Uhm windows NT nor any of the 9x OS'es were pre-emptive they were all co-operative. Im not sure about 2000 or XP as i hadn't paid attention to that since the late 90's but im pretty sure their co-op as well.
Actually OS2 didn't look like 95 as OS2 2.0 came out before 95 was even developed heck OS2 2.0 looking like 95 as you put it came out before windows NT which was Pre 95. It's been a while but i belive OS2 came out in 90, 91 several years before 95 and a couple years before NT.
Not only that but IBM and MS had worked together on OS2 1.0 which came out in the 80's (this was before I got into IBM PC's i had dabbled with apple 2 in school but got into pc's in the late 80's so i didn't pay attention to IBM or MS didn't even know MS existed back then) but had broken up before 2.0 came out at the time MS was working on OS2 code which it shelved after the breakup and later dusted off after OS2 2.0 came out (one of the things OS2 2.0 and later had inside it was windows 3.0 and later 3.1 code because of an agreement between MS and IBM before they broke up for compatabilty with windows apps you could even make the desktop look like windows 3.0 and 3.1 or launch the 3.x shell ontop of OS2 which is where i think you are getting the it looked like 3.11 with 95 extentions they weren't 95 extentions they were 3.1 extentions) and finished it off calling it Windows NT. And later a hacked job using old dos for the 9x versions which were buggier than OS2 ever was mainly because of the fact the 9x versions were using Dos at their core.
So to be fair windows looks like OS2 but wasn't as stable as OS2 but OS2 wasn't as stable as NT nor as fast as OS2 itself had Dos in it as well just not to the degree of windows 9x. It also was more flexible and able to do more at once than any 9x OS mainly because it was pre-emptive instead of being co-operative like all windows OS's are including NT, 2000 and XP. Though NT doesn't have the weakness of dos draging it down so it's still a better OS. As for 2000 being fast of course it is it was written at a later time with different code and programing for faster machines with more memory so of course 2000 is more optimised and faster and 2003 is easier to configure for the same reasons they were both written a decade later more in the case of 2003. Though the dificulty configuring is the same problem with linux and linux code is more recent than OS2 code so thats a pretty lame argument. But your right it is to old now for a OS let alone for a server. Back when OS2 1.0 came out i heard it was crap but when 2.0 came out it was a much better OS than windows 3.0 was and much more stable and a better OS didn't come along til MS got NT out and the bugs in that worked out so at the time OS2 was much better than anything else out their for an OS on the PC. But time and IBM's lack of keeping up on it along with the fact that most people just didn't know what OS2 was to begin with (which was all IBM's fault) pretty much doomed it.
IBM was dooming it from the start anyway so it's not really like a suprise anyway. If they hadn't doomed it and had handled it right from the start it would be OS2 that 90 some percent of all pc's would be using today not windows. Take that for whatever it's worth but 95 suffered most of the same problems OS2 2.0 did almost 5 years after OS2 did and had fixed them so most people in 95 could have avoided things like corupt registries and other 95 problems by using OS2 2.1 which was out by that time. But IBM couldn't get it's head on straight and didn't relise what they had till it was way to late to do themselves any good. Heck they hadn't relised what they had for some time after 95 came out and by the time they did it was all over and everybody had gone home years before thats how far out of touch IBM was.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS2 IBM did most of the code for 1.0 and started working on 2.0 while MS was supposed to sell 1.0 and a new GUI MS called windows that was supposed to be incorperated into OS2 around 2.0 or 2.1 as well as work on 3.0 as the next gen 3.0 ended up being NT BTW yep NT is the offspring of OS2. Anyway while IBM was working on 2.0 MS as some have said was having arguments with IBM about memory requirments as well as price for the new OS turned around and saw windows flying off the shelves and decided they didn't need a new OS or IBM so Gates and CO. bailed on IBM to sell windows. IBM was left to work on OS2 themselves but because of the deals with MS IBM had the rights to include the Windows code into OS2 through 2.1 which is why OS2 2.0 had partial windows 3.0 code in it and 2.1 warp had the full windows 3.1 code in it.
