As the Parent poster points out, I'm free to create a blog and call my boss a stupid fuckhead. on the other hand, he's also free to fire my ass as soon as he finds out.
What country do you live in? If my boss fires me for calling him (or her, I have multiple bosses) a fuckhead, on my own time, on a private blog, that is certainly their right. But it is just about equally as certain that if they are foolish enough to give that as the stated reason, I'll win my civil suit for wrongful termination. Basically, if it doesn't affect my work and isn't done on company time, they are liable if they fire me for it.
Your comments are well written and reasonable. I'd like to add a few things, however, that might be important to consider. First, a quick search seems to indicate Marquette does indeed accept federal funding. Second, while you rightly claim that the government has a legal monopoly on the use of force (as you describe it) I think it is important to note that this is not limited to the federal government, but also to the state and local governments. The state can just as easily force me to pay taxes and use those funds to pay for an institution that restricts free speech, in violation of both the federal and state constitutions. Finally, I think it is important to recognize that the federal collection of taxes, which are then redistributed back to institutions in states who were originally taxed. That overtaxing and then redistribution undermines the tiered system of government as it was originally created, consolidating power at the federal level under threat of withholding money it should not have taxed in the first place.
I think all of these points are important, because this situation is one that should not exist (IMHO). Arguing whether a school can restrict free speech based upon their federal funding is fine, until one questions why the federal government is the one who collected these taxes. The feds are using them to control the actions of universities, states, and other local enterprises. Just look at the to-do about federal funds used in experiments with some stem cells or allowing the army access to recruit on campus. That sort of control is supposed to be the province of the state governments, but the federal government has exploited this loophole on a truly massive scale. No marquette university should not be trying to restrict free speech. Yes, they receive federal funds. No, they should not have to receive federal funds since it should be the responsibility of the state government to collect those funds and distribute them in the first place. Just my 2 cents.
...it sounds like they still got some pretty basic things wrong. Pity, because the world really does need an alternative to Photoshop.
It is not supposed to be an alternative to photoshop. This is mostly a tool for organizing and making standard alterations to the massive collections professional photographers amass. Have you ever watched a pro-photographer. Most of them take dozens of photographs of the same scene in an attempt to get the one they want/need. This lets them quickly find that one among the thousand images they took last Tuesday. This in not for heavy image editing.
I thought that it was actually the case that white text on a dark background was _better_ on a monitor, since a monitor's natural state is black.
The reason white (actually very light grey) on black is optimal on monitors, while black on white is optimal for prints is very simple. Monitors don't just reflect light (with perfect black being none reflected) but emit light. Even the black on a monitor is actually a dark grey emission of the primary colors. Eyes tire out and become fatigued staring at a light source for extended periods. White emits the most light and tires out your eyes the most quickly.
And you can tell me with a strait face that Linux is the answer? If not Linux then what OS?
Any OS that competes effectively on the desktop is the answer, but that will not happen unless MS stranglehold on the distribution, pre-installed, via OEMs is broken and that won't happen unless the legal system does its job. Linux, MacOS X, and even customized Windows distributions already do a much better job dealing with malware than the default Windows install. If MS starts losing users over the issue, to any OS, they will probably find it more profitable to fix the issue than make money of of it as an upgrade incentive.
I'm willing to bet if Linux had the market share that Windows had we would be having spyware on it, but anyone who uses Linux is going to have most likely common sense and is not going to be a complete moron and go around downloading crap.
If Linux had the same market share, it would, indeed get spyware. Then one month later the problem would be largely mitigated as the systems were updated. Windows has active X, IE, and Outlook all of which do not provide appropriate safeguards to stop arbitrary code from being run. They mingle the Web browser code with the file browsing code, making even more problems. They don't have usable non-admin accounts and have no fixed there local privilege escalations. They are not timely with their remote exploit fixes. The architecture is such that it requires extensive testing before the deployment of fixes. Local services are exposed to the network. Unneeded services are on by default. Insufficient warning is given when running a new executable. All of these are problems that could be fixed in Windows and have been fixed on Linux, because on Linux the developers are responsive to the needs of the users.
Next is Mac OS X, sure the OS might be nice by you pay though the ass to get a Mac, and spyware still exists on the Mac, I've seen it.
Really, do you have an example?
Right now Linux, the BSDs, MacOS X, etc. are better than Windows in dealing with malware. Furthermore, they don't have much of a malware problem. If they did have a malware problem, it would be fixed... then MS could copy it, poorly, and we'd all be better off.
How about learning to operate a computer first? Most of these users with spyware problem stem from being computer illiterate.
I disagree for the most part. Users should not have to be computer experts to use them. There should be no link in an e-mail message or web site that will install spyware without any more user intervention. Software should be properly restricted by default, from access to your files, the internet, and the core OS. When I'm listening to the radio and I hear an ad for a new station on 143.6 AM, I don't have any fear of navigating the dial to that station, because just listening to a given station is unlikely to cause my radio to start reporting my listening habits and adding extra ads from that point on. Computers should be the same.
Take my brother for example he installs anything he wants on his computer and dosen't care because as soon as I come home to visit my mother guess who is going to format and reinstall the OS again and make everything beter again and this cycle goes on and on.
While what he is doing is ill informed (or he is just uncaring) he should be able to install anything he wants without worrying about it doing malicious things, unless he specifically allows it. Other OS's have sandboxes and good application level ACLs, although none are really up to snuff. Of course other OS's don't have a malware problem, so there is little need as yet. Your blithe acceptance of the problem, is part of the problem. If there were two major OS's competing in the space, based upon the quality of the solutions, the malware problem would 99% mitigated in a matter of months. The problem is not solved because MS does not care to solve it.
The problem is, if someone wants to try a new program they got off the internet, once the spyware is installed and they realized what happened, they need a way to get the crap off their computer - but most of it provides you no good way to remove it. This is where these spyware scanners are handy - they provide, essentially, an uninstaller for the spyware crap you want to get rid of.
Your solution, however, is flawed in the long-term. When spyware installs with the same privileges as spyware scanners, it is an arms battle that the spyware removal cannot always win. Also, it necessarily is a black list, which will never be completely up-to-date and comprehensive. It also missed viruses and worms that are self-mutating and are different in every iteration.
