TSA has issued secret regulations, that among other things, require passengers to show ID to board airplanes. This may also apply to passengers boarding Amtrak trains - I'm not sure on that though. You must have a driver's license in order to drive. I believe that federal laws requires employed US citizens to have a Social Security number so that Social Security deductions may be made from paychecks. Men in the US between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service, but no ID is required to register.
You do not need an ID to live in the US, or travel in the US by bus, bicycle, or foot.
And at least in Minnesota, you do not need ID to register to vote or to vote.
(I misspoke earlier when I said that Minnesota requires ID to register to vote. This is not true. If you register at the polls, the normal procedure is to show ID and proof of residence. You may, however, have an already registered voter from your precinct vouch for you. If you register by mail or at city hall prior to the election, no ID is required. The form requires you to provide driver's license number, state ID number, or last 4 digits of Social Security number. You may also write NONE if you don't possess any of the former.)
Which is more important - greater voter protection or less fraud?
Well, obviously, with the debacle that's happened with the past election, especially concerning Ohio and Florida, less fraud.
Obviously, we need to combat election fraud. I simply believe that requiring more ID isn't the way to do it.
Which is more important? Greater voter protection at the risk of slightly more observed methods, or a totally insecure and unreliable system of vote tallying? Or, let's ask it like this, which is more important to the people? Having every vote counted corrrectly at the expense of more stringent measures, or having a rounded estimate and margin of error that can be abused to fraudulently win an election?
Generally, I believe that voter enfranchisement is more important. But let's get specific.
Possible election problems: P1. Voter is registered in multiple locations
P2. Eligible voter is prevented from registering to vote
P3. A ineligible person votes
P4. A registered but deceased voter is impersonated; the impersonator votes in the stead of that person
P5. A register, eligible voter is impersonated; the impersonator votes in the stead of the voter
P6. Voter who is registered in multiple locations actually votes in multiple locations
P7. Eligible voter is prevented from voting
P8. Voter is coerced or bribed into voting a certain way
P9. Voter is punished for voting a certain way
P10. Voter is punished for voting (or for not voting)
P11. Valid cast votes are not counted
P12. Valid cast votes are counted incorrectly
P13. Extra votes are included in the ballot count (ballot box is stuffed)
All of these are problems. But, the severity of the problems are not equal. And u
Problem 1 is only an issue if problem 6 ensues. It's 2-11 that are the real concerns. I would go further and say that problems 7-11 are the most crucial.
Unfortunately, solving one problem may exacerbate another problem. Given this, I believe that any solution which solves problems 1-6 but exacerbates 7-11 is not acceptable. That said, let's look at some possible solutions.
Possible ways to address the above problems: S1. Voter must show ID to register (effectively addresses P3, addresses P1, P3, & P7; slight increase in P2)
S2. Voter must sign in to vote (helps deter and detect P3-P6)
S3. Voter must show ID to vote (helps deter and detect P3-P6; somewhat effectively solves P3-P5; potentially increases P7)
S4. Voter must show voter registration card or other election-specific ID (addresses P1-P6; potentially increases P7)
S5. Voter sign-in should be marked in state-wide or nation-wide database. Voter cannot sign in until poll workers use this database to verify that the voter has not already voted. (addresses P6; technical problems may increase P7)
S6. Voter's finger is marked with ink that takes 24 hours or more to disappear (effectively addresses P6; slightly addresses P4-P5)
S7. Disallow absentee voting (addresses P6, P8-P10; increases P7)
S8. Allow voter to verify their vote after the election (addresses P12; greatly increases P8-P10)
S9. Use direct electronic recording (touchscreens) with no paper trail (addresses P12; increases P11 & P13)
S10. Require voter and a witness to sign a form accompanying absentee ballot. (addresses P6, P8-P10)
S11. At every voting place, have representatives of multiple varied political parties act as election judges, observing what happens and counting the votes (effectively addresses P11-P13, esp if manual paper ballots are used)
S12. Allow eligible, unregistered voters to register to vote the day of the election at the polling station (addresses P7; potentially increases P1 & P6)
I believe that the system in Minnesota strikes a good balance. It incorporates S1, S2, S10, S11, & S12.
