OK I officially dont get it. What is the attraction of a graphing calculator these days? I mean couldnt you just get a smartphone app that does the same thing but better? Doesn't the average smartphone have a much more powerful cpu and much better graphics?
Assuming you mean Schedules Direct, the TV listings cost a measly $25 per year. Also, you can get several cable card tuners that work with MythTV, such as HDHomerun. I save way more than that (and feel better too) by avoiding buying Microsoft products in the first place.
Ballmer is an obvious failure and hasn't been anything else from day 1. It boggles my mind how he wasn't thrown out in the first year, let alone how he survived until now even. Why the hell are upper management and board members of tech companies apparently always so clueless?
It seems several people here mistakenly think MythTV can only do OTA, which is not true. I use mine exclusively with cable. My TV card is a Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-2200, (it can record 2 channels concurrently, supports both analog and digital). I go straight off the cable (both the card and MythTV support QAM) but there are also many ways you can get MythTV to control and take an input from a cable box too. MythTV also supports several cable card tuners.
It boggles my mind why everyone on a geek website buys products like this rather than just get an old PC, a TV tuner card and install Linux+mythTV on it.
I get to record and keep whatever I like for as long as I like and it auto-skips commercials too. Plus I can pipe tv all over the house over my home network. Best of all I own the box, can install what the hell I like on it, and the software is free.
All the big corps originally thought patent portfolios were a great way to eliminate competition, especially smaller companies that couldn't afford to defend themselves.
So now I'm _really_ enjoying watching the big companies themselves getting repeatedly screwed directly as a result of their own greed and legal creations.
I wonder how long it will take before Apple or some other big American corp finally does a U turn and goes whining to the US Government and suddenly the patent law just happens to get reformed.
>> fully autonomous vehicles are frequently less prone to error then their inconsistent, drug using, emotional, fatigued human pilots.
Thats why there are laws in place to make sure pilots and drivers are not DUI or fatigued.
There's no way an autonomous vehicle would independently come up with a creative decision like purposely landing a faulty plane in a river, like that pilot did a couple of years ago which saved like 300 peoples lives, not to mention the damage to whatever suburban area the plane would have otherwise hit.
One more step towards ideocracy and less freedom. Get used to the idea that in a decade or two's time it will probably be illegal to drive a car manually. New cars might not even have controls, just a microphone to speak the destination into. Mothers Against Drivers, the government and all car manufacturers will successfully collaborate in brainwashing the general population into believing that humans are mentally/physically incapable of actually driving a car at all, certainly never safely.
I like your idea. The whole point of a drone is to (quietly) fly low and slow to see stuff. Having a law that requires drones to stay above 30k ft will basically render them useless. Good.
Personally I think this test will be a foregone conclusion for political reasons that drones will be deemed useable (even over cities) regardless of how actually safe it is. Its especially ironic considering the current air law prohibits pilots flying 'experimental' class aircraft or ultralights over cities or any built-up area.
Partially, but many if not most aircraft dont implement it yet. Its especially unlikely that any general aviation aircraft (think cessna 172 and similar) will have it, and these are the aircraft that are most likely to be flying in the same airspace as a drone.
ADS_B is part of FAA's Nexgen project. They will only require most aircraft to carry it by 2020.
Personally I think this test will be a foregone conclusion for political reasons regardless of how actually safe it is.
I for one wouldn't really miss X if Wayland could do the GUI-over-TCP thing, but I bet there's a lot of people with a ton of legacy X-based source code that would.
X is available on many different platforms so there is that whole interoperability and de-facto standards argument too.
I'm also thinking that X is relatively lightweight these days. Not that X has shrunk over time, but that everything else has become so bloated.
>> I'd wager the majority of linux GUIs deployed in the world don't use that feature (between embedded stuff like TiVos, normal desktops, TVs running Linux, etc).
Umm you're totally not understanding the use-case. Its not the GUI that uses the feature, its the user.
For example, I have a crappy old laptop that has barely enough horsepower to be an X client, yet I can run fairly intense graphical applications on it just as if they were running locally, because the actual app is really running somewhere else.
Similarly, I can do all sorts of hacking on my mythTV box with GUI-based tools running over wifi, while my son is using the actual display to watch Spongebob.
