I tend to susupect you never searched for a job in the 1980s, much less the 1970s.
No, that would be correct. I was on the other end then.
The Internet-based system we have now has some negatives, although I think most of those are dictated by employers more than the sites or even the evil recruiters.
No argument there. But the entire "recruiting" thing is not just the outside recruiters like the guy who posted earlier in the thread. It's the inhouse recruiters, a black hole for 99.9% of the applications. Most are not even acknowledged.
But compared to the 1980s? I take it you never had to spend $100/city/3-month-period subscribing to the Sunday paper for EACH CITY you were interested in? And then never being competitive because you didn't get the paper (via US Mail) until Wednesday (and your mailed resume didn't arrive until the following Monday), by which time the employer already had 100 resumes?
However in the 70s and even the 80s, I suspect you could possibly call on the phone and actually reach someone, since voicemail hadn't really proliferated. And you could send a resume, and it might be one of 100, like you mentioned. A far cry from today where you can't get ahold of anyone, you can't mail a resume, yours is one of 10,000 submitted online. Would you prefer to be one of 100, or one if 10,000?
The function of recruiters is to screen candidates out.
That someone might be able to do the job, might be a great fit at that company, might work well with those particular people, love the work, might he recruiting model is a failure. Sure, it gives companies who are hiring 10,000 even "hit it off" there is completely lost in the recruiting process. If you could get an interview the dynamics might work. But you can't get past the recriuter.
The recruiting process is sticking a square peg in a square hole. And that's it.
If someone has too varied experience or has done many different things, they are screened out in favor of a complete and total dope who happens to have 7 years of poor quality experience in Java that looks good on the resume.
The internet and tapplicants to screen from. But that doesn't assure they get what they actually need. Not that it doesn't work for them, it is being made to work because of high unemployment today.
I was an employer in the 80s (low skill level jobs) when everyone who wanted to work was working, very low unemployment. If we had to hire someone the pickings were slim. I have to say what was available were largely the dregs and the undesireables.
At the time no employer could afford to let good employees get away, they were valuable! We couldn't afford to have them perhaps screened out either. We talked to everyone.
Now, however it seems there are so many it has resulted in the depreciation of the people, they are worth much less.
You can see it in the salaries offered today. Masters degree, and you get a $33K job, in Southern California! (I know such a person). Desktop support, Bachelors degree required. CCNP certification, $12.50/hour. Ridiculous.
The internet has completely failed to do anything positive at all for employment search OR employee search.
And it's not just the outside recruiters, companies have inhouse recruiters now.
You can't even walk in the door anymore. If you try the receptionist will take your resume, put it in an interoffice envelope, and it's just as much a black hole as online submissions.
Because it's so easy to submit online to as many job openings as you want the recruiters, even inhouse recruiters get thousands of resumes for one or two jobs.
It's impossible to read any number of them at all.
The failure of recruiting, because of the huge "noise" caused by easy spamming of resumes has made it impossible to use the internet to get employment. Well, nearly.
The recruiting model with internet advertising is now the equivalent of the state employment office. Where you go when you have no resources
The patent office is literally filled to the brim with what? Lawyers.
They like to have disputes litigated in court. So the conciously let weak patents through, approving them on the idea that they will be litigated if it becomes "important".
This results in full employment for what? Lawyers, again.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees, settlements where litigation is too expensive, and all that comes with it, when what they should be doing is rejecting most of those ridiculous patent applications.
But they don't do that, the culture there is that everyone deserves their day in court, even though the patent is absurd.
Or the examiner at the USPTO doesn't really have the expertise or ability to determine whether it's absurd. They even know it. But they just approve them and wait for a judge to decide.
It's not so bad on a better mousetrap- at least you can touch it, and can compare it to other products for similar purpose.
But for software patents the issues are so complicated and obscure they really just have no idea. And it's killing all of us with needless litigation.
Nowhere is it more obvious than NTP, who has no product, no business, nothing except some old dusty papers in a drawer, waiting for someone to be successfull enough that they can strongarm a settlement.
If the link is good you should share it. That should be the only criteria.
If you have a perceived problem user who submits a good story, not a self-serving one, but a good, interesting story, I have no interest in it being censored due to discrimination.
