We, as consumers, by buying the cheapest, lowest-quality stuff out there, are responsible for this. The old adage is true: You get what you pay for. As more and more companies keep cutting costs to satisfy out demands for cheap products by using low-cost parts and low-cost labor(China), this is just going to get worse and worse.
Yep, nobody in the Mac community is gonna miss these guys. They were always know for their outrageous prices for essentially used equipment. Why would anybody spend $249 for a Quadra 950 with no HD?
They also produced UltimateTV boxes and I've read that they just made a licensing deal with the Moxi people. So there's no guarantee that they'll use Tivo software. (But it wouldn't be a bad idea)
Finally gradual upgrade is possible in the custom system... I believe replacing the hard drive in TiVo is difficult and expensive... So don't discard custom system just yet.
Tivos use normal IDE hard drives, if you're technologically saavy enough to be reading/., you can upgrade the hard drive in a Tivo.
You might be surprised that there are quite a few Republicans who have very stong libertarian leanings. (Like Willian F. Buckley, who I believe runs the National Review)
Yeah, but without the competition in the US, we may have never have had CDMA. Now even the GSM people see CDMA technology as the future of their standards(W-CDMA, or 3G "GSM").
I know, the CDMA concept was originally developed 50 years ago, but would have it been applied to mobile phones if the Laissez Faire US system hadn't gave it a chance?
ATT is moving from TDMA to GSM, not because it has better quality or because they like "global standards", but because they can cram more calls per cell with GSM.
PCS is a frequency band at around 1900 mhz. CDMA, GSM, and TDMA carriers all use these frequencies. Sprint customers can only roam on other CDMA networks. (like Verizon)
I agree that, in theory, CDMA(IS-95) is a better technology on paper than the other alternatives, but in practice the three digital technologies are about the same. (Although IS-95 has a lot easier upgrade path to CDMA 2000 than GSM has to W-CDMA, which means we'll see 3G service on CDMA carriers a lot sooner than from the GSM companies)
Sources? I think you're referring to the amendments of '91, but if so, I think you're way off, I don't remember them disclaiming the mainland and I know, in fact, they specifically added provisions for representation of mainland residents in the ROC.
I was referring to the dissolution of the Taiwan Provincial Assembly.
In principle they have, that's what one china two systems means. In practice they're less than happy with that, of course, not the least because ROC officials are so obviously working to Helsinkify Taiwan and return it to it's state as a vassal of Japan instead. And A-bians title in quotes is hardly limited to the mainland - you must admit, the circumstances of his election are suspicious, to say the least. One country, two systems does not have anything to do with Taiwan, just Hong Kong and Macau have that. That doesn't mean China accepts the Taiwanese authorities. Why did it block Taiwan's participation in the WHO?
Two points, first that's not a very good analogy at all, I was consciously avoiding it, because the Confederacy never claimed any authority over the rest of the US , and second because Cuba was never part of the US. Taiwan was ruled by Japan through the end of WWII, yes, but then again, for most of that time so was Manchuria, ("Manchuguo" ring a bell?) what's your point? Taiwan has been part of China for centuries, and a few years of occupation doesn't exactly change that.
China didn't officially claim Taiwan until 1887, and they foreited all claims to it "in perpetuity" in 1895(Treaty of Shimonoseki). BTW, the San Franciso Peace Treaty did not return sovereignty of Tawain to the Chinese. The ROC army was allowed on Taiwan to oversee the disarmament of the Japanese troops there. (Just as the US occupied Japan and South Korea) I agree, I didn't give the best analogy because the CSA did not claim the whole USA.
If they were belligerent they would have hit something with them. Or hit someone, somewhere, outside of China maybe? Let's see, there was the dustup with India, and they intervened at the very last minute to prevent North Korea from becoming a US stronghold, but other than that I can't think of any instances of belligerence from the PRC. They tend to stick to terrorising people inside China, which is bad, and I'm not condoning it, but belligerence implies terrorising people distant from your own borders, and I just don't see that in the PRC. We must just have different definitions of belligerance. And don't forget the attack on Vietnam in the late 70's. BTW, when you say "terrorising people distant from your borders", you must be admiting that Taiwan is beyond the borders of China.
1.Since about 1990,the ROC constitution no longer claims the mainland.
2.The PRC has never recognized the legitamacy of the ROC on Taiwan. Even the Chinese newspapers, when discussing Tawain's leaders, place their titles in quotes. i.e. "President" Chen
3.The comparision with Florida being ruled by another government is pretty bad too. A better comparision would be if the Confederate leaders fled to Cuba after the Civil War and claimed it was part of the USA (or CSA), since Taiwan was ruled by the Japanese until the end of WWII
4. 400 ballistic missles in the Fujian province pointed at Taiwan is not belligerent? The "incident" in 1996 when China launched the missles over Taiwan during their presidential election wasn't belligerent?
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest everybody go to the FCC and state "I have come here to comment on unlicensed spectrum and chew bubblegum. And I'm all out of bubblegum."