Maybe AMD/ATI could get really profitable by stopping making actual product and becoming consultants to other companies for their one actual competency: Marketing. They are the only company I've ever seen that can somehow cultivate herds of fanbois that are so rabidly committed to the brand name that they still live in denial and buy the product even though it has been blatantly inferior to the competition for years. Thats a marketable (and valuable) skill right there. AMD/ATI fanbois are even more rabid than Apple fanbois, and Apple (arguably) even have fairly innovative products. Even Microsoft could only force crap products on people by building a monopoly first. AMD/ATI somehow found a way to not even need that.
So do Apple and Google. The difference is that Apple and Google stuff is also cool, works better, looks better, has less virusses/security holes, isn't as dumbed-down, doesn't try and lock its users into wierd use cases, doesn't crash/hang as much, and doesn't feel like a warmed-over version of yesterdays dinner.
The problem is that Microsoft, like many other companies, have always either totally undervalued or even fired anyone that actually innovates. Their entire business model has been to explicitly avoid the costs and risks of innovating, in favour of (badly) copying others already successful products, then try and win business just with marketing hype over actual content.
As a natural consequence, the only people that Microsoft are bullshit managers and marketing types, neither of which could actually innovate/develop something really new even if their life depended on it.
Now Microsoft are really paying the cost of years of leeching and bland second-rate products, but they still apparently don't have the basic ability to grasp the obvious reason why.
In the last decade of existence, the only innovative thing they have come up with (besides Kinnect) is Surface, which is hardly any more than a big touch screen running windows just mounted horizontally. Its a fundamentally terrible concept unless what you really want to sell is chiropractic services. ITs certainly not the thing to bet the company's future on.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd sue them for personal defamation and, If I operated in any business capacity, damages to my corporate/professional image.
OK I officially dont get it.
What is the attraction of a graphing calculator these days?
I mean couldnt you just get a smartphone app that does the same thing but better? Doesn't the average smartphone have a much more powerful cpu and much better graphics?
Assuming you mean Schedules Direct, the TV listings cost a measly $25 per year.
Also, you can get several cable card tuners that work with MythTV, such as HDHomerun.
I save way more than that (and feel better too) by avoiding buying Microsoft products in the first place.
>> IIRC this product only works on broadcast TV stations,
Nope totally wrong. I use mine with cable, dont even own an antenna.
Ballmer is an obvious failure and hasn't been anything else from day 1.
It boggles my mind how he wasn't thrown out in the first year, let alone how he survived until now even.
Why the hell are upper management and board members of tech companies apparently always so clueless?
It seems several people here mistakenly think MythTV can only do OTA, which is not true.
I use mine exclusively with cable. My TV card is a Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-2200, (it can record 2 channels concurrently, supports both analog and digital). I go straight off the cable (both the card and MythTV support QAM) but there are also many ways you can get MythTV to control and take an input from a cable box too. MythTV also supports several cable card tuners.
It boggles my mind why everyone on a geek website buys products like this rather than just get an old PC, a TV tuner card and install Linux+mythTV on it.
I get to record and keep whatever I like for as long as I like and it auto-skips commercials too. Plus I can pipe tv all over the house over my home network. Best of all I own the box, can install what the hell I like on it, and the software is free.
All the big corps originally thought patent portfolios were a great way to eliminate competition, especially smaller companies that couldn't afford to defend themselves.
So now I'm _really_ enjoying watching the big companies themselves getting repeatedly screwed directly as a result of their own greed and legal creations.
I wonder how long it will take before Apple or some other big American corp finally does a U turn and goes whining to the US Government and suddenly the patent law just happens to get reformed.
Simple solution: Find the camera lens and duct tape over it.
>> fully autonomous vehicles are frequently less prone to error then their inconsistent, drug using, emotional, fatigued human pilots.
Thats why there are laws in place to make sure pilots and drivers are not DUI or fatigued.
There's no way an autonomous vehicle would independently come up with a creative decision like purposely landing a faulty plane in a river, like that pilot did a couple of years ago which saved like 300 peoples lives, not to mention the damage to whatever suburban area the plane would have otherwise hit.
Should have had my coffee. I mean freedoms not rights.
Its people like you that happily give up their rights that make the erosion of rights possible.
One more step towards ideocracy and less freedom.