I understand the frustrations of the OP, but it comes down to choosing between a secret ballot or less fraud.
Tally every vote, as to who voted for whom, record it. We've got that technology to do it now. Doing it by hand would be impossible.
This is actually done in the UK. With regular paper ballots. I'm pretty sure they're not even optical scan. Each ballot has a number on it that can be traced back to the voter. My understanding is that a court investigating funny business during the election could do this tracing.
I believe that this system would not be acceptable in the US. I know I certainly wouldn't accept it.
Also, doing so would allow a person to see their vote, and if it's changed, they can file a complaint. Help keep the election fair.
This could lead to catastrophe.
One of the major reasons for a secret ballot is to prevent vote-buying. If you can prove to someone that you voted for candidate X, it's easy for them to justify paying you for your vote. OTOH, if, as now, you have no way of proving your vote to the potential vote-buyer, then they have to trust that you voted the way you say you did. Under the current system, vote-buying is a much less certain business.
A national voter ID would be nice. Once used, it's invalid anywhere else in the country. Issue a new one next election year. We have to register to vote anyways, right?
Wrong. Once you register to vote, you stay registered. The exact rules likely vary from state to state. In Minnesota, where I have served as an election judge, I believe you automatically stay registered as long as you vote once every 4 years. Obviously if you move you need to re-register.
If the ID is used twice, call the person, have them comfirm their vote under oath. Make sure they can bring proper identification to show that indeed, they are the owner of that number.
Improperly voting is already a crime.
I voted yesterday for a school bond referendum. When I got to the polling station, I told the worker my name. The worker found my name in the book (which also includes my address). I then signed under my name.
At the top of that page was a statement that, by signing, I agreed to. I don't have the text on me, but I read it yesterday, and when I worked as an election judge. It basically says that you are who you say you are and that you know acknowledge improperly signing in is a felony.
You're right. Anonymous voting and 100% accuracy will NEVER happen. The only way to make it a fair election is to monitor it under an electron microscope. I don't see where this will actually violate anyone's privacy rights, either. In fact, if a politician tries to bribe someone for a vote, once finding out who they are, etc, hey, arrest them and jail them for fraudulent practice on a national scale.
You've got valid points, I'm just adding my responses to it.
You also have valid points. But I strongly disagree with your suggestions.
Generally speaking, Democrats in the US favor greater voter accessibility, and are willing to accept a small degree of fraud as the price of universal suffrage. Republicans, generally, favor greater controls to prevent fraud, and are willing to accept a small degree of voter inconvenience and the possibility for greater disenfranchisement as the price of a more fraud-proof system.
I'm with the Democrats on this one.
Voting in free elections is one of the most fundamental rights that we possess. We must do what we can to prevent fraud, but we must stop short of intimidating or turning away qualified voters.
For example - in Minnesota, you don't have to show ID to vote. You must show ID to register, but not to vote. Does this mean that a person could improperly vote under someone else's name? Yes - it's possible. Does it mean that people who have no ID or who forgot their wallet at home can vote? Yes it does.
Which is more important - greater voter participation or less fraud? A choice must be made. I choose the latter.
I wasn't too impressed with the trailer. Hopefully the movie will be better that the first two, but I wouldn't count on it.
Huh?!
That trailer rocked. I'm really starting to think that it's just not possible for most of the supposed Star War fans to be satisfied by anything new that Lucas comes out with....
3. You say that Myth isn't all you want. I think you're wrong. Here's what it can do:
It can record analog content from cable, satellite, and over-the-air broadcasts.
It can record digital content from over-the-air broadcasts, including HDTV.
It can record unencrypted digital content over firewire from some digital cable boxes.
Using free tools that come with MythTV, you can cut commercials and export any recording from MythTV to a number of different formats, including Divx, Xvid, VCD, SVCD, and DVD.
4. Here's what it can't do:
Myth can't record encrypted digital content from digital cable or digital satellite. Keep in mind that no PC-based solution can do this. The only possible ways to do record content from these sources in digital format are to use a black-box solution (usually) provided by the cable or satellite company or to put on your black hacker hat and crack the encryption. If you choose the former, odds are slim and none that you will be able to export the recordings.
