I don't measure intelligence by your ability to use a remote control so I'm not even going to substantiate your claim that only technically superior people should watch tv. But what about a common interface between the television and set top boxes. You could use something like firewire to communicate between the television and the reciever. the tv's remote tells the tv to change the channel, the tv passes that along to the reciever hidden out of the way, and the reciever feeds the video and audio back to the television. Maybe now the technology would be more expensive, but isn't everything before large adoption?
It's up to the television to juggle the audio and video, but make it standard and upgradeable and it could last for a while. Think how easy it would be to set up a playstation, dvd, directv, and stero out by just plugging in 4 wires in the back of the tv. When you turn your tv on, a menu comes on asking what you want to switch to and you're done.
you're correct in that directv and dishnetwork wouldn't make the same product because the decoding is done in part by that little smart card that's kept secret. So this idea covers that and puts some of the cost to them to make it back on service. those recievers are free now usually because they make it back from service.
How is this "flamebate"? This is what I'm talking about, all these boxes that do not connect well to each other. He brought up a good point that I forgot, tivo. I have digital cable and if I wanted tivo, I'd have to pray that my provider has one for me to buy, but they could charge me anything they want. Maybe a "tivo add-in" could be an idea that worked that I would by from tivo and would "just work" in my tv, or at least connect up to an interface, say firewire, and would just just on the floor while the remote for the television did the rest.
To get a good console system, you need to shell out maybe a $150. For computers, you need a damn fast computer and a damn good graphics card. I prefer to play games on my computer, especially FPS's, but the performance of a lot of games seriously lags what it should be considering what an XBox can accomplish with a similar architecture, but slower clock speeds. Maybe it's windows bogging it down, maybe it's the x86 architecture itself with it lag due to backwards compatibility, but I just want to play splinter cell 2, not some realtime movie game. I've always opted for better framerate than more special effects when playing games.
between digital cable and direct tv satellite, I've always thought that a set top box hinders the viewer from the easiest viewing experience. A feture like picture-in-picture is lost. It requires you to program another remote, and for some people this is a pain. It can require the user to have two remotes, one to turn on the tv, switch it to cable input, and adjust the volume and then one to changed the channel and use the converter box.
For me it's not that big a deal, but for people who aren't engineers the logic of how to turn on the tv and change the channel is actually difficult for them to understand. Say for example, the television I purchased had a standard digital cable converter built in, it would make it a lot easier to use the service. Maybe it could work by the cable company sets up the firmware so make it more customized for their customers.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I should not have two remotes to watch tv, and I don't think I should have to deal with programming those multi-remotes either. Finding the codes when those batteries die at this point in the game is a waste of time in my mind.
Maybe this issue of remotes sounds petty, but this would be one of the main driving forces in getting people to buy a new television if the sales clerk can relate this ease of use to them.
This may be a nice calculator, but you'll have to pry my ti-89 from my cold dead hands! That thing can do anything. That calculator just made me breakfast this morning. If you're in any aspect of engineering I recommend you buy one.
I agree with this guy. I mean the penguin's one thing, but what is this? The people they're trying to attract over are the suits, not the geeks with a sense of humor. I like the logo and I think it's funny, but I think it's going to make it harder for the guy in IT who's trying to convince his bosses to switch to OO when the brochure he gives them has a crazy bird on it.
Then again, that damn butterfly is starting to piss me off.
Megapixles don't mean shit if the lens the light had to go through is distorted in a bad lens. Nikon cameras are more expensive mainly because of this. Take the camera on the mars rover for example. Not a 10 mp camera, but a 1 mp with a damn good lens. Yeah, they also break the colors up but that's not the point.
Manufacterers like kodak and hp don't have a lot of experience in camera design and that's why they're so cheap compared to a good nikon or canon digital SLR with much much better lenses.
As in anything with computers, you get what you pay for, the problem has been though that most people compare cameras based soley on the number of pixels.
It's about time a linux distro stop pandering to hardware providers and demand they start thinking open source. It's a ballsy move, lets see where this goes...
It's not the saved space that's the issue here, it's the efficiency of the code. If I made a 500 mb text editor (and called it ms word 2003) then that would be inefficient.
Everyone complains how the government and the airlines are doing nothing about security. Now they are finally doing something good and people complain about privacy. When I step on a plane, I want to feel safe. Knowing that no one on this plane is on a terrorist list is safe. Sure people can get around that and innocent people can get screwed over by being on the list falsely, but better safe then sorry. I'm sorry, but in times like this you have to adjust. I don't consider this surrendering your rights and privacy. The fact is the people are telling the people in charge of our security to get off their asses and do something, and now they're doing something.