We, as consumers, by buying the cheapest, lowest-quality stuff out there, are responsible for this. The old adage is true: You get what you pay for. As more and more companies keep cutting costs to satisfy out demands for cheap products by using low-cost parts and low-cost labor(China), this is just going to get worse and worse.
Check the forums
Check out the Tivo video extraction forum at DealDatabase.com
Yep, nobody in the Mac community is gonna miss these guys. They were always know for their outrageous prices for essentially used equipment. Why would anybody spend $249 for a Quadra 950 with no HD?
So you think people with MBA's actually know anything about math?
Sounds like a great idea. I never watch 75% of the channels I subscribe to today. (DirectTV)
Watch Oz and Six Feet Under in starting in January.
Let's not forget that some cable providers(Time Warner) also own a lot of those cable channels.
This is especially interesting now that ATT Broadband is owned by Comcast, and the president of Comcast is the one bitching about PVRs.
They also produced UltimateTV boxes and I've read that they just made a licensing deal with the Moxi people. So there's no guarantee that they'll use Tivo software. (But it wouldn't be a bad idea)
Tivos use normal IDE hard drives, if you're technologically saavy enough to be reading /., you can upgrade the hard drive in a Tivo.
Yep, remember, back in the early 90's, the supercollider they were building in Texas was killed to pay for this space station.
And some lucky people in Texas like me!
You might be surprised that there are quite a few Republicans who have very stong libertarian leanings. (Like Willian F. Buckley, who I believe runs the National Review)
I wouldn't consider him a trustworthy guy. After all, he has been, among other things, convicted of fraud.
And how exactly is that evil?
I know, the CDMA concept was originally developed 50 years ago, but would have it been applied to mobile phones if the Laissez Faire US system hadn't gave it a chance?
ATT is moving from TDMA to GSM, not because it has better quality or because they like "global standards", but because they can cram more calls per cell with GSM.
PCS is a frequency band at around 1900 mhz. CDMA, GSM, and TDMA carriers all use these frequencies. Sprint customers can only roam on other CDMA networks. (like Verizon)
I agree that, in theory, CDMA(IS-95) is a better technology on paper than the other alternatives, but in practice the three digital technologies are about the same. (Although IS-95 has a lot easier upgrade path to CDMA 2000 than GSM has to W-CDMA, which means we'll see 3G service on CDMA carriers a lot sooner than from the GSM companies)
I was referring to the dissolution of the Taiwan Provincial Assembly.
In principle they have, that's what one china two systems means. In practice they're less than happy with that, of course, not the least because ROC officials are so obviously working to Helsinkify Taiwan and return it to it's state as a vassal of Japan instead. And A-bians title in quotes is hardly limited to the mainland - you must admit, the circumstances of his election are suspicious, to say the least. One country, two systems does not have anything to do with Taiwan, just Hong Kong and Macau have that. That doesn't mean China accepts the Taiwanese authorities. Why did it block Taiwan's participation in the WHO?
Two points, first that's not a very good analogy at all, I was consciously avoiding it, because the Confederacy never claimed any authority over the rest of the US , and second because Cuba was never part of the US. Taiwan was ruled by Japan through the end of WWII, yes, but then again, for most of that time so was Manchuria, ("Manchuguo" ring a bell?) what's your point? Taiwan has been part of China for centuries, and a few years of occupation doesn't exactly change that. China didn't officially claim Taiwan until 1887, and they foreited all claims to it "in perpetuity" in 1895(Treaty of Shimonoseki). BTW, the San Franciso Peace Treaty did not return sovereignty of Tawain to the Chinese. The ROC army was allowed on Taiwan to oversee the disarmament of the Japanese troops there. (Just as the US occupied Japan and South Korea) I agree, I didn't give the best analogy because the CSA did not claim the whole USA.
If they were belligerent they would have hit something with them. Or hit someone, somewhere, outside of China maybe? Let's see, there was the dustup with India, and they intervened at the very last minute to prevent North Korea from becoming a US stronghold, but other than that I can't think of any instances of belligerence from the PRC. They tend to stick to terrorising people inside China, which is bad, and I'm not condoning it, but belligerence implies terrorising people distant from your own borders, and I just don't see that in the PRC. We must just have different definitions of belligerance. And don't forget the attack on Vietnam in the late 70's. BTW, when you say "terrorising people distant from your borders", you must be admiting that Taiwan is beyond the borders of China.
but yet would still be easier to remember than an IPv6 address.
The ROC was not a democracy until the 90's. Previously, it was a military dictatorship that was as bad as the communists.
1.Since about 1990,the ROC constitution no longer claims the mainland.
2.The PRC has never recognized the legitamacy of the ROC on Taiwan. Even the Chinese newspapers, when discussing Tawain's leaders, place their titles in quotes. i.e. "President" Chen
3.The comparision with Florida being ruled by another government is pretty bad too. A better comparision would be if the Confederate leaders fled to Cuba after the Civil War and claimed it was part of the USA (or CSA), since Taiwan was ruled by the Japanese until the end of WWII
4. 400 ballistic missles in the Fujian province pointed at Taiwan is not belligerent? The "incident" in 1996 when China launched the missles over Taiwan during their presidential election wasn't belligerent?