Not really I live in Southern California and our basic digital cable box has the option to record to vcr on the fly for every channel. Tested it for majority of on-demand, PPV and every other channel and it works right away.
Ah, but what if you went away for awhile? Would you be able to record shows off three differnt digital channels (at differnt times of course) while you were gone?
I don't have time to comment on this fully right now but I just want to say how much full of shit this post is. Cable companies want to get rid of analog channels so they can lock the customer in? Come on. Do you know how much cost is involved in running a massive cable network in cities?
Yup, and the support costs for all those boxes is huge, too. Which is why they get passed on to the consumer.
Your post is full of anti-corporate rhetoric. If you think these companies are that much out to get you.. go and try to apply for a job at one and work there for awhile. You'll see how much goes into operating a city-wide cable or phone service. I'm amazed at how reasonable the prices really are.
Joke's on you, pal. I do work for a cable company, I've worked for three so far, and I'm sitting here at work right now typing this.
If you want to discuss DVR's and DRM, might want to read the thread attached to this post first.
As far as prices go: hey, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Prices for service are good. Unfortunately most people don't agree with you. I hear it all the time "this cable TV is too expensive". My gripe is having to pay for something (multiple TV's) I didn't have to before. And that now recording programs isn't as easy as it used to be with an external tuner involved, all this happening right around the same time content providers are trying to outlaw anything that can record anything being broadcast and wanting to charge everyone per use for content. Awfully, coincidental wouldn't you say?
Dude, why do you have to redefine what support means yourself. Windows doesn't support ipod, at all. Apple supports the ipod on windows and mac, that's it.
Talk about splitting hairs! What I am saying is Linux does not support "the iPod experience" as in all the functionality of the device, and OSX and Windows do. The issue may be software-made-by-another-company related, but the end result is the same.
Now Linux does support the ipod and it does so quite nicely, perhaps even better than Apple does on windows and mac.... and if you are not "open-source people" yourself then what are you doing here other than astroturfing?
Last time I checked, Slashdot is not an OSS fanboi circle-jerk. But a blog and forum for discussion, and all with an opinion are welcome. The issue here is why Linux is not more readily accepted by the average home/small-office user. That reason is uncertainty about device compatability, support, availablity of apps, an configuration. So you can rewrite your config files in vi with your eyes closed? Pin a rose on your nose - most users can't. And if you don't think this is something that Linux needs to work on, maybe you shouldn't act so surprised when nobody (users or hardware manufacturers) want anything to do with your platform. They have work to do and money to make, and no time for some Linux users' elitest secret society crap.
So, that means that because Apple decided not to release an certain propietary application for X operating system it means that such system is not ready for the desktop.
Depending on what application and how popular it was, yes.
People often say the Mac is not ready for architecture and engineering use because there is no Mac version of AutoCAD. Is this Apple's fault? No. But it does not change the fact that the Mac is not compatible with one of the most important programs in those circles.
The state of a certain platform being "ready for the desktop" implies that a certain basic set of functionality, a set determined by the average home/small office user, is available on that platform. Let's say the browser wars had turned out a little differently, and the proprietary-HTML crap race between Netscape and Microsoft had continued. Today you'd be looking at a web that would only be viewable on Internet Explorer. Since IE would now have 100% of the browser market share, and Windows has over 90% of desktop PC OS marketshare, I still the the internet would be just as popular and integral to the world today in this scenario (becuase most people would still be using the same browser/OS in this alternate world as they do in our real one).
Because internet access is such an essential function on the PC and IE would be the only way to view the proprietary-HTML Internet, any platform (Linux, MacOSX, ect) that did not have a version of IE available for it would be deemed "not ready for the desktop".
Pardon me but it one of the most stupid arguments I have read. And I read it quite often here in slashdot. Going in that line of reasoning, Microsoft Windows was not ready for the desktop until October 16, 2003 [wikipedia.org] no?
