No I'm not. The channels that I'm talking about ARE being broadcast unencrypted RIGHT NOW, if you still have analog. Yet when it's digital, it's suddenly encrypted and requires an extra-cost box. That's absolute bullshit -- they obviously CAN be broadcast in the clear without violating the channel contracts, so I think the FCC should mandate that they MUST be broadcast that way. It's a no-brainer, really.
I don't have to pay for third-party support for my telephone. I don't have to pay for third-party support for my cable modem. I didn't have to pay for third-party support for my TV (when it was hooked directly to analog cable. So why the fuck should it be different for digital cable?!?!
It is nothing more or less than a damnable money grab and restriction on the user's freedom. There is no excuse!
This is the first time I've come across this issue, and it begs the question - WHY THE HELL AREN'T ISPs CONSIDERED COMMON CARRIERS???
The way I see it, they've just given them the protections of a common carrier without any of the requirements. Interestingly enough, giving them common carrier status would solve the network neutrality problem:
Answer: ISPs have lobbyists. Welcome to America: government for the highest bidder.
You could try suing them (perhaps in small-claims court?) for false advertising -- they're no longer an "Internet Service Provider" if they don't provide the whole Internet, now are they?
But isn't that a bass-ackwards thing to do? Isn't the point, as you said elsewhere in this thread, to find the truth, not to have a contest between the two lawyers to see who is better at persuading idiots?
I just had. Why in hell can't I simply rent/buy a cable card for my PC that not only gives me CTV with Digital Access but also Broadband Modem Capabilities?
I sure as Hell wouldn't want it! First of all, I'm sure my Linksys cable modem is a fuck-ton better than anything Comcrap would provide, and second, it would be a sure bet that they'd use it to try to restrict the service to one computer (i.e., pay extra to get a modem for each computer you want Internet for, just like they do with TVs).
In other words, that's pretty much the worst, most horrible idea I've ever heard. No thanks!
With the advent of high quality OTA broadcast TV, inexpensive DVRs, and DVDs, what purpose does cable TV serve?
Content not available over the air, maybe? All I ever watch are Discovery/History/Food TV/Adult Swim (Cartoon Network), and none of those are available over-the-air. What do you suggest people like me do?
The analog channels that are provided to the cable companies (NBC, PBS, etc.) are not encrypted and so do not need a box to decrypt the signal. Plug the cable directly into your tv, and you get analog channels.
The digital channels (Biography, NFL Network, etc.) are encrypted, and so they need a box to decrypt the signal so you can watch it on your tv. To decrypt a channel, you must subscribe to that tier of service. Similar to how your cable modem has a boot file that carries your subscribed speed of service, your tv box has a boot file that carries your level of service and what channels you subscribe to.
Exactly, but what you neglected to mention is that there is a class of analog cable channels -- i.e., "basic cable" channels -- that are also not encrypted on analog cable. This includes things like the Weather Channel, local access channels, etc. and even (in my area) stuff like Discovery and Cartoon Network. Those sorts of channels ought to be provided in unencrypted QAM for digital cable too, and the FCC ought to require it!
great job of missing the point. Why are we forced into an endless rental contract with no option to buy the set-top box?
No, you missed the point! The real point is that we shouldn't have to have a fucking box at all because cable companies should be forced to transmit normal channels in unencrypted QAM, which digital TVs are perfectly capable of receiving without needing a shitty box!
I don't want a box. I never wanted a box. I'd rather watch fucking analog TV, which worked perfectly fine on my '80s-era "cable-ready" TV without a box! But I can't, because monopolistic Comcrap is shutting off the fucking analog channels!
All I want is a damn TV. I don't want a stupid redundant ugly box sitting on top of it! You know why they call the TV a "TV," rather than a "monitor?" Because it has a fucking TUNER in it! It's got the hardware to RECEIVE CHANNELS built in! But NOOOOOO I need to pay EXTRA PER MONTH for a shitty box just so that the cable company can WALLOW IN ITS MONOPOLY AND DRM-INFESTED CLUSTERFUCK that the brainless, dickless FCC let them get away with creating! Hallelujah, holy shit! (Where's the tylenol?)
Who the fuck cares? I don't give a shit about Comcast's support problems! Those are it's problems, not mine! It boils down to the simple fact that Comcast is ILLEGALLY TYING its cable TV service to cable box rentals, in blatant violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996! Phone companies aren't allowed to do it, ISPs aren't allowed to do it; Comcast isn't fucking allowed to do it either! And bitching and moaning about imaginary techical problems is irrelevant, because it's Comcast's problem, NOT MINE!
It is very cumbersome to use the trackpad on a notebook when it's on your lap in a confined place (ie: on a subway). The trackpad is simply too close to you.
The IBM/Lenovo clit mouse solves that problem too, since it's in the middle of the keyboard.
They had a chance at having a netbook so good that nobody would come even close - if only it had X-series-like formfactor (clit!) with option for sensibly shaped, beefy battery. Hell, I'd pay two times the typical asking price for netbook.
What, did they discontinue the X-series Tablet or something?
Granted, it's bigger and more expensive than what you (or I) would like, but it's still been the best small convertible tablet for the past several years now.
