That way you would just have one device to decode the singal and you could split it to as many TVs as you want after that.
You can already do this. The only problem is that you'll only be able to view the same channel on each TV.
There's a technical reason for this. It takes processing power to decode digital video and turn it into a signal for the TV. Your system would either have to simultaneously decode every channel, or have some sort of feedback from the TV to the cable box telling it what channel to decode at that point in time.
Furthermore, the cable companies really like the fact that they can charge you $5/month for a fixed cost asset.
The signature panel is not there to prove your identity... its there to show that you agreed to the terms of the cardmember agreement. (ie you agree to pay) It has NOTHING to do with your card's security.
While this makes some sense on its face, and may be what the CC companies say, it doesn't make sense in reality. Why? The back of my MC states: "The holder's use of this card constitutes agreement to the terms and conditions imposed by the Bank." Why does one need to sign it to agree if simply using does the same?
No, being a former IRC administrator I am well aware that there are limitations. Most users, though, are completely unaware of these limits because they are narrow in scope (China's firewall notwithstanding..). If this starts to change, people will find other ISPs.
Another problem with your proposal is that it must be accepted and implemented by a significant number of large ISPs. Otherwise, the peer pressure will never be there.
People and businesses that are irresponsible are not to be treated as equal partners in this world.
While I agree with the sentiment, it doesn't practically work when applied to the Internet. There are a few reasons. One is the legal reason. ISPs are common carriers and if they start monitoring their traffic and nicking people for being zombies, they could be held responsible if they miss some zombies and those zombies cause damage (yes, I realize this is inane, but it's how lawyers and the law think). The other is that I believe ISP level blocking would significantly harm the internet. Just like blackholing all of China's email traps legitimate messages, blocking whole ISPs would trap legitimate connections. In some areas, a wide choice of ISPs is not available, and legitimate users would have to jump over hurdles just to get onto the internet.
Additionally, why should I allow some ISP to adopt a business model that puts their costs onto me?
Do you think ISP prices would go DOWN if they started going after zombie boxes? If anything, they would go up, since tracking down and dealing with the problems would require more resources, more people, more time. As I said in another post, the ISPs have decided that it's cheaper to buy more bandwidth.
Also, you're a user of a service. The business model already puts their costs onto you. I hope you already knew this.
I know there has to be a way for an ISP to nottice certain traffic and refuse a user access to the internet (only display a "you have been infected" page with a cleanup download).
There is, and many ISPs do this (Cablevision aka Optimum Online, for one). However, they only do it for P2P traffic, since they are under threat of DMCA action from the RIAA. Until there is a financial incentive for ISPs to do something, they won't. So far, the ISPs have decided it's cheaper to buy more bandwidth than pay for the tech support and lost customers.
but the manufactorer responsible if while driving the wheels come off
Speaking as someone whose wheel has fallen off while driving, I can say this is not true.
Aside from anecdotes, since they suck, it's still not true. If the wheel came off due to a manufacturing defect, then yes, the manufacturer could be held responsible. However, if the wheel came off because you slammed into an NJ pothole at 90 mph, I have a feeling that you'd have a tough time getting the manufacturer to pay up.
the vast majority of the public does pay for their software and music. There is however a large minority that feels otherwise and continues their criminal practices.
How can there be a vast majority AND a large minority?
Blackouts exist because of clauses in the agreement between the league/team and the TV station/network. They do not exist because of any law or any agreement with the ultimate customer (the viewer). "Violating" a blackout, as a viewer, is completely legal. People who live in shared markets are frequently able to get around blackouts (i.e., people who live in areas that get signals from both the NY and Philly markets can watch the national NFC game on Fox 29 instead of the Giants on Fox 5). Note that all of the digital cable/satellite "total sports" packages basically throw away the blackout rules (obviously this exception exists because these packages bring in additional revenue).
As other posters have pointed out, the recent bankruptcy "protection" bill only "reformed" Chapter 7 and 13 bankruptcy, aka personal bankruptcies. Chapter 11, which covers most corporate bankruptcy, was not touched.
But since draging to the trash was a shortcut for SPECIAL->EJECT I give it as much slack as I give CONTROL + 'X' meaning cut or ALT + 'F4' meaning close window.
Doesn't follow. Meaningless keyboard shortcuts for menu items are something that generally just have to be memorized. However, we're talking about a visual shortcut here. It's similar to the inanity in windows where if you drag within a disk, it means move, but if you drag across disks, it means copy.
belive that since the first OS X release draging a disk turns the trash can into a eject icon
Which barely helps, since now the user will wonder why the trash can is changing. You have to approach these things as a new user. If you're familiar with Macs, of course it makes sense that you drag a disk to the trash because that's what you've been doing for the last 10+ years. If you've never seen a mac (and are familiar with trash cans), it just doesn't make sense to drag a disk to the trash to eject it. After all, the trash is where you put stuff you want deleted; stuff you don't want. Remember, you really have to look at these things as someone who does not use computers 10 hours a day.
