To continue your great review of traditional measurement: when you need precise measurement, e.g. to fit a board together precisely in a cabinet, the traditional builder does *not* use a tape measure with inscribed units. They use a blank measuring stick (or string), or even the actual board itself, hold it up to the place it needs to fit, scribe and cut accordingly.
A tape measure is a remarkably imprecise measuring device that too many people (including many professionals I've known) rely on too heavily. My measurement, translated to the nearest unit I choose to squint at is different than the same unit on your tape measure and is even different when I do it on the same tape measure.
I almost never use the things anymore and instead use a plain stick with a sharp pencil or knife to measure and transfer dimensions. much more precise. I couldn't tell you in inches how long a particular board is, but I *know* it will fit.
We had one of their engineers give a talk a couple of weeks ago. The most recent number he had was 120 million members (who've logged on in the last 30 days) and over 65 billion page views per month. And they do it with 200 or so engineers.
I was fully expecting (being interested primarily in verifiable systems and fp) to be annoyed by this talk, but they have some pretty interesting problems to solve over there. The fact that they're doing it with OSS, and giving back to boot, really made my day.
all you have to do is call to cancel. 9 times out of 10 they will offer to continue the discount. We haven't paid full price yet in over two years with comcast cable service. All it costs us is a phone call every time the discount runs out (quarterly or so).
The operators are generally allowed to continue the discount without even asking for it. They do it on the spot.
I keep waiting for them to call my bluff... "The service provided is not worth the price, so I would like to cancel the service please." It's not a bluff, it's the truth.
ISTM that the "karma" system should be turned upside down. Those that produce quality code should have it lauded to the group at large. There should be great publicity surrounding the good code. Maybe have the team (and management? don't know) vote up the best code so that everyone knows about it. The reward is having your code announced as the best code of the week/library/project/whatever. Those who don't produce good code are motivated to do better so that they get the praise too...
Thus those top coders are *not* motivated to slack off, because if they do they don't get the notoriety and lose their reputation.
I've read pretty much all of this thread and so far as I can tell, there is a serious misunderstanding going on here and everyone is now so pissed off that it's hopeless. Here's how I read it:
You *already had* some PVR gear that has been working fine for a number of years.
Some folks occasionally recommend that you try a mythtv solution. So you try it and it fails because of known hardware compatibility problems. Whether these incompatibilities were known by those making recommendations or not is debatable.
This causes you to feel that linux is an epic failure at pvr's.
lather rinse repeat.
Is that a fair assessment of the situation?
Assuming so, and moving on.
So you are correct, IMO, to be upset at people recommending you spend a bunch of money to get the linux solution to work for you. You already have a working solution with already-paid-for hardware. There is no reason for you to spend money just to *try out* another solution.
Likewise, those involved with the linux solution are correct to be upset with you for expecting known incompatible hardware to work properly without serious hoop jumping. They try to maintain reasonably accurate compatibility lists and are rightly annoyed when someone bothers them about their incompatible stuff not working.
The solution is this: In the future, if you decide to upgrade the hardware you might think about choosing hardware that is known to work with *both* products. Then you can actually try out the mythtv solution and make a real comparison and decide which you like, or which suits you better.
But, until someone with authority (like a driver dev) says that your stuff definitely works with linux, don't bother trying because you'll only be frustrated. Meanwhile, you should take a deep breath and stop being overtly inflammatory towards people who are probably genuinely, if misguidedly, trying to help.
hopefully I've provided a balanced approach to this silliness between all of you and we can move on... heh...
Because a round man-hole cover has the least edge for its area, thus helping conserve our precious edge resources. Imagine what the world would be like if we ran out of edges!
I'm not sure what it means, but it sure is interesting.
98 exit// I must do a lot of leaving
60 mutt// I ssh in a lot and *always* check the mail.
28 apt-cache// what package was that?
26 cd// I'm in the wrong place
20 man// I don't know how to get where I'm going
19 sudo// I'm not who I claim to be
19 grep// I can't find something
17 mpc// tunes baby!
17 ls// d
13 less// is more
12 emacs//always on, why bother to restart it?
12 cat// dog
10 runhaskell// reading Real World Haskell
10 dtach// is teh r0X0r!
9 ssh// sometimes I need to go other places
8 ps// st! I've got a secret!
7 dpkg// borked something again -- force-all
5 tar// and feather
5 darcs// Dave's alright
5 cp// does this count for backups?