Of course, Christ never had anything to do with Christmas anyway. He was probably born in August-ish if he existed at all
Of course Jesus existed! His existence is as much a matter of historical record as, say, Pontus Pilate's. It's whether he supernaturally rose from the dead (etc.) that's under dispute.
Perhaps what we will see from this then is 2 flavors of Mac OS X. One that costs $1200 that you can install on any machine and get no support for, and one that costs $120 that you can install on Apple branded hardware.
That wouldn't work though, because the fundamental problem is that Apple isn't (or shouldn't be, anyway) allowed to impose that restriction after the sale because it infringes on the buyer's property rights and violates the Doctrine of First Sale and the Uniform Commercial Code.
In order to do what you describe, Apple should be required to present a contract on the outside of the $120 box and have the buyer (or rather, licensee since it's no longer a "sale") sign it, in ink, in the presence of an Apple employee, before handing over his money!
Worse still, the basic nature of computers requires that in order for them to function properly they must duplicate copyrighted data which even if its explicitly exempted from copyright protection still muddies the waters somewhat.
Further complicating matters is the recent rise of the legal fiction that is the EULA which basically tries to claim that you can purchase something (legally at this point it's been sold to you so you own that physical copy and can do with it as you please), but that to actually utilize the thing you just purchased you must then agree to a contract with the supplier after you've already bought the item in question.
This is the important bit. The legal justification for the latter part (the EULA to allow you to use what you already purchased) comes from the former part (that you have to copy the thing to make it work). In other words, they say that because the right to make a copy doesn't come with the purchase, that they can then impose additional restrictions while graciously giving you back that right. This is bunk; this is wrong; this is what needs to be changed!
The problem is that the courts need to recognize a distinction between a physical act of copying and a legal act of copying for the purposes of copyright. Not all duplication of the data should be counted as a duplication of the copyrighted work; for example, a single installation of a computer program should not count as a second copy (along with the one on the CD).
Man, I'm laughing too hard to figure out how best to point out how completely and spectacularly you missed the grandparent post's sarcasm. Did you think he thought "or, contrair" and "here, here" were correct?! That was like the Grand Canyon of sarchasms right there, buddy! Bravo!
No, requiring that OS X only be used with Apple hardware is like Ford requiring that Ford-made replacement parts be used in a Ford. I don't think that anyone has ruled one way or the other on that question.
That's fine; that analogy works equally well. And guess what! I know the reason there hasn't been a court ruling on that sort of thing: it's blatantly obvious that it's okay! It's so cut-and-dried, clear, accepted, etc. that it's perfectly alright to use Ford replacement parts in a non-Ford car that Ford knows better than to waste its time even trying to assert otherwise!
Property rights are not a new concept, you know. This kind of stuff was figured out long ago. It's just that whenever you add the phrase "on a computer" to a concept everybody goes insane and suddenly loses all their common sense. It's like trying to teach an old person to use the computer -- have you ever had this experience? They say things like "it popped up this message on the screen; what do I do?" and then you say "did you try reading the message and doing what it tells you?!" and then they say "Ooohhh! I get it now!" and then you beat your head against the wall. There's nothing fundamentally different or more complicated about it; people just get scared that it might be because it's superficially different in certain ways.
And it's the same with copyright on computers -- merely holding the copyright on a book or a movie or a song or a painting doesn't make you Lord High Master Whose Butt Shall Be Wiped over everyone who buys a copy, and it shouldn't do so when the thing you hold the copyright on is computer software either!
Slashdot Mirror
No I'm not. The channels that I'm talking about ARE being broadcast unencrypted RIGHT NOW, if you still have analog. Yet when it's digital, it's suddenly encrypted and requires an extra-cost box. That's absolute bullshit -- they obviously CAN be broadcast in the clear without violating the channel contracts, so I think the FCC should mandate that they MUST be broadcast that way. It's a no-brainer, really.
I don't have to pay for third-party support for my telephone. I don't have to pay for third-party support for my cable modem. I didn't have to pay for third-party support for my TV (when it was hooked directly to analog cable. So why the fuck should it be different for digital cable?!?!
It is nothing more or less than a damnable money grab and restriction on the user's freedom. There is no excuse!
http://xkcd.com/243/
Answer: ISPs have lobbyists. Welcome to America: government for the highest bidder.
You could try suing them (perhaps in small-claims court?) for false advertising -- they're no longer an "Internet Service Provider" if they don't provide the whole Internet, now are they?
But isn't that a bass-ackwards thing to do? Isn't the point, as you said elsewhere in this thread, to find the truth, not to have a contest between the two lawyers to see who is better at persuading idiots?
I sure as Hell wouldn't want it! First of all, I'm sure my Linksys cable modem is a fuck-ton better than anything Comcrap would provide, and second, it would be a sure bet that they'd use it to try to restrict the service to one computer (i.e., pay extra to get a modem for each computer you want Internet for, just like they do with TVs).
In other words, that's pretty much the worst, most horrible idea I've ever heard. No thanks!
Content not available over the air, maybe? All I ever watch are Discovery/History/Food TV/Adult Swim (Cartoon Network), and none of those are available over-the-air. What do you suggest people like me do?