Re:HDTV capture devices which ignore broadcast fla
on
MythTV 0.17 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Linux HDTV capture cards:
pcHDTV 3000
This card is the successor to the original pcHDTV 2000. Its chipset allows you to record either standard over-the-air NTSC or digital over-the-air ATSC. I believe that drivers are in the works to allow you to record unencrypted QAM channels from digital cable.
Air2PC
This newer card allows you to record digital over-the-air ATSC. It allows you to record unencrypted QAM channels from digital cable.
From what I've heard, there's no clear winner for which of these two cards is better. The pcHDTV 3000 can be purchased at the pcHDTV web site for $189. The Air2PC is on sale here for $169. If you plan to purchase, do so before July 2005. After that date, it's questionable at best whether they will still be sold.
I realize I may be in the minority, but I think the CPU specs suck...Since 300GB drives are available, why not give customers the option to go that high...the G5 has been out for well over a year, year and a half and they're giving us the leftovers?
Umm...they're obviously not targeting you with the Mac Mini.
Seems to me that the Mini is designed to grab people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a Mac. Like people who bought an iPod, really like it, and have been saying, "I'd love to buy a Mac, but they're just too expensive, and by the way I already have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse."
You're right that the specs on this machine aren't even close to cutting edge. But they don't need to be. For people like you, there's the G5 Tower. Or, as you said, a used G4 tower. Apple doesn't want you to buy this machine - they want you to buy a higher end machine. Which is why this one isn't super-upgradable.
What I want to know is, how well would the Mac Mini work for MythTV? I know MythTV on OS X isn't quite ready for prime time yet, but what about running Linux on it instead?
As long as the optional TV-out adapter still works in Linux, I don't see why it wouldn't work just fine.
I can't speak to LinDVR, but a decent MythTV setup can be built for less than $500.
MythTV has most of the features listed for LinPVR, plus some additional modules. It's really nice to use, and it can handle HDTV in the US. I may be wrong, but I think that LinPVR is based around DVB, which is the digital TV format for much of Europe.
I know this is a bit tangential to your comment, but I'm hoping that if it doesn't help you, it might help others reading this thread.
Another Linux-based PVR will allow you to record HD. The catch is that it only records HD over-the-air (OTA) broadcasts. So if you live in an area with HD broadcasts (at the least, most major metro areas in the U.S.), and you have an antenna, you can have an HD-capable MythTV PVR.
OK, I would be really grateful if anyone could tell me how to play this in Linux.
I know that one option is to use the crossover plugin to play quicktime files in Linux. Does anyone know of another option to successfully play this quicktime trailer in Linux?
I've tried totem, xine, and mplayer on Mandrake 10.0. I haven't tried compiling my own copy of mplayer, but I have the codecs, and the output from mplayer makes me think that mplayer is using the quicktime codec. But I still just get a blue screen and no sound when I try to play it.
Depends on what you mean. You can't input data directly to the iPod, but you can certainly sync calender data and contacts from iCal and Address Book to the iPod. Not sure off the top of my head but you might be able to do some sort of notes, too.
Slashdot Mirror
The main reason that I pointed problems out P1 and P6 was because your proposed ID tracking system (and most other ID schemes surrounding elections) is meant to address them. I believe that the solutions to P6 and P1 usually do far more harm (P7) than good.
AFAIK, P1 isn't actually illegal. And I think that's OK. Some people split their time between two states, and as long as they legitimately live in both and only vote one place, we're fine.
I would be very interested to see data from any independent studies regarding how widespread P6 actually is. My guess is that it's a very small problem. OTOH, I believe that P7 is fairly widespread, especially in certain areas. (An example would be the Florida voters in 2000 whose names were incorrectly included on a list of felons, and hence prevented from voting.) The Help America Vote Act, while it has flaws, did go some ways in addressing this with provisional ballots.
The larger concern with requiring ID at the polling station is that this requirement will disenfranchise some voters, and may contribute to the disenfranchisement of many voters. Some people simply don't have ID. Would you deny them the vote? What about people who have ID, but don't normally carry it, or who legitimately forget their ID when they go to vote? They might be able to rush home and get it, but then again they might not. My most frustrating moment as a poll worker was when I had to tell the man who came 10 minutes before closing that he was at the wrong precinct, and he couldn't vote here - he didn't have time to get to the right polling place, so he couldn't vote. If we require ID to vote, this situation will be much more widespread.
