Go talk to your cable company and get them to provide you with an HD box, specifically the Motorola DCT6200. It has a FireWire port on the back of the box. It can be connected to your Mac and with one simple application (iRecord) you're able to record television to your hard drive with less compression (AFAICT) than a TiVo.
My favorite part: there is no DRM. You can use another application (VLC) to open the files and save them in whatever format you like, including the new iPod format. It's one of the most slick integrations of technology that Apple has yet to publicize. All you need is a firewire-enabled cable box, a recently-made Mac, a FireWire cable and you're good to go.
To meet the rule's requirements, Internet call providers would have to rewire networks at great cost, Morris said. In addition, there is fear the rule would stifle development of new technologies by placing more regulatory burdens on innovators.
Can someone explain to me (a) why they would have to rewire these networks and (b) how this would stifle the development of new technology? I must be dense...
Yep, and maybe you're Jewish and you don't believe in kosher. Or maybe you're Catholic but you don't believe the Pope is God's representative on Earth. i.e., maybe you're a big hypocrite.
Wow, you're unenlightened...
You "keep" kosher and obey Kashrut Law...
It's not a matter of belief.
And I hope you weren't calling me a hypocrite for being a Jew Against Israel (i.e. an anti-Zionist).
My inborn religion has little to do with my political beliefs.
Why is it no-one ever calls Catholics "christians", but everyone calls Zionists "jewish".
What are you babbling about?
Who calls Zionists "Jewish?" That's just plain dumb.
You can be a Jewish Zionist or a Buddhist Zionist. You can be a Zionist Jew or, like me, think Israel is a lost cause. They aren't one and the same....nor should they be associated with another unless you are directly referring to them in such a manner.
Zionist: a movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
It is a political movement, not a religious one. Hope that answers your terribly stupid question. Amazing what a dictionary/encyclopedia can do for you when you just open it.
It also mentions that they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note the inclusion of "liberty", which typically means a guy gets to make his own choices.
Uhhh....methinks your definition of liberty is a bit vague.
In fact, the definition of liberty is one of the most frequently debated elements of the U.S. Constitution. I find the Preamble to be a little more insightful as to the intended meaning, myself. It reads "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." I read this as the G-d given (what other meaning does Blessing have?) 'right' to avoid oppresive restriction. The problem as I see it is that nobody can really agree as to what point something becomes oppresive.
I might choose to drink a beer while walking around in a public venue, but that choice is definitely not acceptable within the context of our legal code. I certainly don't see this as oppresive since I could easily walk into a private establishment to consume the intoxicant in question. Just a silly example illustrating how you may want to clarify your view of "liberty."
"thowsand was probably written by someone who didn't know how to spell the work thousand."
Just like your post was probably written by the same person with two slashdot accounts. The 'd' and 'k' keys are just as far apart from each other as the 'u' and 'w' keys. Word/work, thousand/thowsand. You're just lucky your mistyping formed an actual word...
The mistake was a result of a retard; same as yours.
"The numbers above represent the probabilities that either candidate wins enough votes on the Electoral College to be elected President, as of the latest available polls. They do not represent actual vote counts or direct poll results, but are inferred from poll results."
You're absolutely right.
I'm a fucking moron. Ignore this Jew from now on.
"I'm a Bush supporter and I cannot believe that'd he win by such a margin..."
This should read "I'm a Bush supporter and I cannot believe that he'd win by such a margin..."
I'm a Bush supporter and I cannot believe that'd he win by such a margin...
But, as expected, Kerry wins the West and East coast states while Bush wins in "flyover" states. I expect a GWB victory this November -- but I think it'll be more along the lines of 57% to 40% in terms of the popular vote with the third parties picking up the rest of the slack.
In California, for instance, Republicans can only nominate a republican to be their presidential candidate. Democrats can only nominate a democrat. Independants cannot nominate anybody as I recall, but I wouldn't know since I've declared my party affiliation.
