Nokia 770. bigger screen, completely open and works great.
The Nokia 770 is defined by Nokia as a "Tablet" so you're comparing two products in different catergories.
the 770 is large enough to make web surfing enjoyable, email and RSS feeds useable as well as installing other apps, games, etc... The iPhone cant do that. WEbsurfing on other phone/pda combos also sucks because your screen is tiny and low res.
How can you judge the usability of a device you have yet to actually use? The iPhone's screen is 160dpi. Is that high enough for you?
That's a highly specialized feature for a VCR. I doubt more than 1% of VCRs have that ability.
IR blasters are kludgy hardware hacks. We'll beam remote signals so the box will think someone's there. [rolleyes] The consumer shouldn't have to go to this trouble to use their service the way they want.
Oh, no. They *are* required to have them for offer as of a couple of years ago. There are some exemptions for smaller providers, but the big multi-state cable companies must offer them if you ask.
Sorry. You are incorrect. I probably should mention I work for a cable company.
They also are supposed to offer it for a price that is defined with the usual non-binding terms: "at a reasonable price", etc. This means that in some cases, you'll end up paying far more for your CableCards than you would had you just rented the STB, which is pretty much directly opposing the spirit of the whole idea.
Other posters here are saying there was actually a cap on the rental rate instituted by the FCC of $2-$3 a month. And from what I've seen on other provider's pricing, that's what's happening in the marketplace. Comcast charges $1.99/month and starting in February they will be FREE.
I have no arguments with your last paragraph, I would add I don't think consumer electronic manufacturers are too upset the CableCard 2.0 and 1.0 standards are incompatible.
Excuse my ignorance, but why would someone want to do VoIP if you've already got a phone in the device?
Some people use a lot of minutes each month. If they could do VoIP when they would only need to use Cingular minutes when they're away from a Wi-Fi network. It's possible to get data-only plans for a cellphone (flat rate) so if you lived in a city with ubiquitous Wi-Fi, you wouldn't need to pay for Cingular minutes at all, and might save a bundle depending on how much you talked.
But I understand where you're coming from, I think VoIP on a cell phone is a little redundant, too.
This is only partly about Jobs' control issues. It's also about Cingular's control issues. The wireless carriers are all scared shitless of a device like this - it could actually run a VoIP wifi app, several of which already exist for OS X, and thus leave them on the bad side of convergence. Also ringtones - again a carrier revenue stream.
I'd say it has more to do with the trademark suit. Apple can't claim their two devices don't converge if people are able to use the Apple iPhone to do VoIP, which is the only function the Cisco product can do. Right now the iPhone has a laundry list of features and abilities, but VoIP calling is not one of them. So, technically, the Apple iPhone and the Cisco iPhone are not in the same markets.
If development of the iPhone was opened up, I'd wager the very first third party app would be Skype. With a device that connects to WiFi networks so easily and VoIP, who needs a big bucket of Cingular minutes?
We still have six months before the device ships, the policy could change depending on how things go in the trademark dispute and the wireless carrier world as well. T-Mobile starts building their 3G network this year, and that will have an impact.
Actually, just FYI. The FCC has required cable companies to offer CableCards since July of 2005; they must provide them and cannot deny you them. This new ruling today affects set-top boxes, wholly separate thing.
Well, they might have come up with that ruling back then, but they actually are not required to yet. The deadline is this July. Not July 2005.
Could the spin off centered on the rugged Han Solo save the Star Wars franchise from its prequels or would it have been another mediocre release disappointing demanding fans?
What do they mean "save the franchise"? The prequels are out. The all six movies are released. Since when is Star Wars a "franchise" to be used to make movie after movie? In my mind, Star Wars is a story. A six chapter story. Yeah, all six parts were not released in the normal order, but wasn't the whole story in existence since the beginning? I seem to remember Lucas was given the go-ahead to make his movies and had to trim down the full story to something that would fit in a smaller number of films.
I had no idea that this new "digital" cable went back to requiring those boxes. The idea that people would tolerate that was so absurd, that I didn't even think that it was a possiblity.
Requiring a box also has the effect of rolling back fair use right. Lets say you went on vacation and set up your VCR to record four different shows on four different channels. Because your cable is analog (and the VCR has a "cable-ready" tuner) you can leave it off and it will turn on and change channels as it needs to to record the shows. With digital cable this isn't possible. The VCR has no way to control the cable box on its own! You would have to leave the cable box on and tuned to a channel -- and that would be the only channel you could record, as you would be gone on vacation and unavailable to change the cable box to the other stations.
For a more protracted argument about digital cable see this thread.
Don't higher end TVs have "integrated digital cable tuners" where you put a card in and be able to receive the digital channels? From my understanding, the only thing you'd be missing is the "special" services from your cable provider, mainly guide information.