You're forgetting two things.
1) The iPod wasn't as popular in 2003 as it is today, hence the requirements for being "ready for the desktop" were not the same back then.
2) I never said that iPod support was a requirement for being "ready for the desktop". I'm not expousing an opinion on that idea. My arguement is that to say x OSS media program can perform some of the basic functionality of iTunes, therefore it's existance means that Linux supports the iPod, just as though x is iTunes, is a false statement.
The only thing that means is that such company decided not to support the operating system, and that is the fault of THE FREAKING COMPANY....
But again, it is the same issue as with hardware drivers, if companies REFUSE to make their products available for certain operating system it is NOT the problem of such operating system.
Once again, I'm not disagreeing with that. But who is to blame for the device not being usabale does not change the fact that device is not usabale.
The original poster I replied to says that Linux shouldn't have a goal of feature/support parity with Windows, but to come up with a feature that everyone wants that isn't available on Windows. The problem with this view is that now you're trying to win a popularity contest between your exclusive features and theirs and you've stated you're not going to try to match their exclusive features because "if Linux adopts that strategy it will *never* appeal to the masses, because it will always be catching up."
But the excusive features they have (iPod support) ARE the ones the masses want, which is what I was pointing out in my reply. So to say you wont try to match it is to say you're not going to satisfy your target audience since someone else is already doing it - a NIH view.
And you wont ever win doing things that way.
You have to work harder. You HAVE to try to match feature parity AND add that special feature they don't have. Becuase they are the incumbant, they already have the market, and unless you can do everything they can do now, AN
While I'm sure Echostar can rest easy, consumers shouldn't. I was rather shocked with the initial denial of stay. Normally I don't see companies ever having to do anything about any litigation until after the last appeal is lost. A patent dispute rarely has any effect on consumers themselves in such a way as the company will have a drastic effect on their business....and I was rather looking forward to the outrage.
The quick turn around on this will probably help keep the legal fight and what it means to consumers under wraps. But I hope it servs as a wake up call to people what sort of conditions they're agreeing to when they get a DVR from their provider.
Be wary of any electronic device that depends on authorization or information from someone else in order to function. Because you never know when they may have to/choose to pull the plug.
The only DVR you can really depend on is one you own outright and can make configuration changes to for the programming data source yourself (like a Myth box).
Nobody gets even close to that on DSL. In my area, we can get.5MB down,.1 up and the phone company told us that was remarkably good (of course they advertize it as capable of doing more).
Of course the phone company told you it was good. They're the freak'n provider. What were you expecting "Oh, Mr. Johnson, that's really slow. We're providing some really crappy service aren't we?" they don't want to be held to any kind of standard for service, so they aren't going to agree with any notion there's a problem if you'll go with their answers.
Cable really doesn't have much to worry about....
The issue is that they've got all those pesky analog cable TV channels on there wasting space.
They're slowly phasing out all of the old, nondigital cable boxes and moving everyone over to digital. Once that's done, they'll be far ahead of fiber in terms of getting that last mile in place, and they'll be able to match the speeds fiber is currently offering.
And they'll be able to start charging everyone per TV for their services. Which is why they really want to get rid of analog cable. They're like Ma Bell in the 50's wanting to charge you per phone in your house regardless of how many actual phone lines you have. The only reason that was undone was the availablity of wiring for do-it-yourself extensions and the analog nature of the PSTN making it hard to track how many phones a person had.
Plus, the external converter has the added bonus of making it hard to do automated VCR recordings of shows while you're away from home (hello, DVR rental fee!).
Why does nobody recognise digital cable for what it is; an excuse to roll back fair use and home recording rights, and find another way to nickel and dime the consumer?
Until there's legislation passed removing the encryption from cable (so makers of stand alone DVR's and VCR's can integrate digital tuners in their products) or requiring cablecos to provide as many boxes as a customer needs free of charge this will continue.
