If you buy a smart TV at a discount in exchange for giving the TV manufacturer the rights to show you adverts then of course there's no law that's going to 'protect' you from this. By buying the TV with those conditions attached, you've accepted the conditions.
In fact, Amazon does this now with smart phones and tablets. You can buy the phone or tablet at a discount for the "ad supported" version.
That's a pretty new implementation, and doesn't work everywhere. My TV is 5 years old and doesn't support ARC, not sure many of them did back then. What is Audio Return Channel?
What kind of video inputs and outputs does your receiver have? I assume you have component out to your TV. What about video inputs? Any component in?
It has component in and out, HDMI with component out, optical input and digital coax input, as well as the SD composite and SVideo output.
Someone else pointed out that I could use an HDMI splitter, and I've found that they are now available that are HDCP compliant, so I'm probably going to give that a try. Not sure if it will give me any better sound, but they're cheap so it's worth a shot.
Wouldn't a simple HDMI splitter solve your problem?
Actually when I looked before, there wasn't such a thing as an HDMI splitter that was HDCP compliant, but I did a search just now and there are plenty available. Thanks, I'll have to try one of those.
My interests have not been represented in quite a few years. I am white, heterosexual, have medical insurance provided by my employer(s), college educated with BS and MS degrees in my chosen professional field, widowed, no kids, make too much money to claim lower bracket tax deductions and not enough money to take advantage of the higher bracket tax deductions, and practice no denomination of religious beliefs.
In fact, you are exactly the demographic that the Democratic party represents. Sure, they give some lip service to progressive ideas and identity politics, but that's because that's what people like you want to hear. But the establishment Democrats do nothing to support policies to actually help the poor and working class - they help people like you. It's why urban centers on the costs are so blue.
Uh, I'm not sure where you get your information however the Democrats haven't supported the middle class and especially the white, male middle class for years. They emphasize support for minorities and the working poor who are abundant in the urban centers on the coasts.
Yea, I'm calling bullshit on that. As I said, they pay lip service to it, but these days, the party really represents the well-to-do.
My receiver was $350 back in 2012. It sounds and works great. Not interested in spending that kind of money for a connector.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "awful DRM crap" as both Firestick and Chromecast work perfectly fine for use case presented above.
No, they do not. Connecting the Amazon FireTV to the receiver gives me sound just fine, but the component output won't play on the TV. Apparently there is a way to get it to downgrade to SD and see it, but what's the point in doing that?
I'm also not sure what you mean by "more than one device" as a cable doesn't plug into more than one device at a time whereas you can stream into from multiple devices to multiple devices with multiple Chromecasts and Firesticks.
I have a device with HDMI output. I want video on the TV and audio on the receiver. Get it?
The way I do that now is the HDMI is plugged into the TV, and the toslink output on the TV goes to the receiver for surround sound. Works great, and that's why I'll be keeping my toslink.
I have a PC that I've been using to run the entertainment center for many years, with tuners from SiliconDust, and run audio through a DTS receiver. Works great - the PC has Toslink out for the receiver and HDMI for the TV.
A couple of years ago I started using an Amazon TV, which of course is HDMI, so I bought a toslink switch since the receiver only has one toslink input, and used the output on the TV when I'm using the Amazon thing. It sounds great to my ears.
Tried using HDMI before, but of course there is no HDMI output on the receiver. Plug in HDMI for audio, and the best output available is component. It works for some stuff, but degrades because... HDCP! Of course. The Amazon TV thing won't play to the TV using that at all.
The problem I have with HDMI audio is that a video signal must accompany the audio signal for it to work. I use Toslink for my computer to send stereo audio to my amp for my bookshelf computer speakers.
In the future I can see interconnects being handled more with wifi/ethernet. Optical/analog will still be used for minimalist set ups like yours but every media box/game console/TV etc will start to use wifi to do that if they haven't already. And these boxes are already cheap. For example in your case, Google Chromecast and Amazon Firestick are $35 USD, $40 USD respectively and both have an extremely tiny footprint and low power requirements.