This is a very sensible decision to make since it would be in the Democrats best interest to nominate the most unelectable Republican and vice versa.
But since you're Canadian you wouldn't know much about common sense, eh?
How aboot them Apples?;)
Of course not. But what I do know is that what Glick was saying during the interview...
http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/w eek_2003_02_02.html#000159
And I quote: "...six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government."
...which is just full of incorrect information. The recruited 'mujahadeen' numbered in the thousands -- not [b]hundreds[/b] of thousands. The Afhgani government at the time was far from democratic; it was a republic with very few democratic principles. It was very much a tribal-dominated country even then. Also, and most importantly, GHWB (George Bush Sr.) wasn't the director of the CIA six months prior to the Afghan invasion. GHWB served from 1967-1977, just short of a year. The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan occured in 1979.
This Glick fellow was lying and/or uneducated in history.
"It's more beneficial to him if he incites them and makes them come off looking like jerks or idiots"
And maybe, just maybe Glick is an idiot and/or a jerk...
"So the guy watching Stewart may not only be smart, but may also be rich."
ROFL Fantastic analysis by CNN on this one.
Maybe it's because most people who watch The Daily Show are the people laughing at all the poor interviewees being lambasted by clever editing. I enjoy the show thoroughly, but c'mon....sometimes they are just ridiculously mean-spirited.
The show has turned from a wonderful comedy half-hour hosted by Craig Kilborn ( I miss Thursday's Dance Dance Dance and the 5 questions) into a left-wing bombthrowing extravaganze. From Mess-o-potamia to Indecision 2004 (a.k.a Anybody But Bush-a-palooza) -- John Stewart is now hosting a show that is merely appealing to the leftist youth of the East and West coasts.
I watch the show every day as I am one of said youths.
Thank heavens I'm open-minded enough to see through John Stewart and Stephen Colbert's biased 'coverage.'
"The "Glick thing" was shameful. In that case, it does an asshole make."
That Glick kid was a nut.
I saw that interview when it debuted on the factor.
He was a disgrace to his father's memory and ought to be ashamed of himself.
Bill O'Reilly was totally right for going off on him.
Glick deserved a good scolding.
I'm glad you've actually looked into the "shut up" issue.
It's a sad day when a News *ANALYST* is being assaulted by the far-left for actually running an entertaining show. Bill O'Reilly may be a pompous, arrogant bully -- but he is an *entertaining* pompous, arrogant bully.
He frequently pokes fun at himself.
He frequently gives the last word to the left-wingers he has on.
He frequently reads viewer mail that is unfavorable to The Factor.
The man is just a good host; like him or not, he's popular with a great segment of this country and abroad. The military seems to enjoy his analysis as well by the viewer mail he reads from them.
As one of the ex-stoners, damn skippy he was correct.
Every night at UCSC (University of California in Santa Cruz) would have folks tuning in to the Daily Show and laughing at the the barrage of anti-conservative jokes. I really enjoyed the show when Craig Kilborn hosted and I somewhat enjoy what John Stewart has done....but look at "correspondents" like Stephen Colbert.
The man does a parody of Bill O'Reilly where he just ridicules the format of The Factor! There is no informed analysis -- only shtick and giggles. The Daily Show is about as relevent to the modern world as Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn. Both shows feature pop-culture 'icons' (I use the word loosely) preaching their beliefs with little fact, a great deal of conjecture and a ton of comedy.
Key word: comedy.
When an ex-stoner can score six out of six (as I did) on a pop quiz, you know it wasn't very difficult. I wish CNN would report news instead of this anti-FSN fluff. Bah humbug.
When you second guess a decision that was not really a decision at all.
Those seven minutes are not a matter of criticism -- they are merely used by Moore and other fanatical AbB folks to make him look like an idiot. Criticize policy -- not the actions of the man for seven minutes on the morning of 9/11/01. That is just petty.
But, look, I'm willing to accept that some folks do think he was seriously fucking up when he refusing to storm out of that book-reading session. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs....I just think there are more important issues at hand.