The correct solution is to provide appropriate and easily understood ACLs or sandboxes for new applications. By default and program you download should have exactly zero access to and files it does not create itself and no permission to install files outside it's own little directory. Further it should have no permission to alter other processes or to access the internet. If any new program needs any of these abilities the system should ask the user in such a way that they are informed. A dialogue box that says "program X wants to use TCP port 5050, (OK)(Cancel)" is insufficient. A message that says, "This program wants to access the internet in a way normally used for internet chatting. Would you like to (Allow Access)(Deny Access)(View Advanced Options)" would be more like it. All programs should register the privileges they require with the OS and ask for them the first time the software runs. The issue of having an uninstaller should be moot for most people as most people never want software to access the core/kernel of their OS and all other programs can be made into self-contained packages on a properly architected system.
...introduces the 'Click This' phenomena - similar to software firewalls that popup a 'keep blocked/unblock' dialog - most users will just allow stuff they don't know to run anyhow, because they think they probably need it if it's on their computer.
Which is why these actions must be very well explained in the GUI and why they have to be tied strongly to the application at install time or the first time it is run. On a well architected system, there is little reason a program needs these privileges and if software makers do ask for unneeded privileges it will be unusual and therefore suspect. Most of the problem with the click through problem you describe (which I call the OK/Cancel problem) is that the OS sends so many dialogue boxes at the users, sometimes with only one option, and always with the same "OK/Cancel" format that discourages users from actually reading the dialogue messages. Users quickly become conditioned to act as though "OK" means "make the system keep working" and some users described it as akin to getting gas for a car. It is just something they have to do for some reason. This is mostly because these messages are overused and very poorly crafted. It is a huge UI failure, that can be remedied.
And that brings you back to needing to remove stuff once it *does* get on the system. There's no way around it...
If a user installs software that is spyware, they should be told of it's malicious activities very quickly. "Program X wants to record your typing, even while you are using other programs (Allow it to record typing only while it is in the foreground)(Deny it all access to the keyboard)(Allow it to record all typing, even when you are using other programs)" type messages will inform the user very quickly. Then, the OS should handle uninstallation. I kind of like the OS X way, just drag it to the trash and it is gone. This is not an unsolvable problem, just a problem MS has seen no need to solve, since they have no competition to drive improvements.
I can't count how many programs (even legit ones) that shouldn't be talking to the internet keep requesting outbound connections. (This is all caught by ZoneAlarm.)
For OS X users, try A href="http://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/in dex.html">Little Snitch for the same functionality. Some of the outbound connections Adobe software attempts to make (weird out of country IP addresses) are scary.
Anyways, with MS going to an XML document base, it is moot to believe their is a need for an open document format. XML IS OPEN, I mean, its a text document in a highly structured standardized format. The tags might mean something different from document to document, but XML is inherently an even easier document format to reverse engineer. By MS going with XML, they are almost implicating that they don't care about proprietary documents anymore.
First, MS has been calling their new format "Open-XML." Now I don't seem to have as big a problem as you do about sticking "open" on the beginning of everything, but it would be nice if the format actually was open so people like you aren't confused into thinking it is an open format.
Second, as I mentioned, their format is not open. It is an XML based format, but it relies upon embedded binaries in closed patented formats and the format itself is only licensed to developers, not truly open. Allow me to detail the practical ways in which MS's format differs. Future versions of the format will not need to be open. No one can add or propose innovative changes to the format without MS agreeing. There is no guarantee that it will be legal to offer a program that opens old version of the format. Technically (according to the license) if MS comes out with a new version of the format every word-processor that still offers the old version is in violation of their license. The license specifically prohibits redistribution, which means no GPL licensed application (like their biggest competitor) can offer that format. The spec as it now exists implements all images embedded in a proprietary format, owned by MS, that only has libraries for viewing available on Windows; instead of with one of the many well documented and supported image formats.
Now if you are being paid by MS you probably already know all this and are just astroturfing for them. If not, please actually read some information on the subject you are espousing opinions about. Preferable read information that is not just an MS press release.
Why? If people like their Tivos, why replace it? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Who says it is not broken? Perhaps not too broken, just not as good as it could be.
Tivo: Watch any show you scheduled to record that has played on the channels you get, unless the cable provided turns on the feature that auto-deletes it from your drive. Watch it anytime after it airs. Pay for a monthly subscription including 95% content you have no interest in.
IP-TV: Watch any show you purchase, including a much wider selection of choices. Watch it after the download is complete. No monthly subscription is needed and you buy only what you want. This is the ultimate "a la cart." This also allows for competitive pricing/supply and is not limited to how much programming can be crammed over the cable system at one time.
Aside from that, a lot of us are not happy with Tivo. I passed on buying one after considering a number of options because they were no offering what I wanted as much as what their cable company partners wanted. The DRM, the obfuscated features, no editing of content, and specifically making it hard to move shows onto other devices were all considerations, but the kicker was price. I don't want to shell out a huge chunk of money for a Tivo that can burn DVDs, and still have to pay a monthly subscription on top of that. There is plenty of room for someone to out-feature Tivo.
Just to clarify this submission for people... it contains two, unrelated links. The first is a CNN article about FrontRow and is old news. The second is speculation on a rumor site about the new version of the mac mini and how Apple will tie in a new video service that is largely inferior to what they are offering now, via iTunes, and that will not work with the new iPods video capabilities. The whole thing sounds rather suspect to me.
One thing that bugs me is the fact that you're stuck with their display.
So hacksaw it off already. It supports a second display (mirrored). Or you could just wait till they release the new towers and minis and buy one of them and a display of your choice.
"Front Row doesn't display live TV" That is pretty limited functionality. So, why would you hook this up to your TV?
TVs already display live TV. The idea is that this can be a replacement for your DVD player and CD player. It lets you easily play music, movies, and TV shows and other video you buy online. I think they are hoping to basically do an end run around the cable and satellite companies. Instead of subscribing to cable, you just buy the shows you want rather than a subscription to a bunch of shows you don't want and a few you do. The main drawback is the cost per show (which seems high). The main advantage is it lets you have a permanent copy and see it whenever you want, instead of on a fixed schedule.
Your mac most definitely has not done this for years. Even updating Safari requires a reboot on OSX.
Not so. The mac can handle updating of almost anything just fine without a reboot. In fact I have updated Safari without Update.app asking me to reboot (just restart Safari). You're probably thinking about updates to WebCore, upon which Safari and several other applications rely. I think this may be confusing to many people because Update.app is overly enthusiastic about asking you to reboot the machine, rather than trying to explain to most users what apps/services need to be restarted. I usually use Update.app to install everything, quit it without restarting, and manually restart affected services if I'm in the middle of something and don't feel like reopening all my terminals and other applications.