Well after 2.0 finally came out around the time MS was selling windows 3.0 MS started getting scared that OS2 would end up taking their desktop sales away due to a better more stable and flexible OS so they took their OS2 3.0 code off the shelf dusted it off and finished it off with some new things that had been learned since it had been shelved and called it windows NT for New Technology and said everybody would be able to use that. But they couldn't get Dos which people at the time needed for backwards compatability for dos programs people were using at the time to work in NT without breaking security needed for buisness so to satisfy everybody they said that NT would be for buisness and they would write a new version for everybody else which at the time they called NT Lite which later became 93 then 94 and then 9x for whenever they relesed it and finally 95 which as it turned out they shouldn't have released it at that time as it still was buggy and flawed and far from being a new OS with some dos code running under the new OS for compatability with old programs as it turned out 95 was still a shell running old dos with the same problems of dos. As a final point OS2 2.0 had suffered most of the smae problems as 95 like the registry coruptions etc.. and had fixed thoughs problems by the time OS2 2.1 warp was released before win 95 even came out suffering the same ills.
Really i don't know if MS lead IBM astray so much as just abandoning them. Leaving them in the lurch as it were or leaving them holding the bag as far as working on the subequent versions goes. But IBM was just as bad for OS2 as MS was mainly because of how IBM does things OS2 found itself competeing against other IBM projects for money for things like paying for programers and advertising etc. against ideas and inventions by other parts of IBM including some that had come fro the CEO and VP of IBM at the time. It's things like this that lead to stupid commercials for OS2 that left people not knowing exactly what the heck OS2 was. One featured a couple dancing on a dance floor with words poping up in the corner saying something about OS2 will make your life easier but said nothing about what OS2 was or how it was supposed to make anyones life easier. So IBM was doing plenty on it's own to sabatage OS2 even without MS who if they hadn't left to sell windows and later do NT and 95 would just have in some way weasled the rights to OS2 away from IBM by hook or crook anyway so it didn't really matter OS2 was doomed no matter how things played out. As things worked out we still ended up with OS2 just with a different name and MS shockingly weasled it away from IBM by taking the code which was OS2 at the core shelving it for a few years after they broke off from IBM and then finishing it under a new name without giving any royalties or sharing any of the profits from it with IBM even though it had used code written by programers working for IBM.
Are you crazy??? Do you have any idea of the number of mass suicides/homocides that would result from that? Not to mention the teen drug overdoeses that would skyrocket through the heavens.
Yes were that messed but a society at this point so unless somebodies got some magic quick fix for the ills of the US right now it's best not to let the corperate sponsered brain drain be shut off. It's safer this way only a fraction of the people who would normally be dieing are dieing.
Think about it you don't really belive it was the Abomb that was responsible for the number of deaths each year dropping to 1 million at the end of WW2 and staying their through the end of the century now do you?
Why? Because they can resell the VHF frequencies to balance the budget. Or at least that was the idea when it was first approved but now that G.W.s put us even further into the hole that may not even help but their still commited anyway.
Just to clarify the digital HD signals will use the UHF frequencies so UHF antennas will still work but their will be no need for the bigger VHF part. As for what are they thinking well it's a great way for senators and congressmen to pocket some kickback money for TV manufacturers and resellers who stand to make a fortune selling HD TV sets as long as people are forced to buy them to keep watching the corperate brain drain that passes for programming these days.
I mean comeon it didn't occure to you that this was all just about putting more money into the pockets of the rich? Why else would they do it just to give us a much clearer picture? OK so it is much clearer and more detailed but for the most part it's just about them making more money off of us.
Yes everything the FCC does is meant to expand it's power and control. Ok maybe not but it sure seams that way most of the time.