That was fun and insightful for me. Thanks.
oh, and if I ignore the `exit`s, I get
4 vim// config files require vim. Don't know why, they just do.
I spend a lot of time trying to convince my classmates that there is some really cool stuff in computing that is *not* game oriented. It's sort of working, but these guys probably would have ended up there on their own.
Meanwhile, I'm in it for the second career part, and know I'm going to grad school, so I sort of have to take it as it is. But I still seriously consider math because 1) I love it, and 2) the computing I want to do seems to involve a lot more math than a general purpose cs degree anyway. Or at least, understanding some of this stuff is a lot easier with more math. And I guess math is as good starting point as any other for grad school.
All the EE's I know are wickedly smart and are excellent programmers and mathematicians as well. I think that being an EE is an asset for a programmer and if I was hiring, I'd not look at the EE degree vs CS degree as a problem at all, and maybe even a benefit.
Java is a great blub language. I enjoy java. I took a really dynamite OO course this summer that focused on agile design, design patterns, etc. Very cool stuff. Then I went back and looked at some of my scheme code and realized that a lot of this stuff is a by product of the language. Some of the design patterns are just plain unnecessary in higher level languages. But people stuck in java just don't get it... blub.
Meanwhile, as I sit in a C course, I sure wish it was java, not because my head asplode, but because I've seen this stuff, have a vague understanding and know I don't want to do it. Groking haskell on the side is vastly more rewarding than twiddling bits and doing pointer arithmetic.
IMO, if you love that stuff, great. If you don't, and want to work at a higher level that's great too. But regardless, if you can't at least get a basic foundation in the nitty gritty details, then you don't belong.
Car analogy: If one would rather drive race cars than change tires, that's great, but it sure helps if one at least understands what a tire is and how one might go about changing it.
So, veering wildly back on topic: Games are cool if your they motivate you to program and you go out and actually do it. Games are not cool if they entice you into a field where you don't belong/are unhappy.
I cut my teeth on the vic-20 and c-64. Moved on in high school to pascal on apple ][e's and we did a lot of sophisticated stuff: simple language interpreter, with variables and arithmetic expressions(shunting algo); a process scheduler that ultimately handled queue's of jobs written in our simple language and tried to optimize that scheduling for various criteria. This was all in 1986 as sophomores (likewise, get off *my* lawn). We were all playing and designing games on the side and had a background in it before we hit those programming classes. We had all done various bits in various versions of BASIC, some asm, and other random stuff. Enough to get us going when we hit the real stuff.
So as an introduction to programming, writing simple games was definitely a help. To a man (the girls all dropped out:( ) those who had prior game experience did *vastly* better.
Now, after years of being out of it, I'm back in school trying for my CS degree. I'm sitting next to kids half my age and their primary motivation in life is the next level in some FPS. They are bantering back and forth with the "professor" about games they play and "have you seen the beta of blah blah blah." Meanwhile I'm sitting here wondering when my 300 level course will start doing something that is even remotely as sophisticated as what we did in high school 22 years ago. I try not to correct the instructor too much, but sometimes I have to. Interestingly, he usually acknowledges what I say with "Andrew is right. What he's talking about is.... But for now, just think of it this wrong way and we'll straighten it out later." Then after class he asks me if there is anything else he should talk about. And I haven't done any CS since 1994. WTF.
Our curriculum is directed towards the gaming degree (yep, we got one). They keep removing math requirements, dropping various core CS courses (discrete structures is now optional for all CS degree options. I assume algorithms won't be far behind). All the old hard-core CS prof's are near retirement (the guy who teaches Automata is retiring in two years and so is offering the course every fall until then instead of the usual every-other-fall because there is no one else on staff to teach it and he wants to get as many as he can...)
There are a couple of hundred kids in the department and easily 80% of them are interested in programming games. I'm guessing that there are about 20 seniors in the program (I'm technically a junior but won't finish for two years due to a variety of things (kids, jobs, life...)). This suggests that they lose a *ton* of kids somewhere around the data structures breakpoint. That's good, because if you can't do data structures GTFO, but damn, the data structures class is so watered down that I can't believe anyone who is serious can't hack it. Then I saw some of the code these kids are turning in. OMG, it's so sad. And they pass these kids. Global variables all over the place, no commenting at all with bad naming conventions. Total lack of modularity or cohesive structure. Clearly these kids are feeling their way through the code, using plain ol' trial and error (nothing wrong with that except they're juniors in CS and should be able to calculate weighted averages in their sleep in a language they've never seen before), slapping it all together trying to get something that will just run. Fencepost errors everywhere and nasty bugs like unchecked array bounds that by chance don't blow up because their test data isn't comprehensive enough. I could go on. That kid got a high 3.x in the class.