To summarize: OS X has this capability, Update.app uses it (but maybe not as well as some people would like).
It can take longer then 17 seconds just to load up a Database server. Being able to update without a reboot can save a company from potentially missing out of hundreds to thousands of transactions, as people click "Buy now" and are told, "We are currently updating our systems, please come back in approximately 30 minutes." Would you? I wouldn't.
If you're processing hundreds of thousands of transactions in a 17 second period and the service is not load balanced across multiple systems allowing you to take any one server down and upgrade it, well you've made some very "interesting" design choices. Of course if you're trying run hundreds of thousands of transactions in 17 seconds using a Windows based service I guess it is obvious you're really into "interesting" design decisions.
If only end-users didn't copy so many DVDs, Movie studios wouldn't feel the need to encrypt their movies.
I really hope you are joking. How does encrypting a DVD stop it from being copied? You can make perfect duplicates of encrypted DVDs just fine without touching the encryption. It does exactly nothing to stop the copying and pirating of DVDs as is evidenced in countries around the world.
The encryption is designed to stop two things. First it is designed to stop DVDs from being played in different regions, using the hardware sold in those regions. Mostly this is so studios who sell DVDs of movies in the US, before releasing that movie into theaters in Europe don't have to compete with the DVD version at the box office. Many people want to see the new Harry Potter movie and are happy to watch it on a DVD from the states if it is available that way before it makes it to a theater near them. Also, the original plan was to sell at different prices in different locations, which has largely fallen by the wayside since DVD player manufacturers, including Sony, did not bother to implement the region coding on all their players.
Secondly, the encryption is designed so that you will eventually have to buy a second copy of the same movie. That is to say, it is the intention of the movie distribution corporations to eventually introduce a new format for movies and they want to make sure you can't convert your DVDs into that new format legally. The music industry has long lamented the fact that CDs have no such encryption and thus most music on portable MP3 players is ripped from CD. They would much rather you had to pay if you want it on your MP3 player and again if you want it on your phone and again if you want it in your car, etc. etc.
Let me make this very clear. DRM does not stop pirating. If I can see a movie or hear a song, I can record that with a camcorder and sell copies. Large scale pirating will always crack or get around DRM, because DRM is a flawed security scheme. You can't securely give people data, let them view it, but keep them from copying it. It does not work and the media companies know it. They only use piracy as an excuse, so please stop buying that excuse. It is about technologically removing fair-use and making you pay more money again and again for the same product.
I hope the final version is free... Otherwise, it'll be like paying the mafia for "protection."
Free (as in beer) only makes sense in a free (as in freedom) market, MS is a monopoly. Even if they give it away to everyone at no cost in $$$, the cost of development has to be paid. It is just rolled into the cost of Windows (which you have to pay for). So no, unless MS loses their monopoly on desktop operating system, it won't be free. MS giving this away for free is anti-competative and illegal. MS charging for it is racketeering and illegal. MS should not be entering this market at all, they should be fixing their bloody OS.
Look at the numbers. Whoever would have thought that the numbers for MS and Apple would have got this close?
Counting the number of bugfixes released is no measure a a system's security. The number of remote vulnerabilities on a default install of the OS, the ease of exploiting those vulnerabilities, the number of local exploits, and the likelihood of an exploit happening are all factors. Additionally, predictive criteria, like past performance and the exposure and design of the architecture may be useful. If you look at Windows it has innumerable unpatched local vulnerabilities and working exploits that have existed for many years. They don't even bother fixing them most of the time. OS X on the other hand has a handful of potential local priviledge escalations vulnerabilities, that are fixed in a timely manner, and with one or two proof of concept exploits (none unpatched). Windows has a number of long running remote vulnerabilities and they crop up every month. Exploits for these vulnerabilities occasionally appear before a fix is available for the vulnerability, and regularly appear before administrators have time to thoroughly test those fixes (which is very necessary due to the kludgy Windows architecture and their history of catastrophically broken patches). On OS X I am unaware of any remote vulnerability with a published exploit that preceded the fix for that vulnerability.
The ease of exploitation of vulnerabilities on Windows is much higher due to the lack of a usable non-admin environment, non-network services that run exposed on the network, default settings that run unneeded services, auto execution of scripts and executables within default and unremovable applications, ease of concealing the nature of an executable in the GUI, integration of web browsing and file browsing code, lack of packaging for executables, shared registry, and larger install base for automated propagation. OS X is by no means perfect and experiences regular security flaws. Much of the security auditing that is done, is a side benefit of the open source user environment components OS X shares with other UNIX-like systems. I'd be much happier if Apple did some more thorough security testing of their products. That said, to make the argument that the security of OS X is approaching the same level of complete cluster-fuckedness that is Windows based solely on counting the number of vulnerabilities patched by the respective vendors is ludicrous.
Wikipedia isn't a common carrier. What gave you the idea that it was? Wikipedia isn't even a carrier at all. Nor are they common because they exert editorial control.
First, he complains about Bell South being protected, and he complains about the protected status granted to online service providers (like Wikipedia) that grants them protection for being held responsible for the posts of those using the service (very analogous to common carrier). Without this protection, for example, Web mail providers could be held liable for publishing libelous remarks in e-mail messages. This is exactly why common carrier status was created. So while wikipedia is not, technically, a common carrier; they do enjoy many of the same protections for the same reason. Wikipedia does exert editorial control, as you said, but they also publish a disclaimer absolving themselves of responsibility for the content. I hope that clarifies my earlier statement.
The thing is, "sticks and stones" doesn't work in the real world.
I never said it did. The thing is free speech is a very important right. Without it, our psuedo-democracy fails completely. Thus we have protections for free speech, but those protections do not protect one from responsibility for what was said. When someone slanders or makes libelous writings, they are responsible for the results of their actions and it is wholly proper to take the author of an article or a student (and their guardian) to court over the issue. If you lose your job due to a false accusation then both your employer and the maker of that accusation owe you compensation for the wrong they have done to you.
What the person in question is advocating, however, is prior restraint. The closest analogy I can come up with that fits in with your experience is if a student wrote, "Some people thought Mr. Jones molested Annie Smith" on the blackboard at school and then several students told their friends and family about it. Mr. Jones then advocated that the school should be responsible for everything written on their blackboards and should hire people to constantly watch all the blackboards and should be guilty of libel themselves if someone wrote libelous remarks on them.