That's just ridiculous. Let the story stand on it's own. The link too.
This is NOT UNUSUAL. Typical of someone who tests his web work with IE. IE fixes ridiculous stuff on the fly, like the site I looked at some time ago in Firefox with several hundred TD tags and only two/TD tags. It didn't work with Firefox but IE rendered it OK.
For the sake of interoperability it's usually good to design things so they "always work". But if you are testing it makes sense to test with a less robust platform than IE. You WANT to find the problems, not mask them.
This does not change the fact that yeah, GoDaddy's server IS likely broken. But if they hadn't tested with IE they would have known.
They have protection with their money against the private lawyers who have filed civil actions.
But the real question is whether the Sony rootkit constitutes a criminal act on their part.
If it is criminal (and I sure hope it is, I hate the idea that the only recourse we have against computer hackers is a civil action) when will the government discipline Sony?
Why should a major corporation be able to get away with hacking our computers and installing backdoors when we actually bought something from THEM? Why should we have to take being treated like criminals? We are customers. We deserve their respect.
I want the government to investigate this. If they are found to have done what we think they have done is there any valid reason they should be allowed to operate any sort of business in the US? Should other countries kick their fannies out of the country? I think so. I don't think foreign entities who are known criminals should be able to operate openly with complete impunity.
Sony is going to have to do damage control now, but I can tell you it is going to be a while before I consider Sony products.
By the time this is over Sony may very well be a sharply discounted brand. If they survive this incident, that is.
You're right of course, I hadn't thought of that. The building I was in was a high rise, it likely was a return air plenum. So that explains it. It was sure little though.
At home you could just get a $49 thermostatically controlled attic fan from Home Depot, that would take care of the problem of excess heat.
Hmm. Wonder where I could find one of those little Liebert units. Have to watch for a high rise being torn down.
Liebert has something like that, I saw one once. It was pretty confusing how it actually worked.
It fit in a 2' square suspended ceiling, in place of a ceiling tile. It had a little output, about a 4" hose, blowing cold air.
No unit outside the building, not a split system. Not much wiring, not much power. It was weird. Blowing cold air into a server closet I was in. It made little noise. All self contained. Low capacity. I wondered what they did with the heat. Nothing it seemed.
Weird.
Liebert is of course the company that makes those giant UPS and AC units for server rooms. The really big ones.
Some people think Hotmail is free. It's not actually free, it has ads.
Why did Hotmail exist? For the ads. They sold our eyeballs.
POP/SMTP obviously mostly eliminates that.
Gmail is actually free since I don't see their ads. Not that Gmail doesn't have issues. It does.
If Hotmail is going to actually be free now, with no ads, POP/SMTP, well, why would they do that? Forced to, kicking and screaming? I guess so.
Seems silly to me.
After taking a look I agree, I have mail in my inbox from 2001.
It's the sent mail that they throw out after 30 days, if you even remember to check the box to save it EACH TIME. Messages more than 30 days old will be automatically deleted from this folder.
- Though your account should have had all it's messages deleted when you let it become inactive, which should have happened if you actually haven't used it in three years. Unless you are logging in periodically to prevent that.
Like I said, inconvenient. Hoops to jump through.
I can understand why you are using gmail and haven't used Hotmail in three years.
Gmail is somewhat convenient, everything that Hotmail is not.
If Hotmail were serious about making a convenient email facility it would do what gmail has done: POP/SMTP, convenient settings, Not throw out your email automatically, not make you check a box each time. Not force you to log into a web form periodically or they will throw out all your mail.
Lets just wait and see if Hotmail still thinks it makes sense to: 1. Throw out all your received mail after 30 days unless you jump through hoops. No setting to keep it anywhere.
2. Throw out all your sent mail immediately unless you check a box each and every time. No setting to keep it anywhere.
Hotmail is a joke as far as a real mail system is concerned. How could anyone take that seriously?
The only thing they have done that is good is stripping the active content, web bugs and blinking graphics from identified spam. With all that calling home when you opened them there was just no slowing down the spam.
On the other hand if Bill Gates had been using Hotmail his old emails wouldn't have been discoverable in that lawsuit. Hmmm.
The only legitimate claim you might have is if you have a federal trademark.
Here's what you have to do:
You file for a federal trademark registration and you better get it quietly.