Aaron Sorkin made sure of that, although he enjoyed using real-life events to mimic modern political experiences. He is no longer with the show now, likely due to his drug bust in CA.
Michael Moore's film is nonfiction.
It is not exactly truthful, but it is not meant to create an illusion of the real world. He merely sees things differently than myself and others. Bad comparison.
(and why do you defend a commander-in-chief that takes seven minutes to respond to "sir, the nation is under attack"?)
Part of being the commander in chief is being a figurehead. Panicking in front of children and TV cameras is not what a figurehead ought to be doing. Besides, what could he have done? He needed to get to a location with the proper resources for commanding, and the additional seven minutes he spent were trivial.
No president would have ordered the planes with US civilians shot down. It just wouldn't have happened. Sorry if you disagree, but that's just the way I see it. Bush acted like a leader should have -- he was prudent, understanding and acting with caution. Don't read anything else into it; that would be foolish.
Moore's movie, just like Bowling for Columbine, is hardly a documentary. If you doubt this claim, visit http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ and read about all his shortcomings, fibs, misinterpretations and misdirections. Since his movie is no documentary, it must be considered a political statement (especially since Moore has publically stated his support for John Kerry).
As such, there is no way a major broadcast network could aire the movie before election. As far as airing on cable, that is another matter. I imagine he could find some movie channel (or perhaps Comedy Central) that would be willing to aire the film before November. I truly doubt that such an action would do much since I'd wager most folks with access to said cable channels have already seen the movie.
On a side note, as a conservative who is most certainly voting for George W. Bush, I must say that the movie is very interesting. Watching the Marine recruiters in action certainly blew my mind. But when he harps on the 7 minutes it took Bush to leave from his book-reading session I realized how shameful Moore truly is. Enough armchair quarterbacking -- I'd like the man behind Canadian Bacon to just be forthcoming.
Here you go, Anonymous Coward.
Should make for some interesting reading.
Bill O'Reilly made an error about the name of an award -- Franken has done much, much more.
Shoe is now inserted in your mouth -- proceed to chew vigorously.
A monkey flinging poo and screaming may be vocal, but it is certainly not clear, concise, pithy nor comprehendible.
Whether you like him or not, Bill O'Reilly certainly is.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need a Tivo.
Go talk to your cable company and get them to provide you with an HD box, specifically the Motorola DCT6200. It has a FireWire port on the back of the box. It can be connected to your Mac and with one simple application (iRecord) you're able to record television to your hard drive with less compression (AFAICT) than a TiVo.
My favorite part: there is no DRM. You can use another application (VLC) to open the files and save them in whatever format you like, including the new iPod format. It's one of the most slick integrations of technology that Apple has yet to publicize. All you need is a firewire-enabled cable box, a recently-made Mac, a FireWire cable and you're good to go.
Thanks, temojen.
That clears up my first question, but what about that innovation stifling bit?
Sensationalism on the part of Privacy Pundits and Mass Media?
From TFA:
To meet the rule's requirements, Internet call providers would have to rewire networks at great cost, Morris said. In addition, there is fear the rule would stifle development of new technologies by placing more regulatory burdens on innovators.
Can someone explain to me (a) why they would have to rewire these networks and (b) how this would stifle the development of new technology? I must be dense...
How in the world can ExciteBike be left off your list?
Yep, and maybe you're Jewish and you don't believe in kosher. Or maybe you're Catholic but you don't believe the Pope is God's representative on Earth. i.e., maybe you're a big hypocrite.
Wow, you're unenlightened...
You "keep" kosher and obey Kashrut Law...
It's not a matter of belief.
And I hope you weren't calling me a hypocrite for being a Jew Against Israel (i.e. an anti-Zionist).
My inborn religion has little to do with my political beliefs.
Why is it no-one ever calls Catholics "christians", but everyone calls Zionists "jewish".
What are you babbling about?
Who calls Zionists "Jewish?" That's just plain dumb.