What I was saying is that it is fine for Mr. Jones, or Mr. Seigenthaler to say that, but it does not make them right and to hold one person responsible for what another has written is a step towards default censorship of everything. Mr. Seigenthaler has a means to solve this problem. All he needs to to is file a John Doe lawsuit against the author, subpoena the records of who wrote it, and if the writing is found to have been libelous then he will be compensated for it and others will be discouraged from doing the same thing. He seems to think doing things the proper way, however, is to onerous a price to pay for free speech, and his lawyers have also probably advised him that this particular writing is actually a statement of fact (one that he may not like) and as such he is unlikely to win his case.
So lets hear no nonsense about this poor wronged man, rather regard him as the hypocrite that he is, who is advocating the removal of some of our most important rights. It is not legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater but for someone to propose installing gags on everyone on the way in or holding the theater culpable if someone yells, "Ice cream" and it distracts you from the movie is just moronic whining.
He's an intelligent enough man to recognize libel. Contrary to popular belief here on Slashdot, nothing about the First Amendment requires him to ignore that. Why would he?
Well we could debate whether or not this is libelous, but that would get us nowhere. Here's how it works. If I find something libelous printed about me, on Wikipedia (hosted by some ISP) or distributed via the Post Office (both common carriers) I can ask Wikipedia or the print shop who generated that libel and then I can sue them. Or, if they are unwilling to reveal that name I can file a John Doe lawsuit and subpoena the information. That is plenty intelligent. If I'm less intelligent, or perhaps less a believer in free speech, I can write my own article and try to convince people that common carriers should be responsible for vetting all the content channeled through them, or that a particular common carrier should be held responsible. Alternately, if I was intelligent, but malicious and someone printed something I did not like, but was not libel, I could do the same thing in an attempt to suppress free speech.
Accusing people of involvement in the murder of their friends will make people extremely angry
True. Also, mentioning that some people may have believed that you were involved in the death of your friend may make you angry as well. It is fine to get angry about what other people say. Personally I get angry listening to the hate mongering televangelists on TV who exploit the hopes of the desperate and mislead millions about the teachings of a wise man in an attempt to profit and grab power for themselves. I don't, however, compromise my ethical belief in free speech by telling everyone that they should be censored and that the TV networks that show them should be responsible for making sure everything they say is not slander. I fully support this man's right to write this article, but I abhor the content as un-American and anti-freedom.
IRC is like setting up your own propriety network. You and your friends can talk to each other, but not to anyone not on the server (unless you specifically link to that server). Jabber is more like e-mail, it will allow communication between anyone using the protocol. You might get messages from bob@fakething.net or something even though you don't know anyone who runs the fakething.net servers and have not negotiated a link with them.
How do you explain this to your idiot friends, who will invariably want to know if smarterchild will be there?
You explain it as, "hey let me switch you to this client that works with my server. Now we can chat without anyone spying on us. Yes Smarterchild and all your other friends and bots are already there."
Basically, people dont care if their messenger is that great, because i run google talk, and it does me no good all because my buddy isnt there too.
Google talk is a Jabber server, but it is a crippled one that cannot talk to other jabber servers and it does not have a bridge to the other protocols set up. Don't mistake google talk for what I was proposing. The point of the bridge is that you can talk seamlessly with other protocols, including all the protocols some users current client can't talk to. Basically it is easy to bill as we can add the ability for you to talk to twice as many people and talk to some people securely if need be.
Actually, there are quite a few clients that offer this capability, but few services that officially support it and few clients that are the "default" client. I mentioned iChat because they have an official agreement with AOL to do this over AIM and because it is the default client on all macs, which means it has meaningful market share and visibility.
OK, so there is an easter egg that makes the "skip to the end" skip forward. It might even be labeled in such a way that it is not completely confusing. How about the 20 second jump back? Skipping ahead 30 seconds is great and all, but it often results in going slightly past the end of the commercials. Half the functionality I want hidden in a easter egg is not exactly what I, as a consumer, want for my PVR. Part of Tivo's appeal is that they are easy to use and ready out of the box. This just does not cut it.
So, six buttons on the remote is a "hack," but editing digital video streams is easy like pie?
I, and several friends and family, like to archive favorite shows and movies to disk. My current PVR includes a simplistic editor for cutting out commercials. That means I can fit six episodes per DVD instead of four. That is a significant cost savings and it means I don't have to worry about skipping commercials the second time I watch something. It is easy enough that no one who has tried it has had a problem. You select the beginning of the commercial, click a button, and select the end. When all the portions you want removed are highlighted you click the other button and it re-encodes the episode, minus those portions. I think that it has four buttons and a slider including the advanced features.
DRM is pretty much the law these days (for better or worse.) Sure, some DVRs ignore it, but they're either open source hacks or grey / third market units that do about two dollars a year in sales.
No it isn't the law and you'd think someone who posts here should know that. There is nothing illegal about not adding DRM to video you record yourself. This is the same thing as a VCR and they are legal. Implying otherwise and referring to products not made by companies tightly working with the content distributors as "gray market" is just FUD that attempts to shift the blame away from Tivo. They sold you out, deal with it.
Most people are going to use whatever DVR content provider X offers them. Since Comcast is one of (if not the) biggest cable companies in the US, and they will soon use Tivo exclusively, Tivo will automatically get plenty of market share.
Yup, nothing at all wrong with a government mandated monopoly (only one set of cable lines is legally allowed in most localities in the US) bundling a new device with that monopoly service and subsidizing the cost with their current monopoly. Nope sounds kosher to me.
Sure, there'll be a couple of companies that sell rebranded DVRs to the clueless, cheap, disinterested, (and of course the MythTV / Windows Media Center hackers,) but they'll all share the 20% (or less) of the market that Tivo doesn't care about because it's not profitable.
So here's the thing about companies that don't serve their customers best interests, they get killed when someone does. The cable companies made a deal with Tivo because they were caught with their pants down. They bought out Tivo to buy time. Someone else will make a PVR that does what Tivo should have and unless the cable companies can get entrenched enough and get laws passed to mandate DRM and restrict the decoding of that DRM then that new player or players will crush Tivo. As it is, calling people who use MythTV and other solutions that provide more and better functionality "clueless" is a bit backwards, don't you think? After all, I can easily skip commercials, edit and burn DVDs, and I have my choice of scheduling services (including the one I use that has no fee). To me that is superior to the results I can get from a Tivo and at a much better price. I'd call people who use the inferior Tivo service at greater cost, because they don't know any better the "clueless" ones here.