Don't let anyone know you have it.
Wait 5 years, renew it.
After 5 years it becomes "incontestable".
No one can do anything about you then. If the domain owner finds out you have filed for a federal trademark registration they can contest it during that 5 year period. After that they are enjoined from doing so.
There is a specific provision in the domain name rules where you can obtain a domain name where you have a federal trademark for the exact same name. As far as I know that is the only provision that would allow you to take that name by force.
After you get the federal trademark and wait the 5 years for renewal, you can demand the domain name, and according to the rules you should get it.
Not sure if this has ever been done successfully however. Naturally most of the domain squatter incidents that have been litigated have been deep pocketed companies who had a clear claim on the domain and the money to enforce it.
They're a job shop, right? The do development projects for companies in the US. They need you to give them work, that's what they DO.
If you are the US company and you have the customers, you are the one dictating the terms. They need you, or they would just be another offshore job shop working for $2.45 an hour, which is great pay in the third world.
If they had the ability to sell into the US market without you they wouldn't need you at all. They can't make any money at all unless they sell into the US market.
Why do you need to "partner" with them at all?
If they are just doing job shop work forget partner deals. Just tell them what you are willing to pay and if they agree you are in business. If they don't agree you can either pay more or find someone else in Bangalore to do the work.
Are you considering developing a product? If you want them to develop a product that you will then sell, and you want them to do it on the come, that is what they are paying for their piece of the action.
The questions then would be:
1. Who owns the product, the work output. Where is the source code? What if you have a falling out?
2. Who gets what percentage of the money, which was your original question.
3. Who takes the risk? If you are going to sell their product that they own you are dependent on their performance. Your customers will pay for their purchases here in US dollars. If there is a problem they will want US dollars in compensation, either in a refund or in a lawsuit judgement.
If you sent most of the money to India how could you pay the damages? Everything costs 20x as much here in the US compared to there, including damages. Risk is 20x as much here.
Everything costs less in the third world.
If it didn't you would have no reason to offshore development, now would you?
I think that answers your question. You have most of the risk. If you don't get a good portion of the money there is just no point. You would just use someone else, unless there's something about these guys that makes them irreplaceable. I doubt it.
You have the absolute RIGHT to retrieve your domain name for at least 65 days after it expires, more like 75 days. It might cost you a redemption fee but you have the RIGHT.
Demand your RIGHTS under the agreement your registrar has with ICANN.
They cannot take your property 8 hours after it expires.
It expires and becomes available for registration by another person after the redemption period expires. It is not the property of your registrar, even though they would like that.
Oh, I found it. Gemstar's Guide+.
The same as the TVGuide broadcast guide that is available on some dvd recorders. Still free, though you do have to log in.
Would you be able to tell us the name/model of the card, and the name of the listing service that you are using, a web address perhaps? I would be interested in looking into that. I looked at the ATI site and they have about 8 different TV tuner cards. I looked at the manual for an old ISA one and it didn't seem to mention any listing service. But it might be with the bundled software.
Heh. You are a Tivo apologist!
Guy, Tivo crossed the line when they put ads on the guide. I don't have Tivo so I have never seen their ads. But if they want to send me ads and want me to pay as well, forget it.
If I watch commercial supported TV I expect ads.
If I am paying, like a PPV movie or for HBO, I don't expect ads. At least not ads for maxi-pads.
As far as Tivo making money off their monthly fees, they never have. Not yet.
And Tivo boxes are not usually $99. They are $99 with a commitment to subscribe, or they will bill you for it. Check it out.
You mean like Verizon disabled the Transflash slot on the Motorola V710 phones after you bought it, so now you have to pay them 25 cents to get YOUR pictures off YOUR phone? Yep. Exactly.
Sleazy, huh?
But Verizon has a cover story: The picture quality is now "better".
As if that's an excuse.
If you had bought that lifetime subscription you would have had the tivo "service" all that time.
A nice guide to what's on. The ability to save things you liked on your equipment as long as you want. The ability to save something to VCR if you want. All of which you bought and paid for.