On some drives, like the ones my college bookstore carries, you can't access the writable portion of the drive until after the U3 software is loaded into Windows. Hell, I couldn't even get past it using my Linux laptop.
And the U3 software fails on virtually every computer on campus, because the computers are locked down in such a way that one cannot install device drivers using a normal student account.
The solution is to remove the U3 software and make it a regular flash drive.
Linux supports iPods just fine. In fact, modern distros support them out of the box, whereas with PCs you have to install iTunes.
What isn't available for Linux is iTunes, and, hence, Apple won't sell you any music. If you want that, take it up with Apple.
Why do open-source people have to redefine the term "support" to suit their arguement? If I can't call the company that makes the device and get help with my iPod working with my Linux distro, then that device is not supported under Linux. Whether you can use some flashy pre-pkg'ed software to provide many of the same functions as the offical software or not is not up for debate.
The original statement is still correct. When the masses say they want iPod support, they mean 100% support, including the iTunes music store and technical support. Windows can offer this compatability, Linux, regardless of what kludge you add to it, cannot. I'm not saying that the lack of support is the Linux distro's fault. I think Apple should have a Linux version of iTunes. To gain the edge you must be able to offer something your competitor cannot, and if your competitor also has features you do not, to still have an edge your exclusive features must be in higher demand than theirs. Linux can offer security, and people do want security, they just don't want it more than they want their iTunes DRMed files to play/sync properly.
I'm sorry if the GP's post is a double-edged sword.
The only way to have significant appeal is to offer something that the masses want, that Windows can't. Hint: rock-solid security is not something the masses *want*. Yet.
No, you're making it to case-specific. The only way to have significant appeal is to offer something that the masses want, that your competitor can't.
And guess what? The masses want iPod compatability. It's something Windows can offer, and Linux can't.
But will this also mean that the poor in New Orleans won't be able to pay the charge for fiber-to-premises? Or will they make it so cheap so that New Orleans becomes the haven for geeks and technological companies?
They wont have to pay for any of it, they were in a natural disaster, silly. The government will pick up the bill as part of Federal Aid for the city rebuilding. Everyone (down there, wins) Telcos gets the government to pay for their network upgrades, businesses and consumers benefit from the improved services available, and the Government gets to gloat about the technological marvel the city has become after such a horrible disaster! Truly this is the work of the American spirit to perservere through this hardship!
The only people who don't benefit are all the taxpayers outside New Orleans who actually paid for it.
Unfortunately, bread just isn't compatable with Microsoft's BRM (Bagel Rights Management) and allowing bread slicing on your new Vista PC might have crumby results.
The amount of time it would take to bring Virtual PC to Intel would be roughly equivalent to creating the product from scratch, Scott Erickson, director of product management and marketing for Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit, told eWEEK.
And if there is one thing Micorsoft doesn't do, it's rewrite software from scratch.
However, it's too simplistic to say that Microsoft is simply trying to emulate Apple. The two companies operate in different markets and have different goals. Microsoft has no intention of limiting its operating system to its own hardware, whereas Apple is quite insistent on doing just that.
Uh, Microsoft has no 'hardware' of it's own. The computers its operating system runs on are made by other companies, which Microsoft is now "suggesting" industrial design/style direction to. What happens next: Microsoft offers more favorable OEM licensing terms to PC makers who foillow their suggestions, due to razor-thin margins, other PC makers fall in line to remain competitive.
And I'm sure if Micorsoft had some way of limiting what PC's could run it's operating system it would (some would argue by making OEM licenses that require a fee for all PC capable of running Windows, whether they use it or not, Micorsoft is limiting OEMS to only making WindowsPC's).
We're in more danger now than before because we give Israel $2.5billion in aid and Lebanon $40million in aid. We're in trouble because at times like now, when both sides have crossed the line, politicians pass resolutions declaring support for Israel and condemning Lebanon, all because Israelis have a huge lobby in DC.