Exactly, but what you neglected to mention is that there is a class of analog cable channels -- i.e., "basic cable" channels -- that are also not encrypted on analog cable. This includes things like the Weather Channel, local access channels, etc. and even (in my area) stuff like Discovery and Cartoon Network. Those sorts of channels ought to be provided in unencrypted QAM for digital cable too, and the FCC ought to require it!
No, you missed the point! The real point is that we shouldn't have to have a fucking box at all because cable companies should be forced to transmit normal channels in unencrypted QAM, which digital TVs are perfectly capable of receiving without needing a shitty box!
I don't want a box. I never wanted a box. I'd rather watch fucking analog TV, which worked perfectly fine on my '80s-era "cable-ready" TV without a box! But I can't, because monopolistic Comcrap is shutting off the fucking analog channels!
All I want is a damn TV. I don't want a stupid redundant ugly box sitting on top of it! You know why they call the TV a "TV," rather than a "monitor?" Because it has a fucking TUNER in it! It's got the hardware to RECEIVE CHANNELS built in! But NOOOOOO I need to pay EXTRA PER MONTH for a shitty box just so that the cable company can WALLOW IN ITS MONOPOLY AND DRM-INFESTED CLUSTERFUCK that the brainless, dickless FCC let them get away with creating! Hallelujah, holy shit! (Where's the tylenol?)
Who the fuck cares? I don't give a shit about Comcast's support problems! Those are it's problems, not mine! It boils down to the simple fact that Comcast is ILLEGALLY TYING its cable TV service to cable box rentals, in blatant violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996! Phone companies aren't allowed to do it, ISPs aren't allowed to do it; Comcast isn't fucking allowed to do it either! And bitching and moaning about imaginary techical problems is irrelevant, because it's Comcast's problem, NOT MINE!
The fuckers at Comcast didn't bother trying to call me, but instead FORCED me to "upgrade" by dropping channels off the analog package!
My computer monitor is significantly better than my TV anyway!
The IBM/Lenovo clit mouse solves that problem too, since it's in the middle of the keyboard.
It's easy! You just input commands in Morse code!
What, did they discontinue the X-series Tablet or something?
Granted, it's bigger and more expensive than what you (or I) would like, but it's still been the best small convertible tablet for the past several years now.
Do the same people also deny the existence of Julius Caesar?
Of course Jesus existed! His existence is as much a matter of historical record as, say, Pontus Pilate's. It's whether he supernaturally rose from the dead (etc.) that's under dispute.
XP can't do this, though. This is a DirectX 10-equivalent feature; it's comparable to Vista, not XP.
That wouldn't work though, because the fundamental problem is that Apple isn't (or shouldn't be, anyway) allowed to impose that restriction after the sale because it infringes on the buyer's property rights and violates the Doctrine of First Sale and the Uniform Commercial Code.
In order to do what you describe, Apple should be required to present a contract on the outside of the $120 box and have the buyer (or rather, licensee since it's no longer a "sale") sign it, in ink, in the presence of an Apple employee, before handing over his money!
This is the important bit. The legal justification for the latter part (the EULA to allow you to use what you already purchased) comes from the former part (that you have to copy the thing to make it work). In other words, they say that because the right to make a copy doesn't come with the purchase, that they can then impose additional restrictions while graciously giving you back that right. This is bunk; this is wrong; this is what needs to be changed!
The problem is that the courts need to recognize a distinction between a physical act of copying and a legal act of copying for the purposes of copyright. Not all duplication of the data should be counted as a duplication of the copyrighted work; for example, a single installation of a computer program should not count as a second copy (along with the one on the CD).
Man, I'm laughing too hard to figure out how best to point out how completely and spectacularly you missed the grandparent post's sarcasm. Did you think he thought "or, contrair" and "here, here" were correct?! That was like the Grand Canyon of sarchasms right there, buddy! Bravo!
I'd like to find out the circumstances behind that; it sounds like it'd be pretty amusing.
That's fine; that analogy works equally well. And guess what! I know the reason there hasn't been a court ruling on that sort of thing: it's blatantly obvious that it's okay! It's so cut-and-dried, clear, accepted, etc. that it's perfectly alright to use Ford replacement parts in a non-Ford car that Ford knows better than to waste its time even trying to assert otherwise!
Property rights are not a new concept, you know. This kind of stuff was figured out long ago. It's just that whenever you add the phrase "on a computer" to a concept everybody goes insane and suddenly loses all their common sense. It's like trying to teach an old person to use the computer -- have you ever had this experience? They say things like "it popped up this message on the screen; what do I do?" and then you say "did you try reading the message and doing what it tells you?!" and then they say "Ooohhh! I get it now!" and then you beat your head against the wall. There's nothing fundamentally different or more complicated about it; people just get scared that it might be because it's superficially different in certain ways.
And it's the same with copyright on computers -- merely holding the copyright on a book or a movie or a song or a painting doesn't make you Lord High Master Whose Butt Shall Be Wiped over everyone who buys a copy, and it shouldn't do so when the thing you hold the copyright on is computer software either!