Now however you would also have the following:
1. Ads on your guide taking up part of what you paid for when there were none when you paid.
2. Spyware on the box reporting back everything you watch. It is debateable whether they did that two years ago.
3. Items you recorded being erased under someone else's control, on your own equipment which you own.
4. The ability to copy something off the Tivo to a VCR or DVD taken away under someone else's control.
It looks to me that if you HAD paid for that subscription you would now be getting less than you paid for. And less than what you used to have.
Since you own it your only option is to pull the plug on it, sue them for their "takings" and demand they stop, or suck it up.
Doesn't sound all that fair to me.
Not really.
I am saying I don't expect THEM to modify the boxes and take things away from me after I bought their product, and expect me to continue paying them.
Luckily I didn't buy their product.
Tivo deliberately built a crippled product: Unless you paid them for a monthly subscription you got no guide data, and that made it unuseable. The monthly subscription is exhorbitant, and the flaw in their business model is that they wanted to sell you the box.
If they had kept the boxes and let you have one as a rental that business model might be valid and the idea that you received some "service" for your monthly fee might have some validity.
But they sold them, and through the crippled nature of their product and the monthly fee they are trying to maintain ownership and control over you and your box, which unfortunately for them they SOLD you.
You can't maintain control over things you sold. If you want to maintain control, don't sell it.
That is now over since they have tipped their hand, first by sending you ads and taking up part of the guide data that YOU ARE PAYING FOR. Now by limiting what you can do with items you have stored in your box, which you own.
I think it's about over for the current Tivo business model.
They should just start being honest, give the boxes out as a rental and then they can control them.
Once sold they lose the ability to control them and I can see the handwriting on the wall, internet accessable guide servers will soon abound and Tivo has no more revenue from people who own those boxes- their current customers.
Yeah, well, in India you can prolly buy a house for $2,000 and a nice dinner in a restaurant for 88 cents.
It's hard to say paying the Indians $1,800 a year isn't fair compared to paying $60-80,000 here. If they had to be paid the same as in the US there would be no reason to use them at all.
Oops. I think I am onto something.
Slashdot Mirror
I tend to susupect you never searched for a job in the 1980s, much less the 1970s.
No, that would be correct. I was on the other end then.
The Internet-based system we have now has some negatives, although I think most of those are dictated by employers more than the sites or even the evil recruiters.
No argument there. But the entire "recruiting" thing is not just the outside recruiters like the guy who posted earlier in the thread. It's the inhouse recruiters, a black hole for 99.9% of the applications. Most are not even acknowledged.
But compared to the 1980s? I take it you never had to spend $100/city/3-month-period subscribing to the Sunday paper for EACH CITY you were interested in? And then never being competitive because you didn't get the paper (via US Mail) until Wednesday (and your mailed resume didn't arrive until the following Monday), by which time the employer already had 100 resumes?
However in the 70s and even the 80s, I suspect you could possibly call on the phone and actually reach someone, since voicemail hadn't really proliferated. And you could send a resume, and it might be one of 100, like you mentioned. A far cry from today where you can't get ahold of anyone, you can't mail a resume, yours is one of 10,000 submitted online. Would you prefer to be one of 100, or one if 10,000?
The function of recruiters is to screen candidates out.
That someone might be able to do the job, might be a great fit at that company, might work well with those particular people, love the work, might he recruiting model is a failure. Sure, it gives companies who are hiring 10,000 even "hit it off" there is completely lost in the recruiting process. If you could get an interview the dynamics might work. But you can't get past the recriuter.
The recruiting process is sticking a square peg in a square hole. And that's it.
If someone has too varied experience or has done many different things, they are screened out in favor of a complete and total dope who happens to have 7 years of poor quality experience in Java that looks good on the resume.
The internet and tapplicants to screen from. But that doesn't assure they get what they actually need. Not that it doesn't work for them, it is being made to work because of high unemployment today.
I was an employer in the 80s (low skill level jobs) when everyone who wanted to work was working, very low unemployment.
If we had to hire someone the pickings were slim. I have to say what was available were largely the dregs and the undesireables.
At the time no employer could afford to let good employees get away, they were valuable! We couldn't afford to have them perhaps screened out either. We talked to everyone.
Now, however it seems there are so many it has resulted in the depreciation of the people, they are worth much less.