See this is why I think we should just get out of the Middle East politically. They've been saying they want peace for what, 30 years, now? They obviously really aren't that serious about it. Why should we waste any more time, money, and energy trying to help them get together. Leave them to their own problems, and lets start addressing some of ours.
-- "... grandfather liked it," said Chester, averting his eyes from a lithograph titled Rush Hour at the Insemomat.
What is an Insemomant? There is no Wikipedia entry for it. It is not in the dictionary. And it only has three hits on Google (none of them on Slashdot, ironically). All three are this same quote.
Is there some potential badness that Google is indexing binary file content? What might that be?
How about the RIAA using it to locate caches of MP3 files?
You mean like hundreds of people do every day?
It's plausible that a person might have personal backups of their music collection (or *shock* music they purchased on iTunes) and accidentally have those files on a public web server.
Having the files on a publically accessable directory? Maybe. On one you can browse over port 80? That seems kinda unlikely.
And so what if they have their iTunes purchases available? Nobody else will be able to play them unless they're authorized on the user's iTunes account.
Google isn't the Wielder Of The Sword Of Righteousness, they are The Sword Of Righteousness, not even that, they're the steel that makes up The Sword Of Righteousness. The company utilizing the Google API to do this is the knight.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, and when did they stop selling DVD-recorders? And non-cableco PVR's?
This arguement applies to them as well.
Ah, but what if you went away for awhile? Would you be able to record shows off three differnt digital channels (at differnt times of course) while you were gone?
Yup, and the support costs for all those boxes is huge, too. Which is why they get passed on to the consumer.
Joke's on you, pal. I do work for a cable company, I've worked for three so far, and I'm sitting here at work right now typing this.
If you want to discuss DVR's and DRM, might want to read the thread attached to this post first.
As far as prices go: hey, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Prices for service are good. Unfortunately most people don't agree with you. I hear it all the time "this cable TV is too expensive". My gripe is having to pay for something (multiple TV's) I didn't have to before. And that now recording programs isn't as easy as it used to be with an external tuner involved, all this happening right around the same time content providers are trying to outlaw anything that can record anything being broadcast and wanting to charge everyone per use for content. Awfully, coincidental wouldn't you say?
I meant Windows as a platform, offers the availablity of this support. A level of support that cannot be obtained on Linux.
Really, do you have any actual input to the discussion, or are you just here to argue semantics?
Talk about splitting hairs! What I am saying is Linux does not support "the iPod experience" as in all the functionality of the device, and OSX and Windows do. The issue may be software-made-by-another-company related, but the end result is the same.
Last time I checked, Slashdot is not an OSS fanboi circle-jerk. But a blog and forum for discussion, and all with an opinion are welcome. The issue here is why Linux is not more readily accepted by the average home/small-office user. That reason is uncertainty about device compatability, support, availablity of apps, an configuration. So you can rewrite your config files in vi with your eyes closed? Pin a rose on your nose - most users can't. And if you don't think this is something that Linux needs to work on, maybe you shouldn't act so surprised when nobody (users or hardware manufacturers) want anything to do with your platform. They have work to do and money to make, and no time for some Linux users' elitest secret society crap.
Depending on what application and how popular it was, yes.
People often say the Mac is not ready for architecture and engineering use because there is no Mac version of AutoCAD. Is this Apple's fault? No. But it does not change the fact that the Mac is not compatible with one of the most important programs in those circles.
The state of a certain platform being "ready for the desktop" implies that a certain basic set of functionality, a set determined by the average home/small office user, is available on that platform. Let's say the browser wars had turned out a little differently, and the proprietary-HTML crap race between Netscape and Microsoft had continued. Today you'd be looking at a web that would only be viewable on Internet Explorer. Since IE would now have 100% of the browser market share, and Windows has over 90% of desktop PC OS marketshare, I still the the internet would be just as popular and integral to the world today in this scenario (becuase most people would still be using the same browser/OS in this alternate world as they do in our real one).