Get used to the idea that in a decade or two's time it will probably be illegal to drive a car manually. New cars might not even have controls, just a microphone to speak the destination into. Mothers Against Drivers, the government and all car manufacturers will successfully collaborate in brainwashing the general population into believing that humans are mentally/physically incapable of actually driving a car at all, certainly never safely.
Apparently there are still some losers out there that think Windows is 'cool'.
I know this because they apparently all work in our IT department.
I like your idea. The whole point of a drone is to (quietly) fly low and slow to see stuff. Having a law that requires drones to stay above 30k ft will basically render them useless. Good.
Personally I think this test will be a foregone conclusion for political reasons that drones will be deemed useable (even over cities) regardless of how actually safe it is.
Its especially ironic considering the current air law prohibits pilots flying 'experimental' class aircraft or ultralights over cities or any built-up area.
Partially, but many if not most aircraft dont implement it yet. Its especially unlikely that any general aviation aircraft (think cessna 172 and similar) will have it, and these are the aircraft that are most likely to be flying in the same airspace as a drone.
ADS_B is part of FAA's Nexgen project. They will only require most aircraft to carry it by 2020.
Personally I think this test will be a foregone conclusion for political reasons regardless of how actually safe it is.
I for one wouldn't really miss X if Wayland could do the GUI-over-TCP thing, but I bet there's a lot of people with a ton of legacy X-based source code that would.
X is available on many different platforms so there is that whole interoperability and de-facto standards argument too.
I'm also thinking that X is relatively lightweight these days. Not that X has shrunk over time, but that everything else has become so bloated.
More operations to do the same thing than windows 7? How is that more intuitive or even not worse?
>> I'd wager the majority of linux GUIs deployed in the world don't use that feature (between embedded stuff like TiVos, normal desktops, TVs running Linux, etc).
Umm you're totally not understanding the use-case. Its not the GUI that uses the feature, its the user.
For example, I have a crappy old laptop that has barely enough horsepower to be an X client, yet I can run fairly intense graphical applications on it just as if they were running locally, because the actual app is really running somewhere else.
Similarly, I can do all sorts of hacking on my mythTV box with GUI-based tools running over wifi, while my son is using the actual display to watch Spongebob.
Maybe AMD/ATI could get really profitable by stopping making actual product and becoming consultants to other companies for their one actual competency: Marketing.
They are the only company I've ever seen that can somehow cultivate herds of fanbois that are so rabidly committed to the brand name that they still live in denial and buy the product even though it has been blatantly inferior to the competition for years. Thats a marketable (and valuable) skill right there.
AMD/ATI fanbois are even more rabid than Apple fanbois, and Apple (arguably) even have fairly innovative products.
Even Microsoft could only force crap products on people by building a monopoly first. AMD/ATI somehow found a way to not even need that.
Wow way to totally assume the wrong thing.
I dont actually own any Apple products. Nor am I an Apple fanboi.
Now what was your point?
>> Microsoft sells stuff that is useful.
So do Apple and Google. The difference is that Apple and Google stuff is also cool, works better, looks better, has less virusses/security holes, isn't as dumbed-down, doesn't try and lock its users into wierd use cases, doesn't crash/hang as much, and doesn't feel like a warmed-over version of yesterdays dinner.
The problem is that Microsoft, like many other companies, have always either totally undervalued or even fired anyone that actually innovates.
Their entire business model has been to explicitly avoid the costs and risks of innovating, in favour of (badly) copying others already successful products, then try and win business just with marketing hype over actual content.
As a natural consequence, the only people that Microsoft are bullshit managers and marketing types, neither of which could actually innovate/develop something really new even if their life depended on it.
Now Microsoft are really paying the cost of years of leeching and bland second-rate products, but they still apparently don't have the basic ability to grasp the obvious reason why.
In the last decade of existence, the only innovative thing they have come up with (besides Kinnect) is Surface, which is hardly any more than a big touch screen running windows just mounted horizontally.
Its a fundamentally terrible concept unless what you really want to sell is chiropractic services. ITs certainly not the thing to bet the company's future on.
The only thing this proves is how ridiculous and out of touch with reality that the law is.
Even if such a law was enforceable, no-one (even the manufacturers) would want to, as the moment they did, no-one would buy their stuff.