Daylighting is a little more broad than this. Daylighting, as defined in a regional transit standards Manual that I worked on, is simply using the Sun instead of electricity. It could be skylights, big windows, hybrid lighting, etc.
Programming an application isn't an easy task, but I think it's just a bit elitist to say that non-developers "can't really comprehend" it. There are many complex jobs in the world, and programming is just one of them. It really isn't special. I know this goes against some of our preconceived notions of programmers as gods, but it's the truth.
You said in another post that the math bit was a "side point"... Your wording makes it sound like you need to know those items to program, and you know as well as anyone else that is completely false. Yes, some applications require it. However, some applications also require knowledge of tax code. Does that mean you're not a programmer if you don't know tax code?
Assuming all of those percentages cover the same set of respondents, more people would be willing to die for their beliefs than go to church once a week. Quite odd.
Well, telephone booths have been out of style for a long time due to the security aspect, but public phones are still all over the place. Not as widespread as they were, of course, but they are still installed at many public facilities, moreso in cities.
Social stigma, imo. Although at times it doesn't seem like it, we do live in a very religous society. I can't remember the exact numbers, but something like 90% of Americans believe in a higher power. Also note that there are very few athiests/agnostics elected to high public office, our current president's constant references to his faith, and the emphasis placed on faith during last year's elections.
In our current society, to say flatly that one is an athiest is similar to being publicly gay. There are people who will outright tell you to your face that you are going to "burn in hell" for both beliefs.
Dunno.. this is probably more of a personal thing than regional. I usually do the 'handshaking' as you describe, but I know people who just start talking, as well. If I'm in a hurry, or have already talked to the person very recently, the handshaking is skipped.
Well he did go a bit far, but he is essentially correct. SUVs are subject to the requirements of "light trucks" which are less stringent than "car" standards.
You should understand that the President of the United States, a person whose decisions affect everyone in the country, will always be criticized by someone.
Slashdot Mirror
That way you would just have one device to decode the singal and you could split it to as many TVs as you want after that.
You can already do this. The only problem is that you'll only be able to view the same channel on each TV.
There's a technical reason for this. It takes processing power to decode digital video and turn it into a signal for the TV. Your system would either have to simultaneously decode every channel, or have some sort of feedback from the TV to the cable box telling it what channel to decode at that point in time.
Furthermore, the cable companies really like the fact that they can charge you $5/month for a fixed cost asset.
No, since spelt is an accepted form of spelled.
The signature panel is not there to prove your identity... its there to show that you agreed to the terms of the cardmember agreement. (ie you agree to pay) It has NOTHING to do with your card's security.
While this makes some sense on its face, and may be what the CC companies say, it doesn't make sense in reality. Why? The back of my MC states: "The holder's use of this card constitutes agreement to the terms and conditions imposed by the Bank." Why does one need to sign it to agree if simply using does the same?
But if you look at the statistics, Baghdad is a safer city than Chicago
And exactly which statistics are those?
No, being a former IRC administrator I am well aware that there are limitations. Most users, though, are completely unaware of these limits because they are narrow in scope (China's firewall notwithstanding..). If this starts to change, people will find other ISPs.
Another problem with your proposal is that it must be accepted and implemented by a significant number of large ISPs. Otherwise, the peer pressure will never be there.
People and businesses that are irresponsible are not to be treated as equal partners in this world.
While I agree with the sentiment, it doesn't practically work when applied to the Internet. There are a few reasons. One is the legal reason. ISPs are common carriers and if they start monitoring their traffic and nicking people for being zombies, they could be held responsible if they miss some zombies and those zombies cause damage (yes, I realize this is inane, but it's how lawyers and the law think). The other is that I believe ISP level blocking would significantly harm the internet. Just like blackholing all of China's email traps legitimate messages, blocking whole ISPs would trap legitimate connections. In some areas, a wide choice of ISPs is not available, and legitimate users would have to jump over hurdles just to get onto the internet.
Additionally, why should I allow some ISP to adopt a business model that puts their costs onto me?
Do you think ISP prices would go DOWN if they started going after zombie boxes? If anything, they would go up, since tracking down and dealing with the problems would require more resources, more people, more time. As I said in another post, the ISPs have decided that it's cheaper to buy more bandwidth.
Also, you're a user of a service. The business model already puts their costs onto you. I hope you already knew this.
I know there has to be a way for an ISP to nottice certain traffic and refuse a user access to the internet (only display a "you have been infected" page with a cleanup download).
There is, and many ISPs do this (Cablevision aka Optimum Online, for one). However, they only do it for P2P traffic, since they are under threat of DMCA action from the RIAA. Until there is a financial incentive for ISPs to do something, they won't. So far, the ISPs have decided it's cheaper to buy more bandwidth than pay for the tech support and lost customers.
Then what happens is those that don't start finding that they're not allowed to peer with those that do, etc...