Because internet access is such an essential function on the PC and IE would be the only way to view the proprietary-HTML Internet, any platform (Linux, MacOSX, ect) that did not have a version of IE available for it would be deemed "not ready for the desktop".
You're forgetting two things.
1) The iPod wasn't as popular in 2003 as it is today, hence the requirements for being "ready for the desktop" were not the same back then.
2) I never said that iPod support was a requirement for being "ready for the desktop". I'm not expousing an opinion on that idea. My arguement is that to say x OSS media program can perform some of the basic functionality of iTunes, therefore it's existance means that Linux supports the iPod, just as though x is iTunes, is a false statement.
Once again, I'm not disagreeing with that. But who is to blame for the device not being usabale does not change the fact that device is not usabale.
The original poster I replied to says that Linux shouldn't have a goal of feature/support parity with Windows, but to come up with a feature that everyone wants that isn't available on Windows. The problem with this view is that now you're trying to win a popularity contest between your exclusive features and theirs and you've stated you're not going to try to match their exclusive features because "if Linux adopts that strategy it will *never* appeal to the masses, because it will always be catching up."
But the excusive features they have (iPod support) ARE the ones the masses want, which is what I was pointing out in my reply. So to say you wont try to match it is to say you're not going to satisfy your target audience since someone else is already doing it - a NIH view.
And you wont ever win doing things that way.
You have to work harder. You HAVE to try to match feature parity AND add that special feature they don't have. Becuase they are the incumbant, they already have the market, and unless you can do everything they can do now, AN
While I'm sure Echostar can rest easy, consumers shouldn't. I was rather shocked with the initial denial of stay. Normally I don't see companies ever having to do anything about any litigation until after the last appeal is lost. A patent dispute rarely has any effect on consumers themselves in such a way as the company will have a drastic effect on their business. ...and I was rather looking forward to the outrage.
The quick turn around on this will probably help keep the legal fight and what it means to consumers under wraps. But I hope it servs as a wake up call to people what sort of conditions they're agreeing to when they get a DVR from their provider.
Be wary of any electronic device that depends on authorization or information from someone else in order to function. Because you never know when they may have to/choose to pull the plug.
The only DVR you can really depend on is one you own outright and can make configuration changes to for the programming data source yourself (like a Myth box).
Of course the phone company told you it was good. They're the freak'n provider. What were you expecting "Oh, Mr. Johnson, that's really slow. We're providing some really crappy service aren't we?" they don't want to be held to any kind of standard for service, so they aren't going to agree with any notion there's a problem if you'll go with their answers.
And they'll be able to start charging everyone per TV for their services. Which is why they really want to get rid of analog cable. They're like Ma Bell in the 50's wanting to charge you per phone in your house regardless of how many actual phone lines you have. The only reason that was undone was the availablity of wiring for do-it-yourself extensions and the analog nature of the PSTN making it hard to track how many phones a person had.
Plus, the external converter has the added bonus of making it hard to do automated VCR recordings of shows while you're away from home (hello, DVR rental fee!).
Why does nobody recognise digital cable for what it is; an excuse to roll back fair use and home recording rights, and find another way to nickel and dime the consumer?
Until there's legislation passed removing the encryption from cable (so makers of stand alone DVR's and VCR's can integrate digital tuners in their products) or requiring cablecos to provide as many boxes as a customer needs free of charge this will continue.
The solution is to remove the U3 software and make it a regular flash drive.
You can get an uninstaller here.
Why do open-source people have to redefine the term "support" to suit their arguement? If I can't call the company that makes the device and get help with my iPod working with my Linux distro, then that device is not supported under Linux. Whether you can use some flashy pre-pkg'ed software to provide many of the same functions as the offical software or not is not up for debate.
