Basically, there is a distinction made between technological measures that prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of copyrighted works. The DMCA does not prohibit the circumvention of technological measures that prevent unauthorized copying of copyrighted works...ala iTunes DRM.
Having a built in tuner is a feature added component. It doesn't lock you into using that tuner as long as the TV has the same inputs as the tunerless model (DVI, HDMI, Components, etc...) If you are going to have to buy external tuner 1 for the same price as the increase for the internal tuner you might as well reduce the number of cables/remotes and just get the included tuner.
If your cable company provides a tuner for a cheap rental fee, that is when you may want to save the money on no internal tuna.
I have used the cable DVR, TiVo, and home built DVR/HTPC systems.
As to your argument about the price of cable with DVR...TiVo requires a subscription cost which is more than the cost to rent DVR from the cable company. At 5$ a month, I could rent a cable box for 5 years before I paid off the lifetime subscription for TiVo.
Cable company DVRs are much more than VCRs as well. But thats beyond the point, because my comment was that cable companies could provide these features for a lower price. The fact that they don't at this point indicates that they do not fear people spending the extra $$ each month to get TiVo for the features. With such a valid competitor as TiVo in the market, this indicates to me that these features are just not that important to most people.
Finally, I wasn't "knock[ing]" anything and I certainly did not give any advice in my post... Oh, and one more thing, do you really pay 120$ a month just for cable tv? Thats twice what I pay...
I've never owned TiVo, only used it a few times. Does TiVo provide free updates to the UI/features that are useful on a regular basis?
Part of my problem with TiVo is that it requires an upfront cost followed by a subscription cost. I know you can do the 300$ lifetime subscription, but thats TiVo's lifetime and currently things don't look that great. So I buy this box and a year later some new tech comes out (enter HDTV) and my box is no good. With the cable companies subscription plan, they absorb the cost of purchasing the new box. How can TiVo compete with that? Further, with the ever dropping price of home HTPC's how can TiVo compete? It seems that TiVo is just currently over-priced (not by choice) in the market.
The cable companies can more efficiently provide the same services that TiVo can provide. They haven't completely duplicated the service of TiVo yet but they have charged a heck of a lot less. What can TiVo provide that cable companies can't/don't that justifies the cost? No offense intended to you or TiVo of course.
This really only applies the first time that you start FF in a session. Assuming you don't reboot your computer often, its really a non-issue. If you wanted to make FF runs as fast as IE just set it to startup when your pc boots. I've noticed that after the first instance, FF starts much faster than IE.
According to whom? I've never felt that I was entitled to updates. Updates are what keeps you a happy customer. If MS didn't update IE to remove flaws, people would switch to FireFox even faster.
MS doesn't really have the right to restrict where it runs
Of course I haven't RTFA, but the headline says they are restricting updates. They haven't restricted where you run the software, just who they give updates to.
Slashdot Mirror
The current line of chips will be out of style long before people need more than 251TB.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me...
Disappointment ensued...
Just another slashdot legal article in tech's clothing...
Wow, that is extrange. Its succiting and damzazing too!
Don't be too sad, I think version 6 sucks. I'll take version 5 any day!
I'd be more concerned about someone else hopping on your computer when ProspectiveEmployer91241 sends a message to you...
How is that different from Windows XP? Admitedly, I've never installed Mac OS X.
Beyond this activation bit, how is installing Windows a headache...I've yet to see another install that is easier.
Funny how Mr. Palast doesn't cite any facts in his diatribe on ChoicePoint...
Basically, there is a distinction made between technological measures that prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of copyrighted works. The DMCA does not prohibit the circumvention of technological measures that prevent unauthorized copying of copyrighted works...ala iTunes DRM.
Incorrect...please read the DMCA and report back on your findings. It is legal to crack copy protection DRM.
If your cable company provides a tuner for a cheap rental fee, that is when you may want to save the money on no internal tuna.
Time Warner Cable - 5.95$ / month.
I have used the cable DVR, TiVo, and home built DVR/HTPC systems.
As to your argument about the price of cable with DVR...TiVo requires a subscription cost which is more than the cost to rent DVR from the cable company. At 5$ a month, I could rent a cable box for 5 years before I paid off the lifetime subscription for TiVo.
Cable company DVRs are much more than VCRs as well. But thats beyond the point, because my comment was that cable companies could provide these features for a lower price. The fact that they don't at this point indicates that they do not fear people spending the extra $$ each month to get TiVo for the features. With such a valid competitor as TiVo in the market, this indicates to me that these features are just not that important to most people.
Finally, I wasn't "knock[ing]" anything and I certainly did not give any advice in my post... Oh, and one more thing, do you really pay 120$ a month just for cable tv? Thats twice what I pay...
Can you give some more details on what you mean? What is an example of how TiVo is superior to cable DVR?
Think of the lifetime subscription as a fixed cost for the TiVo box...did you buy your TiVo yet?
Part of my problem with TiVo is that it requires an upfront cost followed by a subscription cost. I know you can do the 300$ lifetime subscription, but thats TiVo's lifetime and currently things don't look that great. So I buy this box and a year later some new tech comes out (enter HDTV) and my box is no good. With the cable companies subscription plan, they absorb the cost of purchasing the new box. How can TiVo compete with that? Further, with the ever dropping price of home HTPC's how can TiVo compete? It seems that TiVo is just currently over-priced (not by choice) in the market.
The cable companies can more efficiently provide the same services that TiVo can provide. They haven't completely duplicated the service of TiVo yet but they have charged a heck of a lot less. What can TiVo provide that cable companies can't/don't that justifies the cost? No offense intended to you or TiVo of course.
hmmmm...someone should tell Red Hat I guess http://www.redhat.com/
This really only applies the first time that you start FF in a session. Assuming you don't reboot your computer often, its really a non-issue. If you wanted to make FF runs as fast as IE just set it to startup when your pc boots. I've noticed that after the first instance, FF starts much faster than IE.
According to whom? I've never felt that I was entitled to updates. Updates are what keeps you a happy customer. If MS didn't update IE to remove flaws, people would switch to FireFox even faster.
Excellent copy and paste with no citation to the original author.
Of course I haven't RTFA, but the headline says they are restricting updates. They haven't restricted where you run the software, just who they give updates to.
I'm at 8KB. Filled with a bunch of out of memory errors.