Slashdot Mirror
As the Parent poster points out, I'm free to create a blog and call my boss a stupid fuckhead. on the other hand, he's also free to fire my ass as soon as he finds out.
What country do you live in? If my boss fires me for calling him (or her, I have multiple bosses) a fuckhead, on my own time, on a private blog, that is certainly their right. But it is just about equally as certain that if they are foolish enough to give that as the stated reason, I'll win my civil suit for wrongful termination. Basically, if it doesn't affect my work and isn't done on company time, they are liable if they fire me for it.
Your comments are well written and reasonable. I'd like to add a few things, however, that might be important to consider. First, a quick search seems to indicate Marquette does indeed accept federal funding. Second, while you rightly claim that the government has a legal monopoly on the use of force (as you describe it) I think it is important to note that this is not limited to the federal government, but also to the state and local governments. The state can just as easily force me to pay taxes and use those funds to pay for an institution that restricts free speech, in violation of both the federal and state constitutions. Finally, I think it is important to recognize that the federal collection of taxes, which are then redistributed back to institutions in states who were originally taxed. That overtaxing and then redistribution undermines the tiered system of government as it was originally created, consolidating power at the federal level under threat of withholding money it should not have taxed in the first place.
I think all of these points are important, because this situation is one that should not exist (IMHO). Arguing whether a school can restrict free speech based upon their federal funding is fine, until one questions why the federal government is the one who collected these taxes. The feds are using them to control the actions of universities, states, and other local enterprises. Just look at the to-do about federal funds used in experiments with some stem cells or allowing the army access to recruit on campus. That sort of control is supposed to be the province of the state governments, but the federal government has exploited this loophole on a truly massive scale. No marquette university should not be trying to restrict free speech. Yes, they receive federal funds. No, they should not have to receive federal funds since it should be the responsibility of the state government to collect those funds and distribute them in the first place. Just my 2 cents.
It is not supposed to be an alternative to photoshop. This is mostly a tool for organizing and making standard alterations to the massive collections professional photographers amass. Have you ever watched a pro-photographer. Most of them take dozens of photographs of the same scene in an attempt to get the one they want/need. This lets them quickly find that one among the thousand images they took last Tuesday. This in not for heavy image editing.
I thought that it was actually the case that white text on a dark background was _better_ on a monitor, since a monitor's natural state is black.
The reason white (actually very light grey) on black is optimal on monitors, while black on white is optimal for prints is very simple. Monitors don't just reflect light (with perfect black being none reflected) but emit light. Even the black on a monitor is actually a dark grey emission of the primary colors. Eyes tire out and become fatigued staring at a light source for extended periods. White emits the most light and tires out your eyes the most quickly.
And you can tell me with a strait face that Linux is the answer? If not Linux then what OS?
Any OS that competes effectively on the desktop is the answer, but that will not happen unless MS stranglehold on the distribution, pre-installed, via OEMs is broken and that won't happen unless the legal system does its job. Linux, MacOS X, and even customized Windows distributions already do a much better job dealing with malware than the default Windows install. If MS starts losing users over the issue, to any OS, they will probably find it more profitable to fix the issue than make money of of it as an upgrade incentive.
I'm willing to bet if Linux had the market share that Windows had we would be having spyware on it, but anyone who uses Linux is going to have most likely common sense and is not going to be a complete moron and go around downloading crap.
If Linux had the same market share, it would, indeed get spyware. Then one month later the problem would be largely mitigated as the systems were updated. Windows has active X, IE, and Outlook all of which do not provide appropriate safeguards to stop arbitrary code from being run. They mingle the Web browser code with the file browsing code, making even more problems. They don't have usable non-admin accounts and have no fixed there local privilege escalations. They are not timely with their remote exploit fixes. The architecture is such that it requires extensive testing before the deployment of fixes. Local services are exposed to the network. Unneeded services are on by default. Insufficient warning is given when running a new executable. All of these are problems that could be fixed in Windows and have been fixed on Linux, because on Linux the developers are responsive to the needs of the users.
Next is Mac OS X, sure the OS might be nice by you pay though the ass to get a Mac, and spyware still exists on the Mac, I've seen it.
Really, do you have an example?
Right now Linux, the BSDs, MacOS X, etc. are better than Windows in dealing with malware. Furthermore, they don't have much of a malware problem. If they did have a malware problem, it would be fixed... then MS could copy it, poorly, and we'd all be better off.
How about learning to operate a computer first? Most of these users with spyware problem stem from being computer illiterate.
I disagree for the most part. Users should not have to be computer experts to use them. There should be no link in an e-mail message or web site that will install spyware without any more user intervention. Software should be properly restricted by default, from access to your files, the internet, and the core OS. When I'm listening to the radio and I hear an ad for a new station on 143.6 AM, I don't have any fear of navigating the dial to that station, because just listening to a given station is unlikely to cause my radio to start reporting my listening habits and adding extra ads from that point on. Computers should be the same.
Take my brother for example he installs anything he wants on his computer and dosen't care because as soon as I come home to visit my mother guess who is going to format and reinstall the OS again and make everything beter again and this cycle goes on and on.
While what he is doing is ill informed (or he is just uncaring) he should be able to install anything he wants without worrying about it doing malicious things, unless he specifically allows it. Other OS's have sandboxes and good application level ACLs, although none are really up to snuff. Of course other OS's don't have a malware problem, so there is little need as yet. Your blithe acceptance of the problem, is part of the problem. If there were two major OS's competing in the space, based upon the quality of the solutions, the malware problem would 99% mitigated in a matter of months. The problem is not solved because MS does not care to solve it.
The problem is, if someone wants to try a new program they got off the internet, once the spyware is installed and they realized what happened, they need a way to get the crap off their computer - but most of it provides you no good way to remove it. This is where these spyware scanners are handy - they provide, essentially, an uninstaller for the spyware crap you want to get rid of.
Your solution, however, is flawed in the long-term. When spyware installs with the same privileges as spyware scanners, it is an arms battle that the spyware removal cannot always win. Also, it necessarily is a black list, which will never be completely up-to-date and comprehensive. It also missed viruses and worms that are self-mutating and are different in every iteration.