I don't use a media player just to play music and video files. Any media player could do that. What I use it for really is to keep track of all my music. I have not found a good linux alernative that can do this. If you can, please let me know and I'll try it next time I decide to "switch." I do have media player classic, but all it does is play files, not enough for me, and a lot of high school and college students.
I don't know if I see the market for this. This isn't for people who need huge storage capabilities. They could more easily use hard drives or redundant hard drives if they're worried about corruption.
It's not for the home user. Zip disks were for home users and did pretty well for a couple of years until CD-RWs kicked them out of the water with cheaper media, much cheaper actually.
The click drive, as far as I know, didn't do much. It was only 40MB and flash memory was more reliable than them. At the time it came out, companies were pushing flash memory more than mini hard drives, although now things are changing with the ipod and other clones. But this doesn't mean much for click.
They made their larger removable media drives but people still used CDRWs in replace of them.
So back to my question, what market is this for? Who needs to move around this much data at once? This has to be for people on the move, otherwise they'd just use hard drives. I like how they made the disks more secure by putting the reading head inside them, but that brings up media costs. It seems like they're just following the path they always take: "It's not selling? Up the capacity and charge more for the media!"
I know this was geared towards newbies, but I was hoping for a little more about the software. I never had a problem with linux, but I still think the software I use in windows is better than that available in linux. Yeah there's more choice, but all those options never seem to cut it for me. Actually, I think the only things holding me up are photoshop and windows media player and lack of printer support. Oh well, maybe next year...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't measure intelligence by your ability to use a remote control so I'm not even going to substantiate your claim that only technically superior people should watch tv. But what about a common interface between the television and set top boxes. You could use something like firewire to communicate between the television and the reciever. the tv's remote tells the tv to change the channel, the tv passes that along to the reciever hidden out of the way, and the reciever feeds the video and audio back to the television. Maybe now the technology would be more expensive, but isn't everything before large adoption?
It's up to the television to juggle the audio and video, but make it standard and upgradeable and it could last for a while. Think how easy it would be to set up a playstation, dvd, directv, and stero out by just plugging in 4 wires in the back of the tv. When you turn your tv on, a menu comes on asking what you want to switch to and you're done.
you're correct in that directv and dishnetwork wouldn't make the same product because the decoding is done in part by that little smart card that's kept secret. So this idea covers that and puts some of the cost to them to make it back on service. those recievers are free now usually because they make it back from service.
How is this "flamebate"? This is what I'm talking about, all these boxes that do not connect well to each other. He brought up a good point that I forgot, tivo. I have digital cable and if I wanted tivo, I'd have to pray that my provider has one for me to buy, but they could charge me anything they want. Maybe a "tivo add-in" could be an idea that worked that I would by from tivo and would "just work" in my tv, or at least connect up to an interface, say firewire, and would just just on the floor while the remote for the television did the rest.
To get a good console system, you need to shell out maybe a $150. For computers, you need a damn fast computer and a damn good graphics card. I prefer to play games on my computer, especially FPS's, but the performance of a lot of games seriously lags what it should be considering what an XBox can accomplish with a similar architecture, but slower clock speeds. Maybe it's windows bogging it down, maybe it's the x86 architecture itself with it lag due to backwards compatibility, but I just want to play splinter cell 2, not some realtime movie game. I've always opted for better framerate than more special effects when playing games.
between digital cable and direct tv satellite, I've always thought that a set top box hinders the viewer from the easiest viewing experience. A feture like picture-in-picture is lost. It requires you to program another remote, and for some people this is a pain. It can require the user to have two remotes, one to turn on the tv, switch it to cable input, and adjust the volume and then one to changed the channel and use the converter box.
For me it's not that big a deal, but for people who aren't engineers the logic of how to turn on the tv and change the channel is actually difficult for them to understand. Say for example, the television I purchased had a standard digital cable converter built in, it would make it a lot easier to use the service. Maybe it could work by the cable company sets up the firmware so make it more customized for their customers.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I should not have two remotes to watch tv, and I don't think I should have to deal with programming those multi-remotes either. Finding the codes when those batteries die at this point in the game is a waste of time in my mind.
Maybe this issue of remotes sounds petty, but this would be one of the main driving forces in getting people to buy a new television if the sales clerk can relate this ease of use to them.