You can be a Jewish Zionist or a Buddhist Zionist. You can be a Zionist Jew or, like me, think Israel is a lost cause. They aren't one and the same....nor should they be associated with another unless you are directly referring to them in such a manner.
Zionist: a movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
It is a political movement, not a religious one. Hope that answers your terribly stupid question. Amazing what a dictionary/encyclopedia can do for you when you just open it.
It also mentions that they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note the inclusion of "liberty", which typically means a guy gets to make his own choices.
Uhhh....methinks your definition of liberty is a bit vague.
In fact, the definition of liberty is one of the most frequently debated elements of the U.S. Constitution. I find the Preamble to be a little more insightful as to the intended meaning, myself. It reads "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." I read this as the G-d given (what other meaning does Blessing have?) 'right' to avoid oppresive restriction. The problem as I see it is that nobody can really agree as to what point something becomes oppresive.
I might choose to drink a beer while walking around in a public venue, but that choice is definitely not acceptable within the context of our legal code. I certainly don't see this as oppresive since I could easily walk into a private establishment to consume the intoxicant in question. Just a silly example illustrating how you may want to clarify your view of "liberty."
Just like your post was probably written by the same person with two slashdot accounts. The 'd' and 'k' keys are just as far apart from each other as the 'u' and 'w' keys. Word/work, thousand/thowsand. You're just lucky your mistyping formed an actual word...
The mistake was a result of a retard; same as yours.
You're absolutely right.
I'm a fucking moron. Ignore this Jew from now on.
"I'm a Bush supporter and I cannot believe that'd he win by such a margin..."
This should read "I'm a Bush supporter and I cannot believe that he'd win by such a margin..."
I'm a Bush supporter and I cannot believe that'd he win by such a margin...
But, as expected, Kerry wins the West and East coast states while Bush wins in "flyover" states. I expect a GWB victory this November -- but I think it'll be more along the lines of 57% to 40% in terms of the popular vote with the third parties picking up the rest of the slack.
Very insightful post and a rather funny signature, too.
In California, for instance, Republicans can only nominate a republican to be their presidential candidate. Democrats can only nominate a democrat. Independants cannot nominate anybody as I recall, but I wouldn't know since I've declared my party affiliation.
This is a very sensible decision to make since it would be in the Democrats best interest to nominate the most unelectable Republican and vice versa. ;)
But since you're Canadian you wouldn't know much about common sense, eh?
How aboot them Apples?
Of course not. But what I do know is that what Glick was saying during the interview...
http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/w eek_2003_02_02.html#000159
And I quote: "...six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government."
This Glick fellow was lying and/or uneducated in history.
"It's more beneficial to him if he incites them and makes them come off looking like jerks or idiots"
And maybe, just maybe Glick is an idiot and/or a jerk...
Ever think of that one?
ROFL
Fantastic analysis by CNN on this one.
Maybe it's because most people who watch The Daily Show are the people laughing at all the poor interviewees being lambasted by clever editing. I enjoy the show thoroughly, but c'mon....sometimes they are just ridiculously mean-spirited.
The show has turned from a wonderful comedy half-hour hosted by Craig Kilborn ( I miss Thursday's Dance Dance Dance and the 5 questions) into a left-wing bombthrowing extravaganze. From Mess-o-potamia to Indecision 2004 (a.k.a Anybody But Bush-a-palooza) -- John Stewart is now hosting a show that is merely appealing to the leftist youth of the East and West coasts.
I watch the show every day as I am one of said youths.
Thank heavens I'm open-minded enough to see through John Stewart and Stephen Colbert's biased 'coverage.'
I love comedy when it's funny, not angry.
That Glick kid was a nut.
I saw that interview when it debuted on the factor.
He was a disgrace to his father's memory and ought to be ashamed of himself.
Bill O'Reilly was totally right for going off on him.
Glick deserved a good scolding.
I'm glad you've actually looked into the "shut up" issue.