The correct solution is to provide appropriate and easily understood ACLs or sandboxes for new applications. By default and program you download should have exactly zero access to and files it does not create itself and no permission to install files outside it's own little directory. Further it should have no permission to alter other processes or to access the internet. If any new program needs any of these abilities the system should ask the user in such a way that they are informed. A dialogue box that says "program X wants to use TCP port 5050, (OK)(Cancel)" is insufficient. A message that says, "This program wants to access the internet in a way normally used for internet chatting. Would you like to (Allow Access)(Deny Access)(View Advanced Options)" would be more like it. All programs should register the privileges they require with the OS and ask for them the first time the software runs. The issue of having an uninstaller should be moot for most people as most people never want software to access the core/kernel of their OS and all other programs can be made into self-contained packages on a properly architected system.
Which is why these actions must be very well explained in the GUI and why they have to be tied strongly to the application at install time or the first time it is run. On a well architected system, there is little reason a program needs these privileges and if software makers do ask for unneeded privileges it will be unusual and therefore suspect. Most of the problem with the click through problem you describe (which I call the OK/Cancel problem) is that the OS sends so many dialogue boxes at the users, sometimes with only one option, and always with the same "OK/Cancel" format that discourages users from actually reading the dialogue messages. Users quickly become conditioned to act as though "OK" means "make the system keep working" and some users described it as akin to getting gas for a car. It is just something they have to do for some reason. This is mostly because these messages are overused and very poorly crafted. It is a huge UI failure, that can be remedied.
And that brings you back to needing to remove stuff once it *does* get on the system. There's no way around it...
If a user installs software that is spyware, they should be told of it's malicious activities very quickly. "Program X wants to record your typing, even while you are using other programs (Allow it to record typing only while it is in the foreground)(Deny it all access to the keyboard)(Allow it to record all typing, even when you are using other programs)" type messages will inform the user very quickly. Then, the OS should handle uninstallation. I kind of like the OS X way, just drag it to the trash and it is gone. This is not an unsolvable problem, just a problem MS has seen no need to solve, since they have no competition to drive improvements.
I can't count how many programs (even legit ones) that shouldn't be talking to the internet keep requesting outbound connections. (This is all caught by ZoneAlarm.)
For OS X users, try A href="http://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/in dex.html">Little Snitch for the same functionality. Some of the outbound connections Adobe software attempts to make (weird out of country IP addresses) are scary.
Anyways, with MS going to an XML document base, it is moot to believe their is a need for an open document format. XML IS OPEN, I mean, its a text document in a highly structured standardized format. The tags might mean something different from document to document, but XML is inherently an even easier document format to reverse engineer. By MS going with XML, they are almost implicating that they don't care about proprietary documents anymore.
First, MS has been calling their new format "Open-XML." Now I don't seem to have as big a problem as you do about sticking "open" on the beginning of everything, but it would be nice if the format actually was open so people like you aren't confused into thinking it is an open format.
Second, as I mentioned, their format is not open. It is an XML based format, but it relies upon embedded binaries in closed patented formats and the format itself is only licensed to developers, not truly open. Allow me to detail the practical ways in which MS's format differs. Future versions of the format will not need to be open. No one can add or propose innovative changes to the format without MS agreeing. There is no guarantee that it will be legal to offer a program that opens old version of the format. Technically (according to the license) if MS comes out with a new version of the format every word-processor that still offers the old version is in violation of their license. The license specifically prohibits redistribution, which means no GPL licensed application (like their biggest competitor) can offer that format. The spec as it now exists implements all images embedded in a proprietary format, owned by MS, that only has libraries for viewing available on Windows; instead of with one of the many well documented and supported image formats.
Now if you are being paid by MS you probably already know all this and are just astroturfing for them. If not, please actually read some information on the subject you are espousing opinions about. Preferable read information that is not just an MS press release.
Why? If people like their Tivos, why replace it? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Who says it is not broken? Perhaps not too broken, just not as good as it could be.
Tivo: Watch any show you scheduled to record that has played on the channels you get, unless the cable provided turns on the feature that auto-deletes it from your drive. Watch it anytime after it airs. Pay for a monthly subscription including 95% content you have no interest in.
IP-TV: Watch any show you purchase, including a much wider selection of choices. Watch it after the download is complete. No monthly subscription is needed and you buy only what you want. This is the ultimate "a la cart." This also allows for competitive pricing/supply and is not limited to how much programming can be crammed over the cable system at one time.
Aside from that, a lot of us are not happy with Tivo. I passed on buying one after considering a number of options because they were no offering what I wanted as much as what their cable company partners wanted. The DRM, the obfuscated features, no editing of content, and specifically making it hard to move shows onto other devices were all considerations, but the kicker was price. I don't want to shell out a huge chunk of money for a Tivo that can burn DVDs, and still have to pay a monthly subscription on top of that. There is plenty of room for someone to out-feature Tivo.
Just to clarify this submission for people... it contains two, unrelated links. The first is a CNN article about FrontRow and is old news. The second is speculation on a rumor site about the new version of the mac mini and how Apple will tie in a new video service that is largely inferior to what they are offering now, via iTunes, and that will not work with the new iPods video capabilities. The whole thing sounds rather suspect to me.
One thing that bugs me is the fact that you're stuck with their display.
So hacksaw it off already. It supports a second display (mirrored). Or you could just wait till they release the new towers and minis and buy one of them and a display of your choice.
"Front Row doesn't display live TV" That is pretty limited functionality. So, why would you hook this up to your TV?
TVs already display live TV. The idea is that this can be a replacement for your DVD player and CD player. It lets you easily play music, movies, and TV shows and other video you buy online. I think they are hoping to basically do an end run around the cable and satellite companies. Instead of subscribing to cable, you just buy the shows you want rather than a subscription to a bunch of shows you don't want and a few you do. The main drawback is the cost per show (which seems high). The main advantage is it lets you have a permanent copy and see it whenever you want, instead of on a fixed schedule.
Your mac most definitely has not done this for years. Even updating Safari requires a reboot on OSX.
Not so. The mac can handle updating of almost anything just fine without a reboot. In fact I have updated Safari without Update.app asking me to reboot (just restart Safari). You're probably thinking about updates to WebCore, upon which Safari and several other applications rely. I think this may be confusing to many people because Update.app is overly enthusiastic about asking you to reboot the machine, rather than trying to explain to most users what apps/services need to be restarted. I usually use Update.app to install everything, quit it without restarting, and manually restart affected services if I'm in the middle of something and don't feel like reopening all my terminals and other applications.
To summarize: OS X has this capability, Update.app uses it (but maybe not as well as some people would like).