You can see it in the salaries offered today. Masters degree, and you get a $33K job, in Southern California! (I know such a person). Desktop support, Bachelors degree required. CCNP certification, $12.50/hour. Ridiculous.
Man, you said it!.
The internet has completely failed to do anything positive at all for employment search OR employee search.
And it's not just the outside recruiters, companies have inhouse recruiters now.
You can't even walk in the door anymore. If you try the receptionist will take your resume, put it in an interoffice envelope, and it's just as much a black hole as online submissions.
Because it's so easy to submit online to as many job openings as you want the recruiters, even inhouse recruiters get thousands of resumes for one or two jobs.
It's impossible to read any number of them at all.
The failure of recruiting, because of the huge "noise" caused by easy spamming of resumes has made it impossible to use the internet to get employment. Well, nearly.
The recruiting model with internet advertising is now the equivalent of the state employment office. Where you go when you have no resources
The patent office is literally filled to the brim with what? Lawyers.
They like to have disputes litigated in court. So the conciously let weak patents through, approving them on the idea that they will be litigated if it becomes "important".
This results in full employment for what? Lawyers, again.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees, settlements where litigation is too expensive, and all that comes with it, when what they should be doing is rejecting most of those ridiculous patent applications.
But they don't do that, the culture there is that everyone deserves their day in court, even though the patent is absurd.
Or the examiner at the USPTO doesn't really have the expertise or ability to determine whether it's absurd. They even know it. But they just approve them and wait for a judge to decide.
It's not so bad on a better mousetrap- at least you can touch it, and can compare it to other products for similar purpose.
But for software patents the issues are so complicated and obscure they really just have no idea. And it's killing all of us with needless litigation.
Nowhere is it more obvious than NTP, who has no product, no business, nothing except some old dusty papers in a drawer, waiting for someone to be successfull enough that they can strongarm a settlement.
If the link is good you should share it. That should be the only criteria.
If you have a perceived problem user who submits a good story, not a self-serving one, but a good, interesting story, I have no interest in it being censored due to discrimination.
That's just ridiculous. Let the story stand on it's own. The link too.
This is NOT UNUSUAL. Typical of someone who tests his web work with IE. IE fixes ridiculous stuff on the fly, like the site I looked at some time ago in Firefox with several hundred TD tags and only two /TD tags. It didn't work with Firefox but IE rendered it OK.
For the sake of interoperability it's usually good to design things so they "always work". But if you are testing it makes sense to test with a less robust platform than IE. You WANT to find the problems, not mask them.
This does not change the fact that yeah, GoDaddy's server IS likely broken. But if they hadn't tested with IE they would have known.
They have protection with their money against the private lawyers who have filed civil actions.
But the real question is whether the Sony rootkit constitutes a criminal act on their part. If it is criminal (and I sure hope it is, I hate the idea that the only recourse we have against computer hackers is a civil action) when will the government discipline Sony?
Why should a major corporation be able to get away with hacking our computers and installing backdoors when we actually bought something from THEM? Why should we have to take being treated like criminals? We are customers. We deserve their respect.
I want the government to investigate this. If they are found to have done what we think they have done is there any valid reason they should be allowed to operate any sort of business in the US? Should other countries kick their fannies out of the country? I think so. I don't think foreign entities who are known criminals should be able to operate openly with complete impunity.
Sony is going to have to do damage control now, but I can tell you it is going to be a while before I consider Sony products.
By the time this is over Sony may very well be a sharply discounted brand. If they survive this incident, that is.
You're right of course, I hadn't thought of that. The building I was in was a high rise, it likely was a return air plenum. So that explains it. It was sure little though.
At home you could just get a $49 thermostatically controlled attic fan from Home Depot, that would take care of the problem of excess heat.
Hmm. Wonder where I could find one of those little Liebert units. Have to watch for a high rise being torn down.
Liebert has something like that, I saw one once. It was pretty confusing how it actually worked.
It fit in a 2' square suspended ceiling, in place of a ceiling tile. It had a little output, about a 4" hose, blowing cold air.
No unit outside the building, not a split system. Not much wiring, not much power. It was weird. Blowing cold air into a server closet I was in. It made little noise. All self contained. Low capacity. I wondered what they did with the heat. Nothing it seemed.
Weird.
Liebert is of course the company that makes those giant UPS and AC units for server rooms. The really big ones.
