It's a bit of both. To support On Demand, the box has to be able to communicate back to the cable company. This is not supported by the existing "one-way" CableCards, but it will be in the forthcoming (?) two-way cards. The Series 3 appears ready for these cards, but last I heard, they weren't available to anyone yet. The cable companies are dragging their feet on two-way cards, as on the original cards, because they'd rather rent you a box.
The DirecTV HDTivo comes with an HDMI -> DVI cable. This will probably be the same.
And no, it isn't required. HDMI is the way everything is going (because of the guaranteed DRM, because the connector is simpler, because HDMI has more theoretical room for growth). For that matter, component outputs are enough for a device to qualify as "truly HD", even though they're analog. (Not the component out on your DVD player, which does 480p at best; but the component out on a typical HD receiver, which also does 720p and 1080i.)
HDMI is a physical port specification; HDCP is a copy prevention system. They're orthogonal. AFAIK, all HDMI ports support HDCP. With DVI ports, on the other hand, it may or may not be available, which is why you'll see "DVI-HDCP" specified sometimes. But this is not an issue with HDMI, TTBOMK.
I can tell you for certain that the DirecTV HDTivo also has an HDMI port (logically labelled "HDMI"), that I use it with the included HDMI-> DVI cable, and that HDCP is active in that configuration as well.
Oh, you must've got this from Wikipedia... I never heard of Alacoha, so I Googled it, found a link to Wikipedia's article "1995 in film" as the only result. Clicked there, no "Alacoha"; checked the History page, and read, "removed what appeared to be a made-up entry ('Alacoha') from the top-grossing list"; edit done last night, probably by someone who read your comment here. Gotta love it.
Anyway, I've seen all the 1995 flicks, but not the 2005 ones (several are waiting in the pile), so I can't compare them myself. But "Apollo 13" got much better reviews than "Madagascar", and "Toy Story" is surely more loved than "Revenge of the Sith". I won't deny your general point, though: there were plenty of good movies this year. Just not good enough to make me sit through the dreadful theatrical experience.
This is exactly what bothers me so much when I read that it "supports Linux and Solaris at this time". Where is the reference implementation? Where's the coordination among vendors? Is this idea completely dead? It used to be that X.org held the standard, while XFree86 was the main PC implementation. Now XFree86 is essentially dead, X.org is the PC implementation... and the idea of a standard seems to have fallen by the wayside.
Someone, please, tell me I'm talking out of my ass. Is X11R7, despite being for "Linux and Solaris", still a reasonable base from which to develop a completely non-PC X server? Maybe the modularization helps... maybe the old reference implementation wasn't really any more portable?
I'd bet that you're wasting your time with error correction and checksum validation. I started out doing it that way, then tried turning it off, and found that I still got perfect rips, in a fraction of the time. (This is with Grip under Linux, though, not EAC.) I did have a few problem discs, but I couldn't rip them either way. I've yet to find a single disc where it makes a difference on my current system. (I used to see a difference sometimes, long ago -- when I had a 4x drive and a 486, for example.)
But it's not like you have to babysit the thing for the whole five minutes. You start the rip process, then you go and do other things (whether that's physically going, or just going to another window). So that's really only seconds per disc. No way your time is worth that much. Meanwhile, you're ignoring the time you spend shipping the CDs to the ripper. I daresay that's more than the active time you'd spend ripping it yourself.
You may have a point about clueless users; but timewise, this is no bargain for anyone.
For 25 discs, I think it'd be more convenient to just rip them myself then take the time to sign up and send them in. It takes me literally five minutes and two clicks to rip a CD with Grip. I've done about 200 so far, essentially my entire collection.
The quote in the summary is bad enough, but if you follow the link, this Stephen Baker character actually has the nerve to say that "very few [rebates] are rejected". I fill out my forms to perfection, and they're routinely rejected. Most often, they claim I didn't include the UPC. When I call them and tell them I did, and that I have photocopied proof, they'll reverse themselves... when I can be bothered to call.
Oh, and how about that absurd multi-month processing delay? It seems calculated to be just long enough to make you forget that you ever sent anything in. What really gets me is this typical* email from Parago: "Please allow 8 weeks from the postmark date of your submission for processing your rebate." This is four days after I sent it in. They already entered my email address and name, at least, correctly into their database. So what do they need the other seven and a half weeks for?
* I say "typical", but of course it's even more typical to hear nothing until the check arrives, if it ever does.
AC's confusion is because these election results seem to say the opposite: ID proponents were voted out. Meanwhile, I read a poll the other day that showed a majority of Americans believing in some form of ID, though for many of them it was of a "God's hand guided evolution" form.