You mean they destroy the concept of the internet? Great idea.
but the manufactorer responsible if while driving the wheels come off
Speaking as someone whose wheel has fallen off while driving, I can say this is not true.
Aside from anecdotes, since they suck, it's still not true. If the wheel came off due to a manufacturing defect, then yes, the manufacturer could be held responsible. However, if the wheel came off because you slammed into an NJ pothole at 90 mph, I have a feeling that you'd have a tough time getting the manufacturer to pay up.
You're right about them getting a message. That message would be "Time to find a new ISP."
the vast majority of the public does pay for their software and music. There is however a large minority that feels otherwise and continues their criminal practices.
How can there be a vast majority AND a large minority?
Sporting events get blacked out in areas.
Blackouts exist because of clauses in the agreement between the league/team and the TV station/network. They do not exist because of any law or any agreement with the ultimate customer (the viewer). "Violating" a blackout, as a viewer, is completely legal. People who live in shared markets are frequently able to get around blackouts (i.e., people who live in areas that get signals from both the NY and Philly markets can watch the national NFC game on Fox 29 instead of the Giants on Fox 5). Note that all of the digital cable/satellite "total sports" packages basically throw away the blackout rules (obviously this exception exists because these packages bring in additional revenue).
It was accepted because altough it is difficult to enterely bypass the commercials (you still see it, even on FF)
Not always true. I once had a VCR that did not display picture when FF/REW in certain recording modes.
Furthermore, and more importantly, the VCR was accepted for time-shifting because SCOTUS said so, not because the industry acquiesced.
As other posters have pointed out, the recent bankruptcy "protection" bill only "reformed" Chapter 7 and 13 bankruptcy, aka personal bankruptcies. Chapter 11, which covers most corporate bankruptcy, was not touched.
But since draging to the trash was a shortcut for SPECIAL->EJECT I give it as much slack as I give CONTROL + 'X' meaning cut or ALT + 'F4' meaning close window.
Doesn't follow. Meaningless keyboard shortcuts for menu items are something that generally just have to be memorized. However, we're talking about a visual shortcut here. It's similar to the inanity in windows where if you drag within a disk, it means move, but if you drag across disks, it means copy.
belive that since the first OS X release draging a disk turns the trash can into a eject icon
Which barely helps, since now the user will wonder why the trash can is changing. You have to approach these things as a new user. If you're familiar with Macs, of course it makes sense that you drag a disk to the trash because that's what you've been doing for the last 10+ years. If you've never seen a mac (and are familiar with trash cans), it just doesn't make sense to drag a disk to the trash to eject it. After all, the trash is where you put stuff you want deleted; stuff you don't want. Remember, you really have to look at these things as someone who does not use computers 10 hours a day.
Daylighting is a little more broad than this. Daylighting, as defined in a regional transit standards Manual that I worked on, is simply using the Sun instead of electricity. It could be skylights, big windows, hybrid lighting, etc.
Programming an application isn't an easy task, but I think it's just a bit elitist to say that non-developers "can't really comprehend" it. There are many complex jobs in the world, and programming is just one of them. It really isn't special. I know this goes against some of our preconceived notions of programmers as gods, but it's the truth.
You said in another post that the math bit was a "side point"... Your wording makes it sound like you need to know those items to program, and you know as well as anyone else that is completely false. Yes, some applications require it. However, some applications also require knowledge of tax code. Does that mean you're not a programmer if you don't know tax code?
In short: Cool the ego.
What's "roaming?" Is it 1999 in here or is it just you?
I think it's you. It's fairly easy to go off network.. try going to Canada some day.
It's never happened.
But if it did, and you didn't change your plan, what would you pay by then?
Assuming all of those percentages cover the same set of respondents, more people would be willing to die for their beliefs than go to church once a week. Quite odd.
Voicemail is always a free call.
Not if you're roaming.. at least for my plan/carrier (Verizon).
Besides, nobody pays by the minute any more anyway.
WTF do you pay by if you're over your monthly minutes?
Well, telephone booths have been out of style for a long time due to the security aspect, but public phones are still all over the place. Not as widespread as they were, of course, but they are still installed at many public facilities, moreso in cities.
Why?
Social stigma, imo. Although at times it doesn't seem like it, we do live in a very religous society. I can't remember the exact numbers, but something like 90% of Americans believe in a higher power. Also note that there are very few athiests/agnostics elected to high public office, our current president's constant references to his faith, and the emphasis placed on faith during last year's elections.
In our current society, to say flatly that one is an athiest is similar to being publicly gay. There are people who will outright tell you to your face that you are going to "burn in hell" for both beliefs.
Dunno.. this is probably more of a personal thing than regional. I usually do the 'handshaking' as you describe, but I know people who just start talking, as well. If I'm in a hurry, or have already talked to the person very recently, the handshaking is skipped.
Well he did go a bit far, but he is essentially correct. SUVs are subject to the requirements of "light trucks" which are less stringent than "car" standards.
You should understand that the President of the United States, a person whose decisions affect everyone in the country, will always be criticized by someone.