Sorry for the rant.
The point is that I think the gaming program is trying to draw in the wrong crowd. People who play games aren't necessarily equipped to do *anything* related to computing. People who *live for* games definitely aren't. You can see them moping down the hall because they're halfway through the program and have realized that it's hard and isn't remotely what they want to do. It's really a disservice to these kids to draw them in like that. Anyway, that's enough venom for today.
I'm seriously thinking about switching to math. At least they try to give you a deep, sophisticated education. It's all just really sad.
wow. You may have a great new slashdot meme there. use political analogies when discussing auto related topics!;-)
I guess I didn't get my point across clearly. I was aiming for the distinction between in-person conversations while driving versus phone conversations while driving. At least with the in-person conversation, there is an opportunity for the other person to react accordingly to the situation whereas with the phone conversation, the other person is completely clueless of the situation. If that makes sense.
Oh, and my assumption is based upon my experience of reality in 18 years of successful driving. My personal overwhelming experience is that passengers (not kids!) will naturally pause or tone down a conversation in certain, attention demanding, situations such as highway merges, tight, blind corners, and so forth. ymmv wildly and I don't suppose that my experience is anything other than my own or that it might correlate with norms.
ISTM that a conversation with someone in the car, while somewhat distracting, is not as bad as the phone conversation. The passenger is at least marginally aware of what is going on in the car and on the road and can help modulate the conversation with the driver. The person yacking on the phone will just keep yacking while you try to avoid two pedestrians and an oncoming truck.
When I'm on the stupid handsfree, I routinely tell people to "shut-up I have to drive" and that usually works, though I don't think it's anywhere near as good as if they had been in the car with me and could see the same potential problem. More often than not, now, I just leave the handsfree at home and don't use the phone at all while driving.
much like my comment to the candy bar AC below, it's really a question of how well the EULA stands up in court. This may address fundamental issues of whether EULAs are enforceable or not, and upon whom they are enforced. Psystar could quite easily argue that it is not the End User and thus is not bound by the EULA. It could be really interesting.
This is an interesting argument, and I think, had apple stuck to less common hardware, it would have some merit. However, now that apple is shipping hardware based on a ubiquitous architecture, it doesn't work anymore.
Car analogy. After years of making uniquely designed wheels to fit their patented hubs, a car manufacturer switches to standard off-the-shelf wheel solution. They continue to manufacture really nice wheels. Others decide these wheels are really cool, and since they fit on standard hubs, purchase them from the car maker and resell them on their own make of car built from component parts.
In the case of the tv, sure, a tv maker designs a tv and the firmware to run it. There is no expectation that another tv with a different design would run that firmware. Now if the tv was built on standard hardware, then their might be some expectation that it would run another's firmware and work.
Apple switched to commodity hardware architecture. Sure, they've got some bells and whistles. And maybe they purchase a higher quality part than other manufacturers, but it's all still the same arch. They gave up a part what made them special, and the price is that they aren't so special any more.
I've been using MythTV for about 3 years via the nearly 1-click install of knoppmyth. Fantastic. With just two tuners and basic cable we have more than enough commercial-free tv to watch.
further, leaking hydrogen rises, leaving the crash site very quickly. Puddles of gas sit around for a while, gasoline vapors sit around for a while. It's really pretty ugly, we're just used to the way it behaves and have accepted it's dangers because of familiarity.
If you think about it a little, which would you prefer?
1. A volatile liquid that drips/sprays out and then evaporates into a cloud of flammable gas that hangs around in low spots waiting for a spark, or
2.a flammable gas that while potentially hazardous from high-pressure leak is essentially almost immediately gone once it escapes from its containment.
Slashdot Mirror
To continue your great review of traditional measurement: when you need precise measurement, e.g. to fit a board together precisely in a cabinet, the traditional builder does *not* use a tape measure with inscribed units. They use a blank measuring stick (or string), or even the actual board itself, hold it up to the place it needs to fit, scribe and cut accordingly.
A tape measure is a remarkably imprecise measuring device that too many people (including many professionals I've known) rely on too heavily. My measurement, translated to the nearest unit I choose to squint at is different than the same unit on your tape measure and is even different when I do it on the same tape measure.