It can take longer then 17 seconds just to load up a Database server. Being able to update without a reboot can save a company from potentially missing out of hundreds to thousands of transactions, as people click "Buy now" and are told, "We are currently updating our systems, please come back in approximately 30 minutes." Would you? I wouldn't.
If you're processing hundreds of thousands of transactions in a 17 second period and the service is not load balanced across multiple systems allowing you to take any one server down and upgrade it, well you've made some very "interesting" design choices. Of course if you're trying run hundreds of thousands of transactions in 17 seconds using a Windows based service I guess it is obvious you're really into "interesting" design decisions.
If only end-users didn't copy so many DVDs, Movie studios wouldn't feel the need to encrypt their movies.
I really hope you are joking. How does encrypting a DVD stop it from being copied? You can make perfect duplicates of encrypted DVDs just fine without touching the encryption. It does exactly nothing to stop the copying and pirating of DVDs as is evidenced in countries around the world.
The encryption is designed to stop two things. First it is designed to stop DVDs from being played in different regions, using the hardware sold in those regions. Mostly this is so studios who sell DVDs of movies in the US, before releasing that movie into theaters in Europe don't have to compete with the DVD version at the box office. Many people want to see the new Harry Potter movie and are happy to watch it on a DVD from the states if it is available that way before it makes it to a theater near them. Also, the original plan was to sell at different prices in different locations, which has largely fallen by the wayside since DVD player manufacturers, including Sony, did not bother to implement the region coding on all their players.
Secondly, the encryption is designed so that you will eventually have to buy a second copy of the same movie. That is to say, it is the intention of the movie distribution corporations to eventually introduce a new format for movies and they want to make sure you can't convert your DVDs into that new format legally. The music industry has long lamented the fact that CDs have no such encryption and thus most music on portable MP3 players is ripped from CD. They would much rather you had to pay if you want it on your MP3 player and again if you want it on your phone and again if you want it in your car, etc. etc.
Let me make this very clear. DRM does not stop pirating. If I can see a movie or hear a song, I can record that with a camcorder and sell copies. Large scale pirating will always crack or get around DRM, because DRM is a flawed security scheme. You can't securely give people data, let them view it, but keep them from copying it. It does not work and the media companies know it. They only use piracy as an excuse, so please stop buying that excuse. It is about technologically removing fair-use and making you pay more money again and again for the same product.
I hope the final version is free... Otherwise, it'll be like paying the mafia for "protection."
Free (as in beer) only makes sense in a free (as in freedom) market, MS is a monopoly. Even if they give it away to everyone at no cost in $$$, the cost of development has to be paid. It is just rolled into the cost of Windows (which you have to pay for). So no, unless MS loses their monopoly on desktop operating system, it won't be free. MS giving this away for free is anti-competative and illegal. MS charging for it is racketeering and illegal. MS should not be entering this market at all, they should be fixing their bloody OS.
Look at the numbers. Whoever would have thought that the numbers for MS and Apple would have got this close?
Counting the number of bugfixes released is no measure a a system's security. The number of remote vulnerabilities on a default install of the OS, the ease of exploiting those vulnerabilities, the number of local exploits, and the likelihood of an exploit happening are all factors. Additionally, predictive criteria, like past performance and the exposure and design of the architecture may be useful. If you look at Windows it has innumerable unpatched local vulnerabilities and working exploits that have existed for many years. They don't even bother fixing them most of the time. OS X on the other hand has a handful of potential local priviledge escalations vulnerabilities, that are fixed in a timely manner, and with one or two proof of concept exploits (none unpatched). Windows has a number of long running remote vulnerabilities and they crop up every month. Exploits for these vulnerabilities occasionally appear before a fix is available for the vulnerability, and regularly appear before administrators have time to thoroughly test those fixes (which is very necessary due to the kludgy Windows architecture and their history of catastrophically broken patches). On OS X I am unaware of any remote vulnerability with a published exploit that preceded the fix for that vulnerability.
The ease of exploitation of vulnerabilities on Windows is much higher due to the lack of a usable non-admin environment, non-network services that run exposed on the network, default settings that run unneeded services, auto execution of scripts and executables within default and unremovable applications, ease of concealing the nature of an executable in the GUI, integration of web browsing and file browsing code, lack of packaging for executables, shared registry, and larger install base for automated propagation. OS X is by no means perfect and experiences regular security flaws. Much of the security auditing that is done, is a side benefit of the open source user environment components OS X shares with other UNIX-like systems. I'd be much happier if Apple did some more thorough security testing of their products. That said, to make the argument that the security of OS X is approaching the same level of complete cluster-fuckedness that is Windows based solely on counting the number of vulnerabilities patched by the respective vendors is ludicrous.
Wikipedia isn't a common carrier. What gave you the idea that it was? Wikipedia isn't even a carrier at all. Nor are they common because they exert editorial control.
First, he complains about Bell South being protected, and he complains about the protected status granted to online service providers (like Wikipedia) that grants them protection for being held responsible for the posts of those using the service (very analogous to common carrier). Without this protection, for example, Web mail providers could be held liable for publishing libelous remarks in e-mail messages. This is exactly why common carrier status was created. So while wikipedia is not, technically, a common carrier; they do enjoy many of the same protections for the same reason. Wikipedia does exert editorial control, as you said, but they also publish a disclaimer absolving themselves of responsibility for the content. I hope that clarifies my earlier statement.
The thing is, "sticks and stones" doesn't work in the real world.
I never said it did. The thing is free speech is a very important right. Without it, our psuedo-democracy fails completely. Thus we have protections for free speech, but those protections do not protect one from responsibility for what was said. When someone slanders or makes libelous writings, they are responsible for the results of their actions and it is wholly proper to take the author of an article or a student (and their guardian) to court over the issue. If you lose your job due to a false accusation then both your employer and the maker of that accusation owe you compensation for the wrong they have done to you.
What the person in question is advocating, however, is prior restraint. The closest analogy I can come up with that fits in with your experience is if a student wrote, "Some people thought Mr. Jones molested Annie Smith" on the blackboard at school and then several students told their friends and family about it. Mr. Jones then advocated that the school should be responsible for everything written on their blackboards and should hire people to constantly watch all the blackboards and should be guilty of libel themselves if someone wrote libelous remarks on them.