Yea, I'm not interested in new equipment though. My DTS 5.1 receiver can take HDMI input, but to get the video to the TV I have to output as component. That gets degraded because it's not an HDCP compliant "secure path".
The awful DRM crap they packed into HDMI make it useless for a lot of stuff, because everything has to be sealed up in one cable. If you're trying to get your signal to more than one device, you can't. You can't output it.
Obviously not taking away healthcare from the working class is in their best interest.
Hyperbole. I assume by "not taking away healthcare" you mean "mandating specific health insurance be purchased by everyone in the working class with growing premiums and growing deductibles that they cannot afford."
Obviously allowing class actions against corporations (the topic of this thread) is in people's best interests.
You mean it's in the lawyer's best interests. You might consider it punishment for the corporation, but the judgements are typically much less than the company earned that the court decided was unacceptable. The lawyers rake in millions and the class members get a $20 check or, just as often, a coupon for a discount from said company.
Obviously not creating a tax cut for the wealthy which drives up the deficit and/or increases taxes for the middle class is in people's best interest.
If you cut taxes, the people paying the most will get the biggest cut, and guess what? The wealthy pay the most. Tax increases ALWAYS fall heaviest on the middle class, because that's where most of the money is. I have not seen a single tax cut passed or proposed that actually increased taxes on the middle class. Interestingly, even though everyone talks about wanting tax reform, there is no effort to actually try to simplify the tax code. The last effort was during the Reagan administration, and the code is more than twice as complex as it was before that simplification effort.
...so yeah, at a base level it's pretty easy to know what's in people's best interests.
Maybe not. You've pointed out that you can't figure it out yourself.
My interests have not been represented in quite a few years. I am white, heterosexual, have medical insurance provided by my employer(s), college educated with BS and MS degrees in my chosen professional field, widowed, no kids, make too much money to claim lower bracket tax deductions and not enough money to take advantage of the higher bracket tax deductions, and practice no denomination of religious beliefs.
In fact, you are exactly the demographic that the Democratic party represents. Sure, they give some lip service to progressive ideas and identity politics, but that's because that's what people like you want to hear. But the establishment Democrats do nothing to support policies to actually help the poor and working class - they help people like you. It's why urban centers on the costs are so blue.
We could be the generation that ends smoking. But nope. the anti-vape propaganda is well funded.
Yep. Big tobacco is losing the market for vapes to the small companies, so they would rather see vapes go away. And then there's the Tobacco company settlement, which provides millions of dollars to all kinds of governments and NGOs. They've seen what happens to their funding when cigarette sales start to fall off, and so does their funding. They will do anything to keep that from happening, from false claims that vapes are just as harmful as cigarettes, to restrictions on vapes that make them harder to get than cigarettes.
They'll probably claim second hand smoke, "its affecting me too!!". I would counter that its another example of natural selection, killing off the weak who can't handle a little smoke.
What is it about Slashdot's audience that so many are filled with hate, anger, disrespect, and inflated sense of worth and superiority?
Mostly the 2nd-hand smoke issue was a lot of propaganda designed to raise funding than any real science. The largest and longest study (Enstrom & Kabat) followed more than 35,000 subjects for almost 40 years and found no significant risk associated with second-hand smoke. Similarly, the World Health Organization spent seven years at a dozen research centers in seven countries and came to the same conclusion.
The CDC says 41,000 Americans were killed in the U.S. during 2016 due to second hand smoke.
And I'd wager none of those people died as a result of standing next to a smoker at a bus stop. That's the kind of thing that Mark-T was whining about above; not a non-smoker who lives with a smoker.
Actually, the statistic is based on the number of people that died from what they define as "smoke related illnesses," which includes lung cancer and heart disease. People are included even if they never smoked and were never around smokers. Makes it easier to inflate the numbers.
I am a terrible shot, so I missed your house completely.
Are you still a victim?
Just like any other law, it depends on context and intent. Assault does not require any injury, only the threat of injury. If you were trying to shoot me or my house, it's likely assault. Which is a crime.