Too little to late? I dunno.
Some people think Hotmail is free. It's not actually free, it has ads.
Why did Hotmail exist? For the ads. They sold our eyeballs.
POP/SMTP obviously mostly eliminates that.
Gmail is actually free since I don't see their ads. Not that Gmail doesn't have issues. It does.
If Hotmail is going to actually be free now, with no ads, POP/SMTP, well, why would they do that?
Forced to, kicking and screaming? I guess so.
Seems silly to me.
First, I am not anti Microsoft. I love Microsoft.
After taking a look I agree, I have mail in my inbox from 2001.
It's the sent mail that they throw out after 30 days, if you even remember to check the box to save it EACH TIME.
Messages more than 30 days old will be automatically deleted from this folder.
- Though your account should have had all it's messages deleted when you let it become inactive, which should have happened if you actually haven't used it in three years. Unless you are logging in periodically to prevent that.
Like I said, inconvenient. Hoops to jump through.
I can understand why you are using gmail and haven't used Hotmail in three years.
Gmail is somewhat convenient, everything that Hotmail is not.
If Hotmail were serious about making a convenient email facility it would do what gmail has done: POP/SMTP, convenient settings, Not throw out your email automatically, not make you check a box each time. Not force you to log into a web form periodically or they will throw out all your mail.
Lets just wait and see if Hotmail still thinks it makes sense to:
1. Throw out all your received mail after 30 days unless you jump through hoops. No setting to keep it anywhere.
2. Throw out all your sent mail immediately unless you check a box each and every time. No setting to keep it anywhere.
Hotmail is a joke as far as a real mail system is concerned. How could anyone take that seriously?
The only thing they have done that is good is stripping the active content, web bugs and blinking graphics from identified spam. With all that calling home when you opened them there was just no slowing down the spam.
On the other hand if Bill Gates had been using Hotmail his old emails wouldn't have been discoverable in that lawsuit. Hmmm.
The only legitimate claim you might have is if you have a federal trademark.
Here's what you have to do:
You file for a federal trademark registration and you better get it quietly.
Don't let anyone know you have it.
Wait 5 years, renew it.
After 5 years it becomes "incontestable".
No one can do anything about you then. If the domain owner finds out you have filed for a federal trademark registration they can contest it during that 5 year period. After that they are enjoined from doing so.
There is a specific provision in the domain name rules where you can obtain a domain name where you have a federal trademark for the exact same name.
As far as I know that is the only provision that would allow you to take that name by force.
After you get the federal trademark and wait the 5 years for renewal, you can demand the domain name, and according to the rules you should get it.
Not sure if this has ever been done successfully however. Naturally most of the domain squatter incidents that have been litigated have been deep pocketed companies who had a clear claim on the domain and the money to enforce it.
They're a job shop, right? The do development projects for companies in the US. They need you to give them work, that's what they DO.
If you are the US company and you have the customers, you are the one dictating the terms. They need you, or they would just be another offshore job shop working for $2.45 an hour, which is great pay in the third world.
If they had the ability to sell into the US market without you they wouldn't need you at all. They can't make any money at all unless they sell into the US market.
Why do you need to "partner" with them at all?
If they are just doing job shop work forget partner deals.
Just tell them what you are willing to pay and if they agree you are in business. If they don't agree you can either pay more or find someone else in Bangalore to do the work.
Are you considering developing a product?
If you want them to develop a product that you will then sell, and you want them to do it on the come, that is what they are paying for their piece of the action.
The questions then would be:
1. Who owns the product, the work output. Where is the source code? What if you have a falling out?
2. Who gets what percentage of the money, which was your original question.
3. Who takes the risk? If you are going to sell their product that they own you are dependent on their performance. Your customers will pay for their purchases here in US dollars. If there is a problem they will want US dollars in compensation, either in a refund or in a lawsuit judgement.
If you sent most of the money to India how could you pay the damages? Everything costs 20x as much here in the US compared to there, including damages.
Risk is 20x as much here.
Everything costs less in the third world.
If it didn't you would have no reason to offshore development, now would you?
I think that answers your question. You have most of the risk. If you don't get a good portion of the money there is just no point. You would just use someone else, unless there's something about these guys that makes them irreplaceable. I doubt it.