To clear up the confusion their will still be free over the air (OTA) broadcasts at least for the foreseable future. But they will be digital and in high def (HD)not standard Def (SD) so your looking at OTA HD which will need a HD set or a HD to SD converter box so you can view the HD broadcasts on a regular set.
So the future will still be OTA cable and Satalite. The OTA BTW uses the UHF frequency to send the digital signals out to HD sets so a standard UHF antenna will be all you need for OTA TV so no more VHF. The government takes the VHF frequencies back so they can resell them to make money to pay towards the deficet that G.W. keeps piling onto.
Well if we americans would stop electing politicans who are nothing more than jokes to begin with then we wouldn't have to worry about political jokes now would we.
Ok i had to respond to this even though it's a late response.
The reason intel went with the pentium branding for their next gen chips was to avoid having to share the design with other chip makers who had clone rights to the x86 design IE AMD and Cyrix. The clone agreements with AMD and Cyrix that intel had been signed between the three makers ment that according to the courts intel had to share future chip designs as long as they carried the x86 naming convention under their agreements with AMD and Cyrix. So to avoid that and to have their new chip be considered a next generation chip they decided to go with the pentium name to delinieate it as a whole new generation chip and not a x86 chip.
So intel did not introduce the pentium name to avoid compatition with a bastardized 586 chip by some other manufacturer. It was simply to get out of it's agreements to share x86 chip designs with AMD and Cyrix so it could keep all profits from sales of it's new proccessor designs to itself and leave the other makers holding their nuts in an alley as you put it.
But I don't want a police state! I don't know anybody who would want a police state.
Why on gods green earth would anybody in their right mind want a police state?
Police states only take away from peoples rights and lead to societies like communism! And why after the soviet uninon and china not to mention korea would anybody in their right mind want that!
Police states NO! comunism NO! loss of privacy NO! NO! NO! a Million times NO!
You keep the cake and eat it i'll be happy just to lick the pan thank you very much.
Uhm yeah and actually thinking and useing common sense just doesn't apply then.
I mean seriously the coffee maker looking at newspapers and seeing that a war started and that troops are being sent you'd think he would have read that and thought to himself if he actually thought that donating free coffee to troops was a good idea on his own and he would have gotten it then not after people have bitched at him for not doing it.
Personally though I think it would be better in that senario for the government to buy and supply coffee to it's troops and not some buisness that way it keeps questions and acusation of special interest's and the like from being raised after the fact.
But all this tracking and marketing bullhockey is an excuses for company owners and heads who just don't have any common sense and need someone else to tell them what the public want's like dilberts boss.
They don't deserve to know what we wan't if they don't have the intellegence or common sense to figure things like this out on their own like other are able to.
Ahh but why would apple downgrade itself going from a 64 bit powerpc to a 32 bit x86 when both intel and amd now have 64 bit non x86 (though backwards compatable to 32 bit x86) chips?
X86 is the past and was only put into both amd and intel chip designs for compatability during their switch from 32 bit x86 to the new 64 bit chip designs. The new 64 b it chips aren't x86 except in that part which is their for 32 bit software compatability. Which will eventually be abandoned as more 64 bit programs start to replace the old 32 bit programs everybody is using today on current x86 systems.
So why on gods green earth would apple goto a old dieing platform like x86? Moreover AMD has designed and written the 64 bit code thats being used in both AMD and intels 64 bit chips, A move intel had to make to have a 64 bit chip that would work on windows 64 bit since it was written for AMDs 64 bit code before intel got theirs ready and it was to late to MS to go back and rewrite windows code to include it.
So basicly if apple wanted to go with another non powerpc 64 bit chip they would be better off going with AMD's 64 bit chips as they are the ones who designed the 64 bit chip that both intel and AMD are using and the chip that apple would be using if they went away from ibm. The newer AMD 64 bit dual core chips also have shown themselves to be heads above the intel chips as well in video encoding which has always been a big seller in apple systems. So given all this why on earth would apple choose intel over AMD and why ever would they choose to go with x86 an already dieing platform before they even announce a switch?