If you haven't decided to ignore all of that because it causes cognitive dissonance for you, feel free to dig a little further. The list of organizations set up by the Clintons to accept money and distribute it is long. Don't forget about the CGI and related orgs, the William J. Clinton foundation, not to be confused with the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, and see if any of the tax filings actually make sense. Some have pointed out that filings in different states or countries actually contradict each other. Donations have been listed that pre-date the formation of some of the organizations.
And of course, it is not as if the U.S. isn't doing exactly the same thing. Sponsoring pro-US politicians/movements in other countries in the hope of favourable outcome.
And if that doesn't work, we sponsor rebels and arm them with weapons to take out the government by force. i.e. Afghanistan in the 1980's, Libya, Syria (throw in some false flag gas attacks), Iran will be next.
So I can randomly fire a gun at your house. As long as I miss, there is no victim, right?
I see you are unclear on the concept. Fire a gun at my house, it's assault, and I'm the victim and will press charges. You'll also be responsible for any damages to my house.
Slashdot Mirror
If you buy a smart TV at a discount in exchange for giving the TV manufacturer the rights to show you adverts then of course there's no law that's going to 'protect' you from this. By buying the TV with those conditions attached, you've accepted the conditions.
In fact, Amazon does this now with smart phones and tablets. You can buy the phone or tablet at a discount for the "ad supported" version.
Case in point.
And the xbonx has approximately enough processing power to run 4k @ 15fps.
The reason this shouldn't exist is that MS should have put a capable GPU in the original in 2013 instead of delaying for 2 re-releases first.
You should buy one then. Everyone should upgrade to the X.
Hopefully that will lower the price of the XBox S systems enough that I can buy one on the cheap.
That's a pretty new implementation, and doesn't work everywhere. My TV is 5 years old and doesn't support ARC, not sure many of them did back then. What is Audio Return Channel?
What kind of video inputs and outputs does your receiver have? I assume you have component out to your TV. What about video inputs? Any component in?
It has component in and out, HDMI with component out, optical input and digital coax input, as well as the SD composite and SVideo output.
Someone else pointed out that I could use an HDMI splitter, and I've found that they are now available that are HDCP compliant, so I'm probably going to give that a try. Not sure if it will give me any better sound, but they're cheap so it's worth a shot.
Wouldn't a simple HDMI splitter solve your problem?
Actually when I looked before, there wasn't such a thing as an HDMI splitter that was HDCP compliant, but I did a search just now and there are plenty available. Thanks, I'll have to try one of those.
And why can't you plug the HDMI to the receiver and then HDMI to the TV?
My receiver doesn't have HDMI output, that's why. I guess I didn't make that clear in this post.
For example are you saying that your receiver has no HDMI and you don't want to spend any money on a new receiver?
It has no HDMI output, and, yes, I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on a new receiver.
My interests have not been represented in quite a few years. I am white, heterosexual, have medical insurance provided by my employer(s), college educated with BS and MS degrees in my chosen professional field, widowed, no kids, make too much money to claim lower bracket tax deductions and not enough money to take advantage of the higher bracket tax deductions, and practice no denomination of religious beliefs.
In fact, you are exactly the demographic that the Democratic party represents. Sure, they give some lip service to progressive ideas and identity politics, but that's because that's what people like you want to hear. But the establishment Democrats do nothing to support policies to actually help the poor and working class - they help people like you. It's why urban centers on the costs are so blue.
Uh, I'm not sure where you get your information however the Democrats haven't supported the middle class and especially the white, male middle class for years. They emphasize support for minorities and the working poor who are abundant in the urban centers on the coasts.
Yea, I'm calling bullshit on that. As I said, they pay lip service to it, but these days, the party really represents the well-to-do.
In the past, Democrats could support progressive, redistributive policies knowing that the costs would fall largely on Republicans. That is no longer the case. Now supporting these policies requires the party to depend on the altruistic idealism of millions of supporters who, despite being relatively well off, often feel financially pressed themselves.
The Democratic Party’s pursuit of well-off whites undermined its ability to deliver gains for all workers.
So no wonder Democrats are enamored with all of that rhetoric about inequality and class warfare. Their constituents, the audience they are addressing, are far more likely to live in the American equivalent of Rio de Janeiro, a class society starkly divided between squalid, hopeless, crime-ridden favelas and safe, beautiful downtown playgrounds for the rich. The Democrats are arsonists posing as the fire brigade, offering to solve a problem they created.