Not in the US.
There is absolutely no legal compulsion to have any form of ID in the US. At least at the federal level. It's possible that certain states have their own requirements.
That said, there are many situations where you are required by law to show ID in order to perform an activity. You named two of them: purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. Using authority granted under certain provisions of the Patriot Act, the TSA has issued secret regulations, that among other things, require passengers to show ID to board airplanes. This may also apply to passengers boarding Amtrak trains - I'm not sure on that though. You must have a driver's license in order to drive. I believe that federal laws requires employed US citizens to have a Social Security number so that Social Security deductions may be made from paychecks. Men in the US between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service, but no ID is required to register.
You do not need an ID to live in the US, or travel in the US by bus, bicycle, or foot.
And at least in Minnesota, you do not need ID to register to vote or to vote.
(I misspoke earlier when I said that Minnesota requires ID to register to vote. This is not true. If you register at the polls, the normal procedure is to show ID and proof of residence. You may, however, have an already registered voter from your precinct vouch for you. If you register by mail or at city hall prior to the election, no ID is required. The form requires you to provide driver's license number, state ID number, or last 4 digits of Social Security number. You may also write NONE if you don't possess any of the former.)
Well, obviously, with the debacle that's happened with the past election, especially concerning Ohio and Florida, less fraud.
Obviously, we need to combat election fraud. I simply believe that requiring more ID isn't the way to do it.
Which is more important? Greater voter protection at the risk of slightly more observed methods, or a totally insecure and unreliable system of vote tallying? Or, let's ask it like this, which is more important to the people? Having every vote counted corrrectly at the expense of more stringent measures, or having a rounded estimate and margin of error that can be abused to fraudulently win an election?
Generally, I believe that voter enfranchisement is more important. But let's get specific.
Possible election problems:
P1. Voter is registered in multiple locations
P2. Eligible voter is prevented from registering to vote
P3. A ineligible person votes
P4. A registered but deceased voter is impersonated; the impersonator votes in the stead of that person
P5. A register, eligible voter is impersonated; the impersonator votes in the stead of the voter
P6. Voter who is registered in multiple locations actually votes in multiple locations
P7. Eligible voter is prevented from voting
P8. Voter is coerced or bribed into voting a certain way
P9. Voter is punished for voting a certain way
P10. Voter is punished for voting (or for not voting)
P11. Valid cast votes are not counted
P12. Valid cast votes are counted incorrectly
P13. Extra votes are included in the ballot count (ballot box is stuffed)
All of these are problems. But, the severity of the problems are not equal. And u
Problem 1 is only an issue if problem 6 ensues. It's 2-11 that are the real concerns. I would go further and say that problems 7-11 are the most crucial.
Unfortunately, solving one problem may exacerbate another problem. Given this, I believe that any solution which solves problems 1-6 but exacerbates 7-11 is not acceptable. That said, let's look at some possible solutions.
Possible ways to address the above problems:
S1. Voter must show ID to register (effectively addresses P3, addresses P1, P3, & P7; slight increase in P2)
S2. Voter must sign in to vote (helps deter and detect P3-P6)
S3. Voter must show ID to vote (helps deter and detect P3-P6; somewhat effectively solves P3-P5; potentially increases P7)
S4. Voter must show voter registration card or other election-specific ID (addresses P1-P6; potentially increases P7)
S5. Voter sign-in should be marked in state-wide or nation-wide database. Voter cannot sign in until poll workers use this database to verify that the voter has not already voted. (addresses P6; technical problems may increase P7)
S6. Voter's finger is marked with ink that takes 24 hours or more to disappear (effectively addresses P6; slightly addresses P4-P5)
S7. Disallow absentee voting (addresses P6, P8-P10; increases P7)
S8. Allow voter to verify their vote after the election (addresses P12; greatly increases P8-P10)
S9. Use direct electronic recording (touchscreens) with no paper trail (addresses P12; increases P11 & P13)
S10. Require voter and a witness to sign a form accompanying absentee ballot. (addresses P6, P8-P10)
S11. At every voting place, have representatives of multiple varied political parties act as election judges, observing what happens and counting the votes (effectively addresses P11-P13, esp if manual paper ballots are used)
S12. Allow eligible, unregistered voters to register to vote the day of the election at the polling station (addresses P7; potentially increases P1 & P6)
I believe that the system in Minnesota strikes a good balance. It incorporates S1, S2, S10, S11, & S12.