This whole article is just a bunch of false half thought out half baked garbage from CNET. If apple were seriously thinking about switching x86 wouldn't even be a consideration not when the industry is moving away from old flawed and aged x86. If apple were truley serious about deciding to go intel their are other intel chip designs for apple to choose from other than x86 like ARM and i know others would say itanium but that is a more expensive chip design than the current powerpc chips which would raise the cost of apple products even more.
Mohammed laid out ground rules for a jihad or holy war (actually holy pilgrimage originally). Not that many if any modern terrorists follow thoughs rules for their holy wars. Benladen has broken every rule laid out by Mohammed for not only holy war but for many other aspects of Islam.
Why Muslims deify these terrorists like they do for violating the very fundamental roots of their religion is beyond me.
But their are ground rules for a holy war even for Christian holy wars like the crusades. You could kill Muslims and still get into heaven for one.
The only religions that don't seam to have these ground rules are the different PC/OS religious groups who seem to act like anyone and anything not using/advocating their PC/OS choice is to be smacked down with any and all violent means available to them even and especially if it goes beyond what's considered necessary.
Much like modern terrorist groups today which is were it seems these PC/OS zealots seem to get their inspiration from.
OK so this post doesn't pull any punches either but i've gotten sick and tired myelf of all these pissing contests between the PC/OS zealots going on everywhere. For gods sake it's some pieces of hardware and some stinking code get over it already.
Man of all the stupid idiotic things to fight over this has got to be the worst one possible.
So uhm then like how does that explain spam and popup adds? These are places consumers don't want adds but they go their anyway. Theirs also adware something i truly hate and despise as much as spam and popups. And lets not forget spyware which is often used by companies to collect information to better target adds to the people.
Id hardly say that these forms of advertising are passive, they are more often intrusive.
Minority report begins to sound more like the future of advertising based on things like we see now if you ask me.
And then they go out of buisness because they stopped making money from not having any content to broadcast or because the content becomes even more like crap-tent instead of content as their broadcast station bleeds money like a gutted whale (Pardon the expression).
Saying play our way or we take our ball and go home doesn't work not when people are just fine to let the spoilt brat take his ball and leave. It just means he looses out on playing the game and everything that went with it. Only now his ball is a big expensive broadcast station that bleeds money like a sive if he's not producing/broadcasting content that people wanna watch.
Sounds more like you have forgone all logic. Personally though even if this wasn't the case i would still be just fine letting the broadcasters stomp home like spoilt brats anyway. Better to find other ways of entertaining ourselves than to bow to the whims of some spoilt brat content providers (and i use that term tounge in cheek since they aren't much of content producers as it is anyway).
The people don't need them but they sure need us so slitting their own throwts to spit us and tech isn't a good idea.
Well the $7 for the ticket $5.90 for popcorn and 3.50 for small pop and $3.50 for candy might have something to do with the dimming the magic of movies.
$7.00 $5.90 $3.50 $3.50 ------ $19.90
Man thats crazy $20 to see a movie with popcorn pop and a candy. The real magic isn't the movies themselves it's how movie theaters can get away with this kind of highway robbery.
I took my nephews and niece to see ROTS and it costed $50.00 for me and 4 kids plus popcorn and candy which we all split plus 5 soda's.
Who is ripping off who here? This is the reason at least for me why i don't goto watch movies in the theater instead of waiting for them to come out on DVD. I only took the kids to see ROTS because it was the last of the series and everybody would be talking about it in school at work etc. So i wanted them to see it as well as see it myself so it wouldn't be ruined for us. But at thoughs prices i'd rather chance them being ruined for us than pay thoughs outragous prices. And thats why my last movie i saw before DVD release in a theater was pirates of the carribian. Can't recall the movie i saw before that one because it was so long before that.