Current CableCard technology is one-way only. So you can't order PPV or control VOD programming. CableCard 2.0 is supposed to support two way communication, but it isn't out yet. It also will be a different card interface. So if you bought a TV that includes a CableCard slot, guess what, you have to buy a new TV to use the 2.0 cards.
Also, cablecos are not yet required to offer CableCards yet. The FCC's plug and play rule that covered it does not take effect until July. So if your cableco currently does not want to offer CableCards, you're SOL.
I'm not sure what the ownership rules are for CableCards, but from what I've seen it appears they are still the property of the cableco and you still pay a monthly fee for them (you just don't have a big, hot running box to keep around).
If this rule is allowed to take effect (translation: a bunch of cableco lobbists don't pop up and stop it) soon hooking up digital cable will be as easy as hooking up analog cable. The converter box can be built into the TV the same way we transitioned from having to get a box from the cable company twenty years ago to having "cable ready" TV's. It would help clear the way for people to not have to pay "per box" for their service. DVR recorders can be built that can tune all the channels themselves.
I think this is fabulous, it's a step to reversing the nickel and diming cablecos and the entertainment industry as a whole have been doing the past ten years.
listing to 'this week in tech', last week and someone (Leo / Dvorak) was saying they visited the HD-DVD booth who's rep's were all about how movies can be filmed with 'skinable features'.. and gave the example of Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift where they got to select the color of the cars.... I think Leo went on to predict the Porn industry will win the race with this feature alone...
I would suggest that maybe the technology could allow one to change the ethnicity of the actors to suit their preference, but the physical appearance is more than just skin color.
Using APE to apply bug fixes was just asking for trouble.
The APE hacks were never meant to be permanent, but they were better than nothing. One of the nice things about this "solution" is the underlying code on disk is not changed, so users don't have to do clean installs before they add in the vendor approved patch.
I don't think it's a coincidence that this exploit came out. I'm sure the "researcher" hasn't been too pleased with the efforts to patch every flaw as soon as its released. It's taken quite a bit of PR-wind out of his project's sails. Now users will be more wary to use the APE patching since they will see it as adding exploits into their system.
I think Microsoft should be the one who has to pay for the venerabilities. Maybe then they will have a little bit more of an incentive to produce secure code. The usual market force for this sort of thing (customers will drop the vendor for one who supplies the more secure solution) does not apply when you have a monopoly.
Why CNet and slashdot chose to report on this particular vulnerability, which to many is the least important in the list, is a mistery to me.
Well Application Enhancer is the software being used to apply the temporary bug fixes until the MOAB bugs are actually fixed by their vendors, and now a MOAB bug as been found in the APE software itself. So it's rather like those Microsoft patches a couple months back that while patching their venerabilities as designed created new holes.
No! Buy Sealand! Forget the 14 century basement, how many people get to say that they have their own private country? Now THAT will attract the ladies!
Don't be too harsh on them immediately. Their account could have well been hacked either through phishing or a dishonest employee. It happens all the time, unfortunately.
Had they simply closed their eBay account, I wouldn't have been so worried. It was the fact they first deleted all their listings, which has the effect of removing all easy-to-see proof I ever had a transaction to begin with. This was an extra step on their part. It's troubling to have eBay's website act like it has never heard of the item number I am looking for and refuse to give me contact info for the member (because it does not recognize my item number).
I should mention I have tried contacting them already. The email receipt from Paypal has an email address for them on their domain, their actual PayPal account record also has a different email address on the same domain. I sent emails to both addresses over the last week. They were just short little "Hey there! I noticed you closed your eBay account..." type things. I just wanted a note back that they hadn't forgotten about me and if they wanted to drop the transaction. If I caught them just before they shut down their eBay operations I can understand, I just want my money back if that's the case.
When I didn't get any response by the end of the week, I tried to call the company's customer service 800 number on their regular website. It might have been after hours for them, I got an answering system that could not accept any new messages at the time. Then I noticed the PayPal info had a separate long-distance number for them. I got an answering machine for the business, which I left a message giving the eBay item number, day I paid them and amount, ect and my number to call me back. I have had no response to any of these attempts to contact them.
Doesn't sound like the behavior of a company that was the hapless victim of eBay hacking to me.
and my stuff sold on eBay. But I got robbed *on eBay* recently. Bought an item and paid for it Dec 29th, and the seller closed their eBay account and deleted all their listings a couple days later. They have not contacted me or returned my money.