You have the absolute RIGHT to retrieve your domain name for at least 65 days after it expires, more like 75 days. It might cost you a redemption fee but you have the RIGHT.
Demand your RIGHTS under the agreement your registrar has with ICANN.
They cannot take your property 8 hours after it expires.
It expires and becomes available for registration by another person after the redemption period expires. It is not the property of your registrar, even though they would like that.
Oh, I found it. Gemstar's Guide+.
The same as the TVGuide broadcast guide that is available on some dvd recorders. Still free, though you do have to log in.
Would you be able to tell us the name/model of the card, and the name of the listing service that you are using, a web address perhaps?
I would be interested in looking into that.
I looked at the ATI site and they have about 8 different TV tuner cards. I looked at the manual for an old ISA one and it didn't seem to mention any listing service. But it might be with the bundled software.
Heh. You are a Tivo apologist!
Guy, Tivo crossed the line when they put ads on the guide. I don't have Tivo so I have never seen their ads. But if they want to send me ads and want me to pay as well, forget it.
If I watch commercial supported TV I expect ads.
If I am paying, like a PPV movie or for HBO, I don't expect ads. At least not ads for maxi-pads.
As far as Tivo making money off their monthly fees, they never have. Not yet.
And Tivo boxes are not usually $99. They are $99 with a commitment to subscribe, or they will bill you for it. Check it out.
The problem was not that they uncapped it. If they owned it they are free to uncap it.
The problem is that they used it.
You mean like Verizon disabled the Transflash slot on the Motorola V710 phones after you bought it, so now you have to pay them 25 cents to get YOUR pictures off YOUR phone?
Yep. Exactly.
Sleazy, huh?
But Verizon has a cover story: The picture quality is now "better".
As if that's an excuse.
If you had bought that lifetime subscription you would have had the tivo "service" all that time.
A nice guide to what's on.
The ability to save things you liked on your equipment as long as you want.
The ability to save something to VCR if you want.
All of which you bought and paid for.
Now however you would also have the following:
1. Ads on your guide taking up part of what you paid for when there were none when you paid.
2. Spyware on the box reporting back everything you watch. It is debateable whether they did that two years ago.
3. Items you recorded being erased under someone else's control, on your own equipment which you own.
4. The ability to copy something off the Tivo to a VCR or DVD taken away under someone else's control.
It looks to me that if you HAD paid for that subscription you would now be getting less than you paid for. And less than what you used to have.
Since you own it your only option is to pull the plug on it, sue them for their "takings" and demand they stop, or suck it up.
Doesn't sound all that fair to me.
Not really.
I am saying I don't expect THEM to modify the boxes and take things away from me after I bought their product, and expect me to continue paying them.
Luckily I didn't buy their product.
Actually, I don't have a Tivo. I have Ultimate TV, and I pay Directv every month for it. It's well worth it too!
Tivo deliberately built a crippled product: Unless you paid them for a monthly subscription you got no guide data, and that made it unuseable. The monthly subscription is exhorbitant, and the flaw in their business model is that they wanted to sell you the box.
If they had kept the boxes and let you have one as a rental that business model might be valid and the idea that you received some "service" for your monthly fee might have some validity.
But they sold them, and through the crippled nature of their product and the monthly fee they are trying to maintain ownership and control over you and your box, which unfortunately for them they SOLD you.
You can't maintain control over things you sold. If you want to maintain control, don't sell it.
That is now over since they have tipped their hand, first by sending you ads and taking up part of the guide data that YOU ARE PAYING FOR. Now by limiting what you can do with items you have stored in your box, which you own.
I think it's about over for the current Tivo business model.
They should just start being honest, give the boxes out as a rental and then they can control them.
Once sold they lose the ability to control them and I can see the handwriting on the wall, internet accessable guide servers will soon abound and Tivo has no more revenue from people who own those boxes- their current customers.
That is completely fair.
Yeah, well, in India you can prolly buy a house for $2,000 and a nice dinner in a restaurant for 88 cents.
It's hard to say paying the Indians $1,800 a year isn't fair compared to paying $60-80,000 here. If they had to be paid the same as in the US there would be no reason to use them at all.
Oops. I think I am onto something.