The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in “swing” suburbs. Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.
"I'm not buying new equipment" even cheap ones
My receiver was $350 back in 2012. It sounds and works great. Not interested in spending that kind of money for a connector.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "awful DRM crap" as both Firestick and Chromecast work perfectly fine for use case presented above.
No, they do not. Connecting the Amazon FireTV to the receiver gives me sound just fine, but the component output won't play on the TV. Apparently there is a way to get it to downgrade to SD and see it, but what's the point in doing that?
I'm also not sure what you mean by "more than one device" as a cable doesn't plug into more than one device at a time whereas you can stream into from multiple devices to multiple devices with multiple Chromecasts and Firesticks.
I have a device with HDMI output. I want video on the TV and audio on the receiver. Get it?
The way I do that now is the HDMI is plugged into the TV, and the toslink output on the TV goes to the receiver for surround sound. Works great, and that's why I'll be keeping my toslink.
I have a PC that I've been using to run the entertainment center for many years, with tuners from SiliconDust, and run audio through a DTS receiver. Works great - the PC has Toslink out for the receiver and HDMI for the TV.
A couple of years ago I started using an Amazon TV, which of course is HDMI, so I bought a toslink switch since the receiver only has one toslink input, and used the output on the TV when I'm using the Amazon thing. It sounds great to my ears.
Tried using HDMI before, but of course there is no HDMI output on the receiver. Plug in HDMI for audio, and the best output available is component. It works for some stuff, but degrades because ... HDCP! Of course. The Amazon TV thing won't play to the TV using that at all.
So I'll keep my toslink, TYVM!
The problem I have with HDMI audio is that a video signal must accompany the audio signal for it to work. I use Toslink for my computer to send stereo audio to my amp for my bookshelf computer speakers.
In the future I can see interconnects being handled more with wifi/ethernet. Optical/analog will still be used for minimalist set ups like yours but every media box/game console/TV etc will start to use wifi to do that if they haven't already. And these boxes are already cheap. For example in your case, Google Chromecast and Amazon Firestick are $35 USD, $40 USD respectively and both have an extremely tiny footprint and low power requirements.
Yea, I'm not interested in new equipment though. My DTS 5.1 receiver can take HDMI input, but to get the video to the TV I have to output as component. That gets degraded because it's not an HDCP compliant "secure path".
The awful DRM crap they packed into HDMI make it useless for a lot of stuff, because everything has to be sealed up in one cable. If you're trying to get your signal to more than one device, you can't. You can't output it.
Obviously not taking away healthcare from the working class is in their best interest.
Hyperbole. I assume by "not taking away healthcare" you mean "mandating specific health insurance be purchased by everyone in the working class with growing premiums and growing deductibles that they cannot afford."
Obviously allowing class actions against corporations (the topic of this thread) is in people's best interests.
You mean it's in the lawyer's best interests. You might consider it punishment for the corporation, but the judgements are typically much less than the company earned that the court decided was unacceptable. The lawyers rake in millions and the class members get a $20 check or, just as often, a coupon for a discount from said company.
Obviously not creating a tax cut for the wealthy which drives up the deficit and/or increases taxes for the middle class is in people's best interest.
If you cut taxes, the people paying the most will get the biggest cut, and guess what? The wealthy pay the most. Tax increases ALWAYS fall heaviest on the middle class, because that's where most of the money is. I have not seen a single tax cut passed or proposed that actually increased taxes on the middle class. Interestingly, even though everyone talks about wanting tax reform, there is no effort to actually try to simplify the tax code. The last effort was during the Reagan administration, and the code is more than twice as complex as it was before that simplification effort.
...so yeah, at a base level it's pretty easy to know what's in people's best interests.
Maybe not. You've pointed out that you can't figure it out yourself.
My interests have not been represented in quite a few years. I am white, heterosexual, have medical insurance provided by my employer(s), college educated with BS and MS degrees in my chosen professional field, widowed, no kids, make too much money to claim lower bracket tax deductions and not enough money to take advantage of the higher bracket tax deductions, and practice no denomination of religious beliefs.