Tally every vote, as to who voted for whom, record it. We've got that technology to do it now. Doing it by hand would be impossible.
This is actually done in the UK. With regular paper ballots. I'm pretty sure they're not even optical scan. Each ballot has a number on it that can be traced back to the voter. My understanding is that a court investigating funny business during the election could do this tracing.
I believe that this system would not be acceptable in the US. I know I certainly wouldn't accept it.
Also, doing so would allow a person to see their vote, and if it's changed, they can file a complaint. Help keep the election fair.
This could lead to catastrophe.
One of the major reasons for a secret ballot is to prevent vote-buying. If you can prove to someone that you voted for candidate X, it's easy for them to justify paying you for your vote. OTOH, if, as now, you have no way of proving your vote to the potential vote-buyer, then they have to trust that you voted the way you say you did. Under the current system, vote-buying is a much less certain business.
A national voter ID would be nice. Once used, it's invalid anywhere else in the country. Issue a new one next election year. We have to register to vote anyways, right?
Wrong. Once you register to vote, you stay registered. The exact rules likely vary from state to state. In Minnesota, where I have served as an election judge, I believe you automatically stay registered as long as you vote once every 4 years. Obviously if you move you need to re-register.
If the ID is used twice, call the person, have them comfirm their vote under oath. Make sure they can bring proper identification to show that indeed, they are the owner of that number.
Improperly voting is already a crime.
I voted yesterday for a school bond referendum. When I got to the polling station, I told the worker my name. The worker found my name in the book (which also includes my address). I then signed under my name.
At the top of that page was a statement that, by signing, I agreed to. I don't have the text on me, but I read it yesterday, and when I worked as an election judge. It basically says that you are who you say you are and that you know acknowledge improperly signing in is a felony.
You're right. Anonymous voting and 100% accuracy will NEVER happen. The only way to make it a fair election is to monitor it under an electron microscope. I don't see where this will actually violate anyone's privacy rights, either. In fact, if a politician tries to bribe someone for a vote, once finding out who they are, etc, hey, arrest them and jail them for fraudulent practice on a national scale.
You've got valid points, I'm just adding my responses to it.
You also have valid points. But I strongly disagree with your suggestions.
Generally speaking, Democrats in the US favor greater voter accessibility, and are willing to accept a small degree of fraud as the price of universal suffrage. Republicans, generally, favor greater controls to prevent fraud, and are willing to accept a small degree of voter inconvenience and the possibility for greater disenfranchisement as the price of a more fraud-proof system.
I'm with the Democrats on this one.
Voting in free elections is one of the most fundamental rights that we possess. We must do what we can to prevent fraud, but we must stop short of intimidating or turning away qualified voters.
For example - in Minnesota, you don't have to show ID to vote. You must show ID to register, but not to vote. Does this mean that a person could improperly vote under someone else's name? Yes - it's possible. Does it mean that people who have no ID or who forgot their wallet at home can vote? Yes it does.
Which is more important - greater voter participation or less fraud? A choice must be made. I choose the latter.
Huh?!
That trailer rocked. I'm really starting to think that it's just not possible for most of the supposed Star War fans to be satisfied by anything new that Lucas comes out with....
pcHDTV 3000 from here
Air2PC from here or here
2. When you're ready, build a computer for MythTV. Use this guide, look here for HDTV tips, and ask questions on this mailing list. You can also search for answers on the mailing list archive.
3. You say that Myth isn't all you want. I think you're wrong. Here's what it can do:
It can record analog content from cable, satellite, and over-the-air broadcasts.
It can record digital content from over-the-air broadcasts, including HDTV.
It can record unencrypted digital content over firewire from some digital cable boxes.