So why wasn't that reflected in the election? My guess -- and it's pure speculation -- is that only when it becomes a campaign issue, as in this case, does it get examined seriously by the average voter. Whereas, when those ID proponents first got voted in, they probably didn't campaign openly on an ID platform (though I'm sure they always had it in mind), but rather on innocuous-sounding non-issues like "bringing values back to our schools", or some such rot.
Don't know about the OP, but hell yeah, I do. I frequently rip the ads out of my magazines, when I can do so without messing up the rest.
But print ads are a lot less annoying than TV ads. You can skip past them easily. With TV, you're stuck... unless of course you've got something like a Tivo. Which I do.:)
I think the idea is that you do an A9 search -- e.g., "pizza mytownsname", or something like that -- and get pictures of establishments that match, along with their addresses. The revenue would come from the usual sponsors of A9, not (necessarily) from the business at the pictured location.
I just did a few, and I spent more than ten seconds on each... mainly because for most of them, none of the pictures were really good matches. (I ended up selecting "None of the Above" twice, and returning it once.) It's an interesting idea, though. I'll try again when it's not so slow.
That might have been true once -- maybe still, for text groups -- but not in today's alt.binaries.* world. To run a decent binaries server requires massive bandwidth and storage, and as a result, binary Usenet has become concentrated in fewer and fewer servers. Many ISPs -- if they still offer Usenet at all -- now outsource to one of a handful of services. So if these services are taken out by the *AA, Usenet could be crippled as a file-sharing medium.
I wasn't talking about venereal disease. "Person to person" covers all kinds of short-range transmission, even through the air. As opposed to diseases that linger in the ground indefinitely (anthrax), or are transmitted from animals (anthrax, avian flu). Think about how many people the average city-dweller comes near each day, versus the farmer. The farm may be dirty, but for germs that specifically target humans, the city is a better place to spread.
On the other hand, city folk, living in a higher density and more diverse population, with more mobility (of the population, not necessarily of individuals), probably have greater immunity to many other diseases -- those that spread person to person, rather than environmentally.
I know you were going for Funny, but just to point out, real "flying squirrels" are merely gliders. (Maybe their descendants will evolve true flight someday.)
The way you hold it is different; the way you use it is different. The mechanics are beside the point. (Incidentally, if you've ever opened up an Atari joystick, it gives new meaning to "simple". I don't see the NES controller as simplified.)
Thanks for the links, but I think your second one (the family tree) only supports my contention.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a bit of both. To support On Demand, the box has to be able to communicate back to the cable company. This is not supported by the existing "one-way" CableCards, but it will be in the forthcoming (?) two-way cards. The Series 3 appears ready for these cards, but last I heard, they weren't available to anyone yet. The cable companies are dragging their feet on two-way cards, as on the original cards, because they'd rather rent you a box.
The DirecTV HDTivo comes with an HDMI -> DVI cable. This will probably be the same.
And no, it isn't required. HDMI is the way everything is going (because of the guaranteed DRM, because the connector is simpler, because HDMI has more theoretical room for growth). For that matter, component outputs are enough for a device to qualify as "truly HD", even though they're analog. (Not the component out on your DVD player, which does 480p at best; but the component out on a typical HD receiver, which also does 720p and 1080i.)
HDMI is a physical port specification; HDCP is a copy prevention system. They're orthogonal. AFAIK, all HDMI ports support HDCP. With DVI ports, on the other hand, it may or may not be available, which is why you'll see "DVI-HDCP" specified sometimes. But this is not an issue with HDMI, TTBOMK.
I can tell you for certain that the DirecTV HDTivo also has an HDMI port (logically labelled "HDMI"), that I use it with the included HDMI-> DVI cable, and that HDCP is active in that configuration as well.
"Alacoha"?
Oh, you must've got this from Wikipedia... I never heard of Alacoha, so I Googled it, found a link to Wikipedia's article "1995 in film" as the only result. Clicked there, no "Alacoha"; checked the History page, and read, "removed what appeared to be a made-up entry ('Alacoha') from the top-grossing list"; edit done last night, probably by someone who read your comment here. Gotta love it.
Anyway, I've seen all the 1995 flicks, but not the 2005 ones (several are waiting in the pile), so I can't compare them myself. But "Apollo 13" got much better reviews than "Madagascar", and "Toy Story" is surely more loved than "Revenge of the Sith". I won't deny your general point, though: there were plenty of good movies this year. Just not good enough to make me sit through the dreadful theatrical experience.