* Anyway I bring this up because it seems to me that nothing has changed in the last 5000 years of human history. The more that things change the more they stay the same. Here we are in 2005 having the same friggin fight that Archimedes had. It's as if the last couple of thousand years never happened.*
Ahh sorta brings a whole new meaning to the words "The earth stands still" as God is proported to have said. Of course early christians took it to mean the earth doesn't move and theirfore is the center of the universe or at least the solar system.
And we all know what saying anything against that meant for people like capernicus and galileo.
If you ask me what the MPAA and RIAA has been doing isn't fair either. Were better off without TV and music at this rate. Heck i wish fair use wasn't created to prop up an otherwise unconstitutional law to begin with.
Make the rich richer and screw the poor back into serfdom were we all belong right!
Well thats one way of looking at it but here's another.
The FCC lost in court over the broadcast flag (BF) because it excedes their authority. The FCC has authority over Radio and TV signals transmited over the airwaves as well as telephony (wire). What they were trying to do with the BF was to take without the authority to do so control over what happens to tv signals once they leave the airwaves when they enter the home device IE your TV tuner or TV tuner card.
This is outside of their mandate (their authority to act on). Without Congress voting to extend their authority to such devices (effectively giving the FCC control over TV's (scary)) the FCC couldn't introduce regulations like the broadcast flag without congress giving them extended authority to do so hence why the courts overturned the broadcast flag regulation.
What the FCC was trying to do i have heard of as being called a grab for power over electronic devices in the home IE judge's question of the FCC trying to control washing machines and how they might be used you'd have to read the quote on that as i don't recall how it went but the judge's statment sounded all 1984ish. Iv'e also heard it being called the FCC trying to extend it's power to censorship of TV or playing piracy cop.
Im sure their are others but however you look at it the FCC was way outta line with what it was trying to do or should be allowed to do. They weren't created to play content cop over what is and isn't recorded on tv's or other devices once the content leaves the airwaves. It wasn't isn't nor should it ever be the FCC's place to do so.
So why'd they do it?
To appease the MPAA and the interest's they serve who threatened to not produce/broadcast HD content over the air (OTA) for HD tv's (basicly like spoilt children on the playground saying play our way or we take our ball and go home) unless the HD content could be locked down to devices or reduced in quality to standard definition (SD) when a home owner decides to move BF content off their flaged devices. Without HD content for public consumption OTA their would be a big roadblock to public adoption of HD (if you ask me the prices for the TV's tuners and or HD recorders is a big roadblock in itself) so the FCC agreed to the flag with some alterations to appease the MPAA and their handlers as well as to be acceptable to the FCC. But this had to be done quickly as times running out as SD TV's are supposed to be abandoned by 06 and no longer be produced and VHF being surrendered back to the FCC by 2011 or 2012 it think it was or as soon as HD saturation reaches 80%. So with the speed of congress on such matters and the timeframes needed to allow manufactures to make new BF enabled devices they had to get the regulation in place quickly so they tried to make a regulation themselves i guess hoping it wouldn't be challanged.
But that is just a guess on my part. They could have done it thinking they had the authority for all i know heck they may have thought it was a grey area that they could win if challenged but i stick with my orriginal guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm windows NT nor any of the 9x OS'es were pre-emptive they were all co-operative. Im not sure about 2000 or XP as i hadn't paid attention to that since the late 90's but im pretty sure their co-op as well.
Actually OS2 didn't look like 95 as OS2 2.0 came out before 95 was even developed heck OS2 2.0 looking like 95 as you put it came out before windows NT which was Pre 95. It's been a while but i belive OS2 came out in 90, 91 several years before 95 and a couple years before NT.
Not only that but IBM and MS had worked together on OS2 1.0 which came out in the 80's (this was before I got into IBM PC's i had dabbled with apple 2 in school but got into pc's in the late 80's so i didn't pay attention to IBM or MS didn't even know MS existed back then) but had broken up before 2.0 came out at the time MS was working on OS2 code which it shelved after the breakup and later dusted off after OS2 2.0 came out (one of the things OS2 2.0 and later had inside it was windows 3.0 and later 3.1 code because of an agreement between MS and IBM before they broke up for compatabilty with windows apps you could even make the desktop look like windows 3.0 and 3.1 or launch the 3.x shell ontop of OS2 which is where i think you are getting the it looked like 3.11 with 95 extentions they weren't 95 extentions they were 3.1 extentions) and finished it off calling it Windows NT. And later a hacked job using old dos for the 9x versions which were buggier than OS2 ever was mainly because of the fact the 9x versions were using Dos at their core.