I almost never use the things anymore and instead use a plain stick with a sharp pencil or knife to measure and transfer dimensions. much more precise. I couldn't tell you in inches how long a particular board is, but I *know* it will fit.
at least for me being a 38yo undergrad.
We had one of their engineers give a talk a couple of weeks ago. The most recent number he had was 120 million members (who've logged on in the last 30 days) and over 65 billion page views per month. And they do it with 200 or so engineers.
I was fully expecting (being interested primarily in verifiable systems and fp) to be annoyed by this talk, but they have some pretty interesting problems to solve over there. The fact that they're doing it with OSS, and giving back to boot, really made my day.
xmonad FTW!!
oh, and I prefer that my WM "tiles" rather than "tills". I can make enough of a mess of my code without my WM roto-tilling it for me... ;-P
all you have to do is call to cancel. 9 times out of 10 they will offer to continue the discount. We haven't paid full price yet in over two years with comcast cable service. All it costs us is a phone call every time the discount runs out (quarterly or so).
The operators are generally allowed to continue the discount without even asking for it. They do it on the spot.
I keep waiting for them to call my bluff... "The service provided is not worth the price, so I would like to cancel the service please." It's not a bluff, it's the truth.
Where's my citation? hmmm?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=995961&cid=25383145
ISTM that the "karma" system should be turned upside down. Those that produce quality code should have it lauded to the group at large. There should be great publicity surrounding the good code. Maybe have the team (and management? don't know) vote up the best code so that everyone knows about it. The reward is having your code announced as the best code of the week/library/project/whatever. Those who don't produce good code are motivated to do better so that they get the praise too...
Thus those top coders are *not* motivated to slack off, because if they do they don't get the notoriety and lose their reputation.
just thinkin' aloud
I've read pretty much all of this thread and so far as I can tell, there is a serious misunderstanding going on here and everyone is now so pissed off that it's hopeless. Here's how I read it:
You *already had* some PVR gear that has been working fine for a number of years.
Some folks occasionally recommend that you try a mythtv solution. So you try it and it fails because of known hardware compatibility problems. Whether these incompatibilities were known by those making recommendations or not is debatable.
This causes you to feel that linux is an epic failure at pvr's.
lather rinse repeat.
Is that a fair assessment of the situation?
Assuming so, and moving on.
So you are correct, IMO, to be upset at people recommending you spend a bunch of money to get the linux solution to work for you. You already have a working solution with already-paid-for hardware. There is no reason for you to spend money just to *try out* another solution.
Likewise, those involved with the linux solution are correct to be upset with you for expecting known incompatible hardware to work properly without serious hoop jumping. They try to maintain reasonably accurate compatibility lists and are rightly annoyed when someone bothers them about their incompatible stuff not working.
The solution is this: In the future, if you decide to upgrade the hardware you might think about choosing hardware that is known to work with *both* products. Then you can actually try out the mythtv solution and make a real comparison and decide which you like, or which suits you better.
But, until someone with authority (like a driver dev) says that your stuff definitely works with linux, don't bother trying because you'll only be frustrated. Meanwhile, you should take a deep breath and stop being overtly inflammatory towards people who are probably genuinely, if misguidedly, trying to help.
hopefully I've provided a balanced approach to this silliness between all of you and we can move on... heh...
yeah, that was a joke about "What dang package was I looking for again?"
And to say moderately on topic, I agree with previous posters that these threads are a good thing. Keep 'em coming!
Because a round man-hole cover has the least edge for its area, thus helping conserve our precious edge resources. Imagine what the world would be like if we ran out of edges!
I'm not sure what it means, but it sure is interesting. // I must do a lot of leaving // I ssh in a lot and *always* check the mail. // what package was that? // I'm in the wrong place // I don't know how to get where I'm going // I'm not who I claim to be // I can't find something // tunes baby! // d // is more //always on, why bother to restart it? // dog // reading Real World Haskell // is teh r0X0r! // sometimes I need to go other places // st! I've got a secret! // borked something again -- force-all // and feather // Dave's alright // does this count for backups?
98 exit
60 mutt
28 apt-cache
26 cd
20 man
19 sudo
19 grep
17 mpc
17 ls
13 less
12 emacs
12 cat
10 runhaskell
10 dtach
9 ssh
8 ps
7 dpkg
5 tar
5 darcs
5 cp
That was fun and insightful for me. Thanks.
oh, and if I ignore the `exit`s, I get // config files require vim. Don't know why, they just do.