This is exactly what bothers me so much when I read that it "supports Linux and Solaris at this time". Where is the reference implementation? Where's the coordination among vendors? Is this idea completely dead? It used to be that X.org held the standard, while XFree86 was the main PC implementation. Now XFree86 is essentially dead, X.org is the PC implementation... and the idea of a standard seems to have fallen by the wayside.
Someone, please, tell me I'm talking out of my ass. Is X11R7, despite being for "Linux and Solaris", still a reasonable base from which to develop a completely non-PC X server? Maybe the modularization helps... maybe the old reference implementation wasn't really any more portable?
I'd bet that you're wasting your time with error correction and checksum validation. I started out doing it that way, then tried turning it off, and found that I still got perfect rips, in a fraction of the time. (This is with Grip under Linux, though, not EAC.) I did have a few problem discs, but I couldn't rip them either way. I've yet to find a single disc where it makes a difference on my current system. (I used to see a difference sometimes, long ago -- when I had a 4x drive and a 486, for example.)
But it's not like you have to babysit the thing for the whole five minutes. You start the rip process, then you go and do other things (whether that's physically going, or just going to another window). So that's really only seconds per disc. No way your time is worth that much. Meanwhile, you're ignoring the time you spend shipping the CDs to the ripper. I daresay that's more than the active time you'd spend ripping it yourself.
You may have a point about clueless users; but timewise, this is no bargain for anyone.
For 25 discs, I think it'd be more convenient to just rip them myself then take the time to sign up and send them in. It takes me literally five minutes and two clicks to rip a CD with Grip. I've done about 200 so far, essentially my entire collection.
The quote in the summary is bad enough, but if you follow the link, this Stephen Baker character actually has the nerve to say that "very few [rebates] are rejected". I fill out my forms to perfection, and they're routinely rejected. Most often, they claim I didn't include the UPC. When I call them and tell them I did, and that I have photocopied proof, they'll reverse themselves... when I can be bothered to call.
Oh, and how about that absurd multi-month processing delay? It seems calculated to be just long enough to make you forget that you ever sent anything in. What really gets me is this typical* email from Parago: "Please allow 8 weeks from the postmark date of your submission for processing your rebate." This is four days after I sent it in. They already entered my email address and name, at least, correctly into their database. So what do they need the other seven and a half weeks for?
* I say "typical", but of course it's even more typical to hear nothing until the check arrives, if it ever does.
Most likely it's a false positive.
AC's confusion is because these election results seem to say the opposite: ID proponents were voted out. Meanwhile, I read a poll the other day that showed a majority of Americans believing in some form of ID, though for many of them it was of a "God's hand guided evolution" form.
So why wasn't that reflected in the election? My guess -- and it's pure speculation -- is that only when it becomes a campaign issue, as in this case, does it get examined seriously by the average voter. Whereas, when those ID proponents first got voted in, they probably didn't campaign openly on an ID platform (though I'm sure they always had it in mind), but rather on innocuous-sounding non-issues like "bringing values back to our schools", or some such rot.
Don't know about the OP, but hell yeah, I do. I frequently rip the ads out of my magazines, when I can do so without messing up the rest.
:)
But print ads are a lot less annoying than TV ads. You can skip past them easily. With TV, you're stuck... unless of course you've got something like a Tivo. Which I do.
I think the idea is that you do an A9 search -- e.g., "pizza mytownsname", or something like that -- and get pictures of establishments that match, along with their addresses. The revenue would come from the usual sponsors of A9, not (necessarily) from the business at the pictured location.
Yeah, but with this, I don't have to expose myself to dangerous grease spatter. Or get out of my chair.
I just did a few, and I spent more than ten seconds on each... mainly because for most of them, none of the pictures were really good matches. (I ended up selecting "None of the Above" twice, and returning it once.) It's an interesting idea, though. I'll try again when it's not so slow.
I wasn't talking about venereal disease. "Person to person" covers all kinds of short-range transmission, even through the air. As opposed to diseases that linger in the ground indefinitely (anthrax), or are transmitted from animals (anthrax, avian flu). Think about how many people the average city-dweller comes near each day, versus the farmer. The farm may be dirty, but for germs that specifically target humans, the city is a better place to spread.
On the other hand, city folk, living in a higher density and more diverse population, with more mobility (of the population, not necessarily of individuals), probably have greater immunity to many other diseases -- those that spread person to person, rather than environmentally.
Why? What was the answer he was looking for?
I know you were going for Funny, but just to point out, real "flying squirrels" are merely gliders. (Maybe their descendants will evolve true flight someday.)
...as Franklin was opposed to patents, and famously did not patent his stove, nor any of his other inventions.
https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?ctx= gmail&hl=en&answer=10350
Thanks for the links, but I think your second one (the family tree) only supports my contention.