The first thing I thought was "why would eBay let some close their account and delete all listings when they still have open transactions". I mean, they let them *delete* the listings here. If you try and search for it eBay says the item number is wrong or doesn't exist. It no longer appears under my "auctions I won" either. And that's different. I've had transactions with sellers who close their eBay accounts before completing a transaction, I couldn't leave feedback once we amicably worked out our issue, but the auction listing was still accessible. Here, If I try to contact the seller eBay asks for the item number and I get the same error. It appeared at first I would have no way of proving I ever bought anything until I went into the dispute center and looked up the item there, then (and only there) it shows up. But it was "too early" to file a dispute.
Luckily, this was an actual company with a separate website/store, so I have other means of trying to reach them. I'm going to call their regular website customer service (hey, you aren't reachable through eBay anymore) tomorrow and try to get this straightened out. If I can't reach them there, it's now late enough I can dispute through eBay/Paypal.
Slashdot Mirror
So do I. But I can't use it to make personal calls. They would end up getting billed to a client.
The Nokia 770 is defined by Nokia as a "Tablet" so you're comparing two products in different catergories.
How can you judge the usability of a device you have yet to actually use?
The iPhone's screen is 160dpi. Is that high enough for you?
Yeah like public libraries, downtown areas of many cities, or the place they're stuck at more than 40 hours a week: their jobs.
That's a highly specialized feature for a VCR. I doubt more than 1% of VCRs have that ability.
IR blasters are kludgy hardware hacks. We'll beam remote signals so the box will think someone's there. [rolleyes] The consumer shouldn't have to go to this trouble to use their service the way they want.
Sorry. You are incorrect. I probably should mention I work for a cable company.
Here's a linkfor you if you don't believe me.
Other posters here are saying there was actually a cap on the rental rate instituted by the FCC of $2-$3 a month. And from what I've seen on other provider's pricing, that's what's happening in the marketplace. Comcast charges $1.99/month and starting in February they will be FREE.
I have no arguments with your last paragraph, I would add I don't think consumer electronic manufacturers are too upset the CableCard 2.0 and 1.0 standards are incompatible.
Some people use a lot of minutes each month. If they could do VoIP when they would only need to use Cingular minutes when they're away from a Wi-Fi network. It's possible to get data-only plans for a cellphone (flat rate) so if you lived in a city with ubiquitous Wi-Fi, you wouldn't need to pay for Cingular minutes at all, and might save a bundle depending on how much you talked.
But I understand where you're coming from, I think VoIP on a cell phone is a little redundant, too.
Wasn't that film about Slashdot effect? I remember how all the hardware gets torpedoed and stops functioning for awhile.
I'd say it has more to do with the trademark suit. Apple can't claim their two devices don't converge if people are able to use the Apple iPhone to do VoIP, which is the only function the Cisco product can do. Right now the iPhone has a laundry list of features and abilities, but VoIP calling is not one of them. So, technically, the Apple iPhone and the Cisco iPhone are not in the same markets.
If development of the iPhone was opened up, I'd wager the very first third party app would be Skype. With a device that connects to WiFi networks so easily and VoIP, who needs a big bucket of Cingular minutes?
We still have six months before the device ships, the policy could change depending on how things go in the trademark dispute and the wireless carrier world as well. T-Mobile starts building their 3G network this year, and that will have an impact.
Well, they might have come up with that ruling back then, but they actually are not required to yet. The deadline is this July. Not July 2005.
What do they mean "save the franchise"? The prequels are out. The all six movies are released. Since when is Star Wars a "franchise" to be used to make movie after movie? In my mind, Star Wars is a story. A six chapter story. Yeah, all six parts were not released in the normal order, but wasn't the whole story in existence since the beginning? I seem to remember Lucas was given the go-ahead to make his movies and had to trim down the full story to something that would fit in a smaller number of films.
Requiring a box also has the effect of rolling back fair use right. Lets say you went on vacation and set up your VCR to record four different shows on four different channels. Because your cable is analog (and the VCR has a "cable-ready" tuner) you can leave it off and it will turn on and change channels as it needs to to record the shows. With digital cable this isn't possible. The VCR has no way to control the cable box on its own! You would have to leave the cable box on and tuned to a channel -- and that would be the only channel you could record, as you would be gone on vacation and unavailable to change the cable box to the other stations.
For a more protracted argument about digital cable see this thread.
Aren't you glad you're a Beta, Jim? Instead of an Alpha? And then you're much better than the Gammas and Deltas.
Current CableCard technology is one-way only. So you can't order PPV or control VOD programming. CableCard 2.0 is supposed to support two way communication, but it isn't out yet. It also will be a different card interface. So if you bought a TV that includes a CableCard slot, guess what, you have to buy a new TV to use the 2.0 cards.
Also, cablecos are not yet required to offer CableCards yet. The FCC's plug and play rule that covered it does not take effect until July. So if your cableco currently does not want to offer CableCards, you're SOL.