In fact, you are exactly the demographic that the Democratic party represents. Sure, they give some lip service to progressive ideas and identity politics, but that's because that's what people like you want to hear. But the establishment Democrats do nothing to support policies to actually help the poor and working class - they help people like you. It's why urban centers on the costs are so blue.
But it has to be cool because Elliot uses it. Unless he's running Kali off a USB, of course.
We could be the generation that ends smoking. But nope. the anti-vape propaganda is well funded.
Yep. Big tobacco is losing the market for vapes to the small companies, so they would rather see vapes go away. And then there's the Tobacco company settlement, which provides millions of dollars to all kinds of governments and NGOs. They've seen what happens to their funding when cigarette sales start to fall off, and so does their funding. They will do anything to keep that from happening, from false claims that vapes are just as harmful as cigarettes, to restrictions on vapes that make them harder to get than cigarettes.
They'll probably claim second hand smoke, "its affecting me too!!". I would counter that its another example of natural selection, killing off the weak who can't handle a little smoke.
What is it about Slashdot's audience that so many are filled with hate, anger, disrespect, and inflated sense of worth and superiority?
Mostly the 2nd-hand smoke issue was a lot of propaganda designed to raise funding than any real science. The largest and longest study (Enstrom & Kabat) followed more than 35,000 subjects for almost 40 years and found no significant risk associated with second-hand smoke. Similarly, the World Health Organization spent seven years at a dozen research centers in seven countries and came to the same conclusion.
The real science is out there if you look for it. Here is one example.
I'm braced to be modded into oblivion for pointing out this fraud.
The CDC says 41,000 Americans were killed in the U.S. during 2016 due to second hand smoke.
And I'd wager none of those people died as a result of standing next to a smoker at a bus stop. That's the kind of thing that Mark-T was whining about above; not a non-smoker who lives with a smoker.
Actually, the statistic is based on the number of people that died from what they define as "smoke related illnesses," which includes lung cancer and heart disease. People are included even if they never smoked and were never around smokers. Makes it easier to inflate the numbers.
Check out the Moto g5 plus. $299 with 64 geebees.
Do you mean giggas?
... And then there are the companies that actually pressure their employees to use drugs on the job.
I am a terrible shot, so I missed your house completely.
Are you still a victim?
Just like any other law, it depends on context and intent. Assault does not require any injury, only the threat of injury. If you were trying to shoot me or my house, it's likely assault. Which is a crime.
If you really want the truth about the activities of the Clintons and their various similarly named foundations, start with the investigations by Charles Ortel, then check out the actual claimed accomplishments of the Clinton Global Initiative. The Haitians are either ungrateful or have a legitimate beef with the Clintons, you decide.
If you haven't decided to ignore all of that because it causes cognitive dissonance for you, feel free to dig a little further. The list of organizations set up by the Clintons to accept money and distribute it is long. Don't forget about the CGI and related orgs, the William J. Clinton foundation, not to be confused with the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, and see if any of the tax filings actually make sense. Some have pointed out that filings in different states or countries actually contradict each other. Donations have been listed that pre-date the formation of some of the organizations.
It's for charity???
No link? BTW consortiumnews doesn't count.
I found it pretty quick. On MSN, no less.
And of course, it is not as if the U.S. isn't doing exactly the same thing. Sponsoring pro-US politicians/movements in other countries in the hope of favourable outcome.
And if that doesn't work, we sponsor rebels and arm them with weapons to take out the government by force. i.e. Afghanistan in the 1980's, Libya, Syria (throw in some false flag gas attacks), Iran will be next.
Plan was laid out years ago.
I have no idea what "Blacktivist" is.
That's what they called themselves on Facebook. There were 2 group pages, IIRC. And they had more "likes" on their pages than the verified BLM page.
"no victim no crime" Complete bullshit.
So I can randomly fire a gun at your house. As long as I miss, there is no victim, right?
I see you are unclear on the concept. Fire a gun at my house, it's assault, and I'm the victim and will press charges. You'll also be responsible for any damages to my house.
'nuff said