Using free tools that come with MythTV, you can cut commercials and export any recording from MythTV to a number of different formats, including Divx, Xvid, VCD, SVCD, and DVD.
4. Here's what it can't do:
Myth can't record encrypted digital content from digital cable or digital satellite. Keep in mind that no PC-based solution can do this. The only possible ways to do record content from these sources in digital format are to use a black-box solution (usually) provided by the cable or satellite company or to put on your black hacker hat and crack the encryption. If you choose the former, odds are slim and none that you will be able to export the recordings.
Intro to HD PVRs
Broadcast flag info and list of HDTV cards
And BTW, the Elgato eyetv 500 is the answer to your question.
Air2PC
pcHDTV 3000
This card is the successor to the original pcHDTV 2000. Its chipset allows you to record either standard over-the-air NTSC or digital over-the-air ATSC. I believe that drivers are in the works to allow you to record unencrypted QAM channels from digital cable.
Air2PC
This newer card allows you to record digital over-the-air ATSC. It allows you to record unencrypted QAM channels from digital cable.
From what I've heard, there's no clear winner for which of these two cards is better. The pcHDTV 3000 can be purchased at the pcHDTV web site for $189. The Air2PC is on sale here for $169. If you plan to purchase, do so before July 2005. After that date, it's questionable at best whether they will still be sold.
Search the MythTV user group mailing list archives for more information about these cards and support in MythTV.
Here's the character profile of General Grievous.
Umm...they're obviously not targeting you with the Mac Mini.
Seems to me that the Mini is designed to grab people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a Mac. Like people who bought an iPod, really like it, and have been saying, "I'd love to buy a Mac, but they're just too expensive, and by the way I already have a monitor, keyboard, and mouse."
You're right that the specs on this machine aren't even close to cutting edge. But they don't need to be. For people like you, there's the G5 Tower. Or, as you said, a used G4 tower. Apple doesn't want you to buy this machine - they want you to buy a higher end machine. Which is why this one isn't super-upgradable.
As long as the optional TV-out adapter still works in Linux, I don't see why it wouldn't work just fine.
No.
"VGA video output (using included adapter) to support analog resolutions up to 1920 x 1080 pixels"
I don't think so, but it would be nice.
Good call, but that'll only work for unencrypted streams.
I should clarify. Myth can handle HD over-the-air (OTA) broadcasts.
There is currently no TV card that can be used under Linux to record HDTV from cable or satellite.
I can't speak to LinDVR, but a decent MythTV setup can be built for less than $500.
MythTV has most of the features listed for LinPVR, plus some additional modules. It's really nice to use, and it can handle HDTV in the US. I may be wrong, but I think that LinPVR is based around DVB, which is the digital TV format for much of Europe.
Another Linux-based PVR will allow you to record HD. The catch is that it only records HD over-the-air (OTA) broadcasts. So if you live in an area with HD broadcasts (at the least, most major metro areas in the U.S.), and you have an antenna, you can have an HD-capable MythTV PVR.
The card is the pcHDTV 3000, available at http://www.pchdtv.com/.
The MythTV web site is http://mythtv.org.
For info about HD and MythTV, search the MythTV mailing list archive for "hdtv" or "pcHDTV".
Finally, a step-by-step install guide for MythTV is available here.
Here is a link that may help:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391
And how exactly would this help?
Is this meant to be a joke or a troll?
I'm really curious. I assume you aren't serious.
I know that one option is to use the crossover plugin to play quicktime files in Linux. Does anyone know of another option to successfully play this quicktime trailer in Linux?
I've tried totem, xine, and mplayer on Mandrake 10.0. I haven't tried compiling my own copy of mplayer, but I have the codecs, and the output from mplayer makes me think that mplayer is using the quicktime codec. But I still just get a blue screen and no sound when I try to play it.
Thanks...
Depends on what you mean. You can't input data directly to the iPod, but you can certainly sync calender data and contacts from iCal and Address Book to the iPod. Not sure off the top of my head but you might be able to do some sort of notes, too.
The new iPod has a longer battery life than the old one did.
15 hrs is the new estimate for music use, and that's with the color screen. 5 hours if you do continuous slideshows.
Umm... what camera?
The new iPod displays photos. It doesn't take them. You still need a separate camera for that.