What I was saying is that it is fine for Mr. Jones, or Mr. Seigenthaler to say that, but it does not make them right and to hold one person responsible for what another has written is a step towards default censorship of everything. Mr. Seigenthaler has a means to solve this problem. All he needs to to is file a John Doe lawsuit against the author, subpoena the records of who wrote it, and if the writing is found to have been libelous then he will be compensated for it and others will be discouraged from doing the same thing. He seems to think doing things the proper way, however, is to onerous a price to pay for free speech, and his lawyers have also probably advised him that this particular writing is actually a statement of fact (one that he may not like) and as such he is unlikely to win his case.
So lets hear no nonsense about this poor wronged man, rather regard him as the hypocrite that he is, who is advocating the removal of some of our most important rights. It is not legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater but for someone to propose installing gags on everyone on the way in or holding the theater culpable if someone yells, "Ice cream" and it distracts you from the movie is just moronic whining.
He's an intelligent enough man to recognize libel. Contrary to popular belief here on Slashdot, nothing about the First Amendment requires him to ignore that. Why would he?
Well we could debate whether or not this is libelous, but that would get us nowhere. Here's how it works. If I find something libelous printed about me, on Wikipedia (hosted by some ISP) or distributed via the Post Office (both common carriers) I can ask Wikipedia or the print shop who generated that libel and then I can sue them. Or, if they are unwilling to reveal that name I can file a John Doe lawsuit and subpoena the information. That is plenty intelligent. If I'm less intelligent, or perhaps less a believer in free speech, I can write my own article and try to convince people that common carriers should be responsible for vetting all the content channeled through them, or that a particular common carrier should be held responsible. Alternately, if I was intelligent, but malicious and someone printed something I did not like, but was not libel, I could do the same thing in an attempt to suppress free speech.
Accusing people of involvement in the murder of their friends will make people extremely angry
True. Also, mentioning that some people may have believed that you were involved in the death of your friend may make you angry as well. It is fine to get angry about what other people say. Personally I get angry listening to the hate mongering televangelists on TV who exploit the hopes of the desperate and mislead millions about the teachings of a wise man in an attempt to profit and grab power for themselves. I don't, however, compromise my ethical belief in free speech by telling everyone that they should be censored and that the TV networks that show them should be responsible for making sure everything they say is not slander. I fully support this man's right to write this article, but I abhor the content as un-American and anti-freedom.
IRC is like setting up your own propriety network. You and your friends can talk to each other, but not to anyone not on the server (unless you specifically link to that server). Jabber is more like e-mail, it will allow communication between anyone using the protocol. You might get messages from bob@fakething.net or something even though you don't know anyone who runs the fakething.net servers and have not negotiated a link with them.
How do you explain this to your idiot friends, who will invariably want to know if smarterchild will be there?
You explain it as, "hey let me switch you to this client that works with my server. Now we can chat without anyone spying on us. Yes Smarterchild and all your other friends and bots are already there."
Basically, people dont care if their messenger is that great, because i run google talk, and it does me no good all because my buddy isnt there too.
Google talk is a Jabber server, but it is a crippled one that cannot talk to other jabber servers and it does not have a bridge to the other protocols set up. Don't mistake google talk for what I was proposing. The point of the bridge is that you can talk seamlessly with other protocols, including all the protocols some users current client can't talk to. Basically it is easy to bill as we can add the ability for you to talk to twice as many people and talk to some people securely if need be.
So does Trillian...
Actually, there are quite a few clients that offer this capability, but few services that officially support it and few clients that are the "default" client. I mentioned iChat because they have an official agreement with AOL to do this over AIM and because it is the default client on all macs, which means it has meaningful market share and visibility.
Hey buddy, try Google!
OK, so there is an easter egg that makes the "skip to the end" skip forward. It might even be labeled in such a way that it is not completely confusing. How about the 20 second jump back? Skipping ahead 30 seconds is great and all, but it often results in going slightly past the end of the commercials. Half the functionality I want hidden in a easter egg is not exactly what I, as a consumer, want for my PVR. Part of Tivo's appeal is that they are easy to use and ready out of the box. This just does not cut it.
So, six buttons on the remote is a "hack," but editing digital video streams is easy like pie?
I, and several friends and family, like to archive favorite shows and movies to disk. My current PVR includes a simplistic editor for cutting out commercials. That means I can fit six episodes per DVD instead of four. That is a significant cost savings and it means I don't have to worry about skipping commercials the second time I watch something. It is easy enough that no one who has tried it has had a problem. You select the beginning of the commercial, click a button, and select the end. When all the portions you want removed are highlighted you click the other button and it re-encodes the episode, minus those portions. I think that it has four buttons and a slider including the advanced features.
DRM is pretty much the law these days (for better or worse.) Sure, some DVRs ignore it, but they're either open source hacks or grey / third market units that do about two dollars a year in sales.
No it isn't the law and you'd think someone who posts here should know that. There is nothing illegal about not adding DRM to video you record yourself. This is the same thing as a VCR and they are legal. Implying otherwise and referring to products not made by companies tightly working with the content distributors as "gray market" is just FUD that attempts to shift the blame away from Tivo. They sold you out, deal with it.
Most people are going to use whatever DVR content provider X offers them. Since Comcast is one of (if not the) biggest cable companies in the US, and they will soon use Tivo exclusively, Tivo will automatically get plenty of market share.
Yup, nothing at all wrong with a government mandated monopoly (only one set of cable lines is legally allowed in most localities in the US) bundling a new device with that monopoly service and subsidizing the cost with their current monopoly. Nope sounds kosher to me.
Sure, there'll be a couple of companies that sell rebranded DVRs to the clueless, cheap, disinterested, (and of course the MythTV / Windows Media Center hackers,) but they'll all share the 20% (or less) of the market that Tivo doesn't care about because it's not profitable.
So here's the thing about companies that don't serve their customers best interests, they get killed when someone does. The cable companies made a deal with Tivo because they were caught with their pants down. They bought out Tivo to buy time. Someone else will make a PVR that does what Tivo should have and unless the cable companies can get entrenched enough and get laws passed to mandate DRM and restrict the decoding of that DRM then that new player or players will crush Tivo. As it is, calling people who use MythTV and other solutions that provide more and better functionality "clueless" is a bit backwards, don't you think? After all, I can easily skip commercials, edit and burn DVDs, and I have my choice of scheduling services (including the one I use that has no fee). To me that is superior to the results I can get from a Tivo and at a much better price. I'd call people who use the inferior Tivo service at greater cost, because they don't know any better the "clueless" ones here.