It's a sad day when a News *ANALYST* is being assaulted by the far-left for actually running an entertaining show. Bill O'Reilly may be a pompous, arrogant bully -- but he is an *entertaining* pompous, arrogant bully.
He frequently pokes fun at himself.
He frequently gives the last word to the left-wingers he has on.
He frequently reads viewer mail that is unfavorable to The Factor.
The man is just a good host; like him or not, he's popular with a great segment of this country and abroad. The military seems to enjoy his analysis as well by the viewer mail he reads from them.
As one of the ex-stoners, damn skippy he was correct.
Every night at UCSC (University of California in Santa Cruz) would have folks tuning in to the Daily Show and laughing at the the barrage of anti-conservative jokes. I really enjoyed the show when Craig Kilborn hosted and I somewhat enjoy what John Stewart has done....but look at "correspondents" like Stephen Colbert.
The man does a parody of Bill O'Reilly where he just ridicules the format of The Factor! There is no informed analysis -- only shtick and giggles. The Daily Show is about as relevent to the modern world as Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn. Both shows feature pop-culture 'icons' (I use the word loosely) preaching their beliefs with little fact, a great deal of conjecture and a ton of comedy.
Key word: comedy.
When an ex-stoner can score six out of six (as I did) on a pop quiz, you know it wasn't very difficult. I wish CNN would report news instead of this anti-FSN fluff. Bah humbug.
Those seven minutes are not a matter of criticism -- they are merely used by Moore and other fanatical AbB folks to make him look like an idiot. Criticize policy -- not the actions of the man for seven minutes on the morning of 9/11/01. That is just petty.
But, look, I'm willing to accept that some folks do think he was seriously fucking up when he refusing to storm out of that book-reading session. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs....I just think there are more important issues at hand.
But at least you're educating yourself on current events, no matter how trivial. I'm glad to see that.
Aaron Sorkin made sure of that, although he enjoyed using real-life events to mimic modern political experiences. He is no longer with the show now, likely due to his drug bust in CA.
Michael Moore's film is nonfiction.
It is not exactly truthful, but it is not meant to create an illusion of the real world. He merely sees things differently than myself and others. Bad comparison.
Part of being the commander in chief is being a figurehead. Panicking in front of children and TV cameras is not what a figurehead ought to be doing. Besides, what could he have done? He needed to get to a location with the proper resources for commanding, and the additional seven minutes he spent were trivial.
No president would have ordered the planes with US civilians shot down. It just wouldn't have happened. Sorry if you disagree, but that's just the way I see it. Bush acted like a leader should have -- he was prudent, understanding and acting with caution. Don't read anything else into it; that would be foolish.
Moore's movie, just like Bowling for Columbine, is hardly a documentary. If you doubt this claim, visit http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ and read about all his shortcomings, fibs, misinterpretations and misdirections. Since his movie is no documentary, it must be considered a political statement (especially since Moore has publically stated his support for John Kerry).
As such, there is no way a major broadcast network could aire the movie before election. As far as airing on cable, that is another matter. I imagine he could find some movie channel (or perhaps Comedy Central) that would be willing to aire the film before November. I truly doubt that such an action would do much since I'd wager most folks with access to said cable channels have already seen the movie.
On a side note, as a conservative who is most certainly voting for George W. Bush, I must say that the movie is very interesting. Watching the Marine recruiters in action certainly blew my mind. But when he harps on the 7 minutes it took Bush to leave from his book-reading session I realized how shameful Moore truly is. Enough armchair quarterbacking -- I'd like the man behind Canadian Bacon to just be forthcoming.
Shame on Michael Moore for stooping so low.
Here you go, Anonymous Coward.
Should make for some interesting reading.
Bill O'Reilly made an error about the name of an award -- Franken has done much, much more.
Shoe is now inserted in your mouth -- proceed to chew vigorously.
A monkey flinging poo and screaming may be vocal, but it is certainly not clear, concise, pithy nor comprehendible.
Whether you like him or not, Bill O'Reilly certainly is.