The original statement is still correct. When the masses say they want iPod support, they mean 100% support, including the iTunes music store and technical support. Windows can offer this compatability, Linux, regardless of what kludge you add to it, cannot. I'm not saying that the lack of support is the Linux distro's fault. I think Apple should have a Linux version of iTunes. To gain the edge you must be able to offer something your competitor cannot, and if your competitor also has features you do not, to still have an edge your exclusive features must be in higher demand than theirs. Linux can offer security, and people do want security, they just don't want it more than they want their iTunes DRMed files to play/sync properly.
I'm sorry if the GP's post is a double-edged sword.
No, you're making it to case-specific. The only way to have significant appeal is to offer something that the masses want, that your competitor can't.
And guess what? The masses want iPod compatability. It's something Windows can offer, and Linux can't.
They wont have to pay for any of it, they were in a natural disaster, silly.
The government will pick up the bill as part of Federal Aid for the city rebuilding. Everyone (down there, wins) Telcos gets the government to pay for their network upgrades, businesses and consumers benefit from the improved services available, and the Government gets to gloat about the technological marvel the city has become after such a horrible disaster! Truly this is the work of the American spirit to perservere through this hardship!
The only people who don't benefit are all the taxpayers outside New Orleans who actually paid for it.
Unfortunately, bread just isn't compatable with Microsoft's BRM (Bagel Rights Management) and allowing bread slicing on your new Vista PC might have crumby results.
Those fashion-slaves! They wanted to use an opertaing system who's default screen would coordinate with the hues of the test setting!
Yeah, I know a MagnetBox when I see one!
And if there is one thing Micorsoft doesn't do, it's rewrite software from scratch.
And now it's been put "on ice".
So given this is a Japanese moonbase, will the inhabitants be named "Sailor Moons"?
the OpenBSD driver (now ported to FreeBSD) for Atheros cards is entirely blob-free (and has undergone the same security audit as the rest of OpenBSD)
Since OSX is based off BSD, would this not make it rather trivial to change OSX to this secure OpenBSD driver and get rid of the venerabiliy?
Uh, Microsoft has no 'hardware' of it's own. The computers its operating system runs on are made by other companies, which Microsoft is now "suggesting" industrial design/style direction to. What happens next: Microsoft offers more favorable OEM licensing terms to PC makers who foillow their suggestions, due to razor-thin margins, other PC makers fall in line to remain competitive.
And I'm sure if Micorsoft had some way of limiting what PC's could run it's operating system it would (some would argue by making OEM licenses that require a fee for all PC capable of running Windows, whether they use it or not, Micorsoft is limiting OEMS to only making WindowsPC's).
We're in more danger now than before because we give Israel $2.5billion in aid and Lebanon $40million in aid. We're in trouble because at times like now, when both sides have crossed the line, politicians pass resolutions declaring support for Israel and condemning Lebanon, all because Israelis have a huge lobby in DC.
See this is why I think we should just get out of the Middle East politically. They've been saying they want peace for what, 30 years, now? They obviously really aren't that serious about it. Why should we waste any more time, money, and energy trying to help them get together. Leave them to their own problems, and lets start addressing some of ours.
Probably right here.
--
"... grandfather liked it," said Chester, averting his eyes from a lithograph titled Rush Hour at the Insemomat.
What is an Insemomant? There is no Wikipedia entry for it. It is not in the dictionary. And it only has three hits on Google (none of them on Slashdot, ironically). All three are this same quote.
You mean like hundreds of people do every day?
Having the files on a publically accessable directory? Maybe. On one you can browse over port 80? That seems kinda unlikely.
And so what if they have their iTunes purchases available? Nobody else will be able to play them unless they're authorized on the user's iTunes account.
Google isn't the Wielder Of The Sword Of Righteousness, they are The Sword Of Righteousness, not even that, they're the steel that makes up The Sword Of Righteousness. The company utilizing the Google API to do this is the knight.
I always wondered who the hell bought that crap.
People who wanted to show their support for public television?