I'm not sure what the ownership rules are for CableCards, but from what I've seen it appears they are still the property of the cableco and you still pay a monthly fee for them (you just don't have a big, hot running box to keep around).
If this rule is allowed to take effect (translation: a bunch of cableco lobbists don't pop up and stop it) soon hooking up digital cable will be as easy as hooking up analog cable. The converter box can be built into the TV the same way we transitioned from having to get a box from the cable company twenty years ago to having "cable ready" TV's. It would help clear the way for people to not have to pay "per box" for their service. DVR recorders can be built that can tune all the channels themselves.
I think this is fabulous, it's a step to reversing the nickel and diming cablecos and the entertainment industry as a whole have been doing the past ten years.
I would suggest that maybe the technology could allow one to change the ethnicity of the actors to suit their preference, but the physical appearance is more than just skin color.
You mean we can't download the song?
I thought it was Cranial Rights Management. A new way to keep you from enjoying the portions of copyrighted music you remember in your head.
The APE hacks were never meant to be permanent, but they were better than nothing. One of the nice things about this "solution" is the underlying code on disk is not changed, so users don't have to do clean installs before they add in the vendor approved patch.
I don't think it's a coincidence that this exploit came out. I'm sure the "researcher" hasn't been too pleased with the efforts to patch every flaw as soon as its released. It's taken quite a bit of PR-wind out of his project's sails. Now users will be more wary to use the APE patching since they will see it as adding exploits into their system.
I think Microsoft should be the one who has to pay for the venerabilities. Maybe then they will have a little bit more of an incentive to produce secure code. The usual market force for this sort of thing (customers will drop the vendor for one who supplies the more secure solution) does not apply when you have a monopoly.
Well Application Enhancer is the software being used to apply the temporary bug fixes until the MOAB bugs are actually fixed by their vendors, and now a MOAB bug as been found in the APE software itself. So it's rather like those Microsoft patches a couple months back that while patching their venerabilities as designed created new holes.
Yup, until everyone's had a chance with Uranus, we'll never know who does it best.
You have to define the variables, too. "Hot" has to be specified in degrees centigrade beforehand.
Because it would be so hard to just carry these in your laptop bag...
No! Buy Sealand! Forget the 14 century basement, how many people get to say that they have their own private country? Now THAT will attract the ladies!
Had they simply closed their eBay account, I wouldn't have been so worried. It was the fact they first deleted all their listings, which has the effect of removing all easy-to-see proof I ever had a transaction to begin with. This was an extra step on their part. It's troubling to have eBay's website act like it has never heard of the item number I am looking for and refuse to give me contact info for the member (because it does not recognize my item number).
I should mention I have tried contacting them already. The email receipt from Paypal has an email address for them on their domain, their actual PayPal account record also has a different email address on the same domain. I sent emails to both addresses over the last week. They were just short little "Hey there! I noticed you closed your eBay account..." type things. I just wanted a note back that they hadn't forgotten about me and if they wanted to drop the transaction. If I caught them just before they shut down their eBay operations I can understand, I just want my money back if that's the case.
When I didn't get any response by the end of the week, I tried to call the company's customer service 800 number on their regular website. It might have been after hours for them, I got an answering system that could not accept any new messages at the time. Then I noticed the PayPal info had a separate long-distance number for them. I got an answering machine for the business, which I left a message giving the eBay item number, day I paid them and amount, ect and my number to call me back. I have had no response to any of these attempts to contact them.
Doesn't sound like the behavior of a company that was the hapless victim of eBay hacking to me.
and my stuff sold on eBay. But I got robbed *on eBay* recently. Bought an item and paid for it Dec 29th, and the seller closed their eBay account and deleted all their listings a couple days later. They have not contacted me or returned my money.
The first thing I thought was "why would eBay let some close their account and delete all listings when they still have open transactions". I mean, they let them *delete* the listings here. If you try and search for it eBay says the item number is wrong or doesn't exist. It no longer appears under my "auctions I won" either. And that's different. I've had transactions with sellers who close their eBay accounts before completing a transaction, I couldn't leave feedback once we amicably worked out our issue, but the auction listing was still accessible. Here, If I try to contact the seller eBay asks for the item number and I get the same error. It appeared at first I would have no way of proving I ever bought anything until I went into the dispute center and looked up the item there, then (and only there) it shows up. But it was "too early" to file a dispute.
Luckily, this was an actual company with a separate website/store, so I have other means of trying to reach them. I'm going to call their regular website customer service (hey, you aren't reachable through eBay anymore) tomorrow and try to get this straightened out. If I can't reach them there, it's now late enough I can dispute through eBay/Paypal.