I took courses in Mandarin and art history and Chinese poetry and Chinese literature
I'm running gentoo so these old computers seem like athlon 64s, but def not those pentos!. I just found a UFO off SETI cause my computer is so fast.
yey gentoo!
(joke!)
I can do this with windows. windowsupdate.com
(this is the exact same format as a gentoo, debian, slackware, mandrake, suse, fedora, osx user would do so I'm only a troll if you're biased)
Wasn't the iPod and iTunes supposed to lure windows users over to apple? I'm not surprised apple hasn't been quick to do this themselves.
M$ and windowz are comming soon as well. Lets throw an ogg reference in there too.
No, they have since purchased a new computer that came preloaded with windows xp. And you thought migration was hard!
This may be a nice calculator, but you'll have to pry my ti-89 from my cold dead hands! That thing can do anything. That calculator just made me breakfast this morning. If you're in any aspect of engineering I recommend you buy one.
I agree with this guy. I mean the penguin's one thing, but what is this? The people they're trying to attract over are the suits, not the geeks with a sense of humor. I like the logo and I think it's funny, but I think it's going to make it harder for the guy in IT who's trying to convince his bosses to switch to OO when the brochure he gives them has a crazy bird on it.
Then again, that damn butterfly is starting to piss me off.
Megapixles don't mean shit if the lens the light had to go through is distorted in a bad lens. Nikon cameras are more expensive mainly because of this. Take the camera on the mars rover for example. Not a 10 mp camera, but a 1 mp with a damn good lens. Yeah, they also break the colors up but that's not the point.
Manufacterers like kodak and hp don't have a lot of experience in camera design and that's why they're so cheap compared to a good nikon or canon digital SLR with much much better lenses.
As in anything with computers, you get what you pay for, the problem has been though that most people compare cameras based soley on the number of pixels.
It's about time a linux distro stop pandering to hardware providers and demand they start thinking open source. It's a ballsy move, lets see where this goes...
it's a matter of national security!
they allowed longer files names under the 8.3 system. big woop. Other systems have been doing this for years before them.
Wait a minute? what linux one of them?
so much for the paperless office
It's not the saved space that's the issue here, it's the efficiency of the code. If I made a 500 mb text editor (and called it ms word 2003) then that would be inefficient.
His main point being that if an application doesn't exist on linux, a company can't switch over. This guy should get a +5 Insightful.
Please don't mod me down, I'm not being sarcastic
Everyone complains how the government and the airlines are doing nothing about security. Now they are finally doing something good and people complain about privacy. When I step on a plane, I want to feel safe. Knowing that no one on this plane is on a terrorist list is safe. Sure people can get around that and innocent people can get screwed over by being on the list falsely, but better safe then sorry. I'm sorry, but in times like this you have to adjust. I don't consider this surrendering your rights and privacy. The fact is the people are telling the people in charge of our security to get off their asses and do something, and now they're doing something.
But where do I put this thing? That's not a heatsink, that's the kitchen sink!
I don't use a media player just to play music and video files. Any media player could do that. What I use it for really is to keep track of all my music. I have not found a good linux alernative that can do this. If you can, please let me know and I'll try it next time I decide to "switch." I do have media player classic, but all it does is play files, not enough for me, and a lot of high
school and college students.
I don't know if I see the market for this. This isn't for people who need huge storage capabilities. They could more easily use hard drives or redundant hard drives if they're worried about corruption.
It's not for the home user. Zip disks were for home users and did pretty well for a couple of years until CD-RWs kicked them out of the water with cheaper media, much cheaper actually.
The click drive, as far as I know, didn't do much. It was only 40MB and flash memory was more reliable than them. At the time it came out, companies were pushing flash memory more than mini hard drives, although now things are changing with the ipod and other clones. But this doesn't mean much for click.
They made their larger removable media drives but people still used CDRWs in replace of them.
So back to my question, what market is this for? Who needs to move around this much data at once? This has to be for people on the move, otherwise they'd just use hard drives. I like how they made the disks more secure by putting the reading head inside them, but that brings up media costs. It seems like they're just following the path they always take: "It's not selling? Up the capacity and charge more for the media!"
I know this was geared towards newbies, but I was hoping for a little more about the software. I never had a problem with linux, but I still think the software I use in windows is better than that available in linux. Yeah there's more choice, but all those options never seem to cut it for me. Actually, I think the only things holding me up are photoshop and windows media player and lack of printer support. Oh well, maybe next year...
I mean I'd be such an idiot if it was evidence from my computer that put me in jail. I just hope my lawbreaking cohorts do the same.