4 vim
I spend a lot of time trying to convince my classmates that there is some really cool stuff in computing that is *not* game oriented. It's sort of working, but these guys probably would have ended up there on their own.
Meanwhile, I'm in it for the second career part, and know I'm going to grad school, so I sort of have to take it as it is. But I still seriously consider math because 1) I love it, and 2) the computing I want to do seems to involve a lot more math than a general purpose cs degree anyway. Or at least, understanding some of this stuff is a lot easier with more math. And I guess math is as good starting point as any other for grad school.
All the EE's I know are wickedly smart and are excellent programmers and mathematicians as well. I think that being an EE is an asset for a programmer and if I was hiring, I'd not look at the EE degree vs CS degree as a problem at all, and maybe even a benefit.
Java is a great blub language. I enjoy java. I took a really dynamite OO course this summer that focused on agile design, design patterns, etc. Very cool stuff. Then I went back and looked at some of my scheme code and realized that a lot of this stuff is a by product of the language. Some of the design patterns are just plain unnecessary in higher level languages. But people stuck in java just don't get it... blub.
Meanwhile, as I sit in a C course, I sure wish it was java, not because my head asplode, but because I've seen this stuff, have a vague understanding and know I don't want to do it. Groking haskell on the side is vastly more rewarding than twiddling bits and doing pointer arithmetic.
IMO, if you love that stuff, great. If you don't, and want to work at a higher level that's great too. But regardless, if you can't at least get a basic foundation in the nitty gritty details, then you don't belong.
Car analogy: If one would rather drive race cars than change tires, that's great, but it sure helps if one at least understands what a tire is and how one might go about changing it.
So, veering wildly back on topic: Games are cool if your they motivate you to program and you go out and actually do it. Games are not cool if they entice you into a field where you don't belong/are unhappy.
I cut my teeth on the vic-20 and c-64. Moved on in high school to pascal on apple ][e's and we did a lot of sophisticated stuff: simple language interpreter, with variables and arithmetic expressions(shunting algo); a process scheduler that ultimately handled queue's of jobs written in our simple language and tried to optimize that scheduling for various criteria. This was all in 1986 as sophomores (likewise, get off *my* lawn). We were all playing and designing games on the side and had a background in it before we hit those programming classes. We had all done various bits in various versions of BASIC, some asm, and other random stuff. Enough to get us going when we hit the real stuff.
So as an introduction to programming, writing simple games was definitely a help. To a man (the girls all dropped out :( ) those who had prior game experience did *vastly* better.
Now, after years of being out of it, I'm back in school trying for my CS degree. I'm sitting next to kids half my age and their primary motivation in life is the next level in some FPS. They are bantering back and forth with the "professor" about games they play and "have you seen the beta of blah blah blah." Meanwhile I'm sitting here wondering when my 300 level course will start doing something that is even remotely as sophisticated as what we did in high school 22 years ago. I try not to correct the instructor too much, but sometimes I have to. Interestingly, he usually acknowledges what I say with "Andrew is right. What he's talking about is .... But for now, just think of it this wrong way and we'll straighten it out later." Then after class he asks me if there is anything else he should talk about. And I haven't done any CS since 1994. WTF.
Our curriculum is directed towards the gaming degree (yep, we got one). They keep removing math requirements, dropping various core CS courses (discrete structures is now optional for all CS degree options. I assume algorithms won't be far behind). All the old hard-core CS prof's are near retirement (the guy who teaches Automata is retiring in two years and so is offering the course every fall until then instead of the usual every-other-fall because there is no one else on staff to teach it and he wants to get as many as he can...)
There are a couple of hundred kids in the department and easily 80% of them are interested in programming games. I'm guessing that there are about 20 seniors in the program (I'm technically a junior but won't finish for two years due to a variety of things (kids, jobs, life...)). This suggests that they lose a *ton* of kids somewhere around the data structures breakpoint. That's good, because if you can't do data structures GTFO, but damn, the data structures class is so watered down that I can't believe anyone who is serious can't hack it. Then I saw some of the code these kids are turning in. OMG, it's so sad. And they pass these kids. Global variables all over the place, no commenting at all with bad naming conventions. Total lack of modularity or cohesive structure. Clearly these kids are feeling their way through the code, using plain ol' trial and error (nothing wrong with that except they're juniors in CS and should be able to calculate weighted averages in their sleep in a language they've never seen before), slapping it all together trying to get something that will just run. Fencepost errors everywhere and nasty bugs like unchecked array bounds that by chance don't blow up because their test data isn't comprehensive enough. I could go on. That kid got a high 3.x in the class.