So to be fair windows looks like OS2 but wasn't as stable as OS2 but OS2 wasn't as stable as NT nor as fast as OS2 itself had Dos in it as well just not to the degree of windows 9x. It also was more flexible and able to do more at once than any 9x OS mainly because it was pre-emptive instead of being co-operative like all windows OS's are including NT, 2000 and XP. Though NT doesn't have the weakness of dos draging it down so it's still a better OS. As for 2000 being fast of course it is it was written at a later time with different code and programing for faster machines with more memory so of course 2000 is more optimised and faster and 2003 is easier to configure for the same reasons they were both written a decade later more in the case of 2003. Though the dificulty configuring is the same problem with linux and linux code is more recent than OS2 code so thats a pretty lame argument. But your right it is to old now for a OS let alone for a server. Back when OS2 1.0 came out i heard it was crap but when 2.0 came out it was a much better OS than windows 3.0 was and much more stable and a better OS didn't come along til MS got NT out and the bugs in that worked out so at the time OS2 was much better than anything else out their for an OS on the PC. But time and IBM's lack of keeping up on it along with the fact that most people just didn't know what OS2 was to begin with (which was all IBM's fault) pretty much doomed it.
IBM was dooming it from the start anyway so it's not really like a suprise anyway. If they hadn't doomed it and had handled it right from the start it would be OS2 that 90 some percent of all pc's would be using today not windows. Take that for whatever it's worth but 95 suffered most of the same problems OS2 2.0 did almost 5 years after OS2 did and had fixed them so most people in 95 could have avoided things like corupt registries and other 95 problems by using OS2 2.1 which was out by that time. But IBM couldn't get it's head on straight and didn't relise what they had till it was way to late to do themselves any good. Heck they hadn't relised what they had for some time after 95 came out and by the time they did it was all over and everybody had gone home years before thats how far out of touch IBM was.
Well you're on the right track somewhat.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS2 IBM did most of the code for 1.0 and started working on 2.0 while MS was supposed to sell 1.0 and a new GUI MS called windows that was supposed to be incorperated into OS2 around 2.0 or 2.1 as well as work on 3.0 as the next gen 3.0 ended up being NT BTW yep NT is the offspring of OS2. Anyway while IBM was working on 2.0 MS as some have said was having arguments with IBM about memory requirments as well as price for the new OS turned around and saw windows flying off the shelves and decided they didn't need a new OS or IBM so Gates and CO. bailed on IBM to sell windows. IBM was left to work on OS2 themselves but because of the deals with MS IBM had the rights to include the Windows code into OS2 through 2.1 which is why OS2 2.0 had partial windows 3.0 code in it and 2.1 warp had the full windows 3.1 code in it.
Well after 2.0 finally came out around the time MS was selling windows 3.0 MS started getting scared that OS2 would end up taking their desktop sales away due to a better more stable and flexible OS so they took their OS2 3.0 code off the shelf dusted it off and finished it off with some new things that had been learned since it had been shelved and called it windows NT for New Technology and said everybody would be able to use that. But they couldn't get Dos which people at the time needed for backwards compatability for dos programs people were using at the time to work in NT without breaking security needed for buisness so to satisfy everybody they said that NT would be for buisness and they would write a new version for everybody else which at the time they called NT Lite which later became 93 then 94 and then 9x for whenever they relesed it and finally 95 which as it turned out they shouldn't have released it at that time as it still was buggy and flawed and far from being a new OS with some dos code running under the new OS for compatability with old programs as it turned out 95 was still a shell running old dos with the same problems of dos. As a final point OS2 2.0 had suffered most of the smae problems as 95 like the registry coruptions etc.. and had fixed thoughs problems by the time OS2 2.1 warp was released before win 95 even came out suffering the same ills.