Sorry for the rant.
The point is that I think the gaming program is trying to draw in the wrong crowd. People who play games aren't necessarily equipped to do *anything* related to computing. People who *live for* games definitely aren't. You can see them moping down the hall because they're halfway through the program and have realized that it's hard and isn't remotely what they want to do. It's really a disservice to these kids to draw them in like that. Anyway, that's enough venom for today.
I'm seriously thinking about switching to math. At least they try to give you a deep, sophisticated education. It's all just really sad.
wow. You may have a great new slashdot meme there. use political analogies when discussing auto related topics! ;-)
I guess I didn't get my point across clearly. I was aiming for the distinction between in-person conversations while driving versus phone conversations while driving. At least with the in-person conversation, there is an opportunity for the other person to react accordingly to the situation whereas with the phone conversation, the other person is completely clueless of the situation. If that makes sense.
Oh, and my assumption is based upon my experience of reality in 18 years of successful driving. My personal overwhelming experience is that passengers (not kids!) will naturally pause or tone down a conversation in certain, attention demanding, situations such as highway merges, tight, blind corners, and so forth. ymmv wildly and I don't suppose that my experience is anything other than my own or that it might correlate with norms.
ISTM that a conversation with someone in the car, while somewhat distracting, is not as bad as the phone conversation. The passenger is at least marginally aware of what is going on in the car and on the road and can help modulate the conversation with the driver. The person yacking on the phone will just keep yacking while you try to avoid two pedestrians and an oncoming truck.
When I'm on the stupid handsfree, I routinely tell people to "shut-up I have to drive" and that usually works, though I don't think it's anywhere near as good as if they had been in the car with me and could see the same potential problem. More often than not, now, I just leave the handsfree at home and don't use the phone at all while driving.
worms are money, in some segments of the population. Those look to be some premium nightcrawlers worth at least a couple of bucks a dozen.
That's no clod! That's my front door you insensitive clod!
oh wait...
Alice's restaurant.
maybe OP drove more carefully, cause dang that premium is expensive!
Until it can make 8x10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was...
AND
output to a braille tty, well then, I'm just not interested.
I have a great recipe for shepherd's pie. Start with two medium sized shepherds...
much like my comment to the candy bar AC below, it's really a question of how well the EULA stands up in court. This may address fundamental issues of whether EULAs are enforceable or not, and upon whom they are enforced. Psystar could quite easily argue that it is not the End User and thus is not bound by the EULA. It could be really interesting.
That's an EULA. The real question here is how the EULA will stand up in a trial.
This is an interesting argument, and I think, had apple stuck to less common hardware, it would have some merit. However, now that apple is shipping hardware based on a ubiquitous architecture, it doesn't work anymore.
Car analogy. After years of making uniquely designed wheels to fit their patented hubs, a car manufacturer switches to standard off-the-shelf wheel solution. They continue to manufacture really nice wheels. Others decide these wheels are really cool, and since they fit on standard hubs, purchase them from the car maker and resell them on their own make of car built from component parts.
In the case of the tv, sure, a tv maker designs a tv and the firmware to run it. There is no expectation that another tv with a different design would run that firmware. Now if the tv was built on standard hardware, then their might be some expectation that it would run another's firmware and work.
Apple switched to commodity hardware architecture. Sure, they've got some bells and whistles. And maybe they purchase a higher quality part than other manufacturers, but it's all still the same arch. They gave up a part what made them special, and the price is that they aren't so special any more.
I've been using MythTV for about 3 years via the nearly 1-click install of knoppmyth. Fantastic. With just two tuners and basic cable we have more than enough commercial-free tv to watch.
further, leaking hydrogen rises, leaving the crash site very quickly. Puddles of gas sit around for a while, gasoline vapors sit around for a while. It's really pretty ugly, we're just used to the way it behaves and have accepted it's dangers because of familiarity.
If you think about it a little, which would you prefer?
1. A volatile liquid that drips/sprays out and then evaporates into a cloud of flammable gas that hangs around in low spots waiting for a spark, or
2.a flammable gas that while potentially hazardous from high-pressure leak is essentially almost immediately gone once it escapes from its containment.