Really i don't know if MS lead IBM astray so much as just abandoning them. Leaving them in the lurch as it were or leaving them holding the bag as far as working on the subequent versions goes. But IBM was just as bad for OS2 as MS was mainly because of how IBM does things OS2 found itself competeing against other IBM projects for money for things like paying for programers and advertising etc. against ideas and inventions by other parts of IBM including some that had come fro the CEO and VP of IBM at the time. It's things like this that lead to stupid commercials for OS2 that left people not knowing exactly what the heck OS2 was. One featured a couple dancing on a dance floor with words poping up in the corner saying something about OS2 will make your life easier but said nothing about what OS2 was or how it was supposed to make anyones life easier. So IBM was doing plenty on it's own to sabatage OS2 even without MS who if they hadn't left to sell windows and later do NT and 95 would just have in some way weasled the rights to OS2 away from IBM by hook or crook anyway so it didn't really matter OS2 was doomed no matter how things played out. As things worked out we still ended up with OS2 just with a different name and MS shockingly weasled it away from IBM by taking the code which was OS2 at the core shelving it for a few years after they broke off from IBM and then finishing it under a new name without giving any royalties or sharing any of the profits from it with IBM even though it had used code written by programers working for IBM.
But thats MS for you.
Are you crazy??? Do you have any idea of the number of mass suicides/homocides that would result from that? Not to mention the teen drug overdoeses that would skyrocket through the heavens.
Yes were that messed but a society at this point so unless somebodies got some magic quick fix for the ills of the US right now it's best not to let the corperate sponsered brain drain be shut off. It's safer this way only a fraction of the people who would normally be dieing are dieing.
Think about it you don't really belive it was the Abomb that was responsible for the number of deaths each year dropping to 1 million at the end of WW2 and staying their through the end of the century now do you?
Why? Because they can resell the VHF frequencies to balance the budget. Or at least that was the idea when it was first approved but now that G.W.s put us even further into the hole that may not even help but their still commited anyway.
Just to clarify the digital HD signals will use the UHF frequencies so UHF antennas will still work but their will be no need for the bigger VHF part. As for what are they thinking well it's a great way for senators and congressmen to pocket some kickback money for TV manufacturers and resellers who stand to make a fortune selling HD TV sets as long as people are forced to buy them to keep watching the corperate brain drain that passes for programming these days.
I mean comeon it didn't occure to you that this was all just about putting more money into the pockets of the rich? Why else would they do it just to give us a much clearer picture? OK so it is much clearer and more detailed but for the most part it's just about them making more money off of us.
Yes everything the FCC does is meant to expand it's power and control. Ok maybe not but it sure seams that way most of the time.
To clear up the confusion their will still be free over the air (OTA) broadcasts at least for the foreseable future. But they will be digital and in high def (HD)not standard Def (SD) so your looking at OTA HD which will need a HD set or a HD to SD converter box so you can view the HD broadcasts on a regular set.
So the future will still be OTA cable and Satalite. The OTA BTW uses the UHF frequency to send the digital signals out to HD sets so a standard UHF antenna will be all you need for OTA TV so no more VHF. The government takes the VHF frequencies back so they can resell them to make money to pay towards the deficet that G.W. keeps piling onto.
I mean really what idiot thought we were stupid enough to buy this garbage let alone eat it????
I guess Cliff does.
Tell you what cliff why don't you go jump off a cl....
No sorry it's to easy and you're not worth it.
But i mean God seriously itanium? just what were you smoking anyway.
Well if we americans would stop electing politicans who are nothing more than jokes to begin with then we wouldn't have to worry about political jokes now would we.
Ok i had to respond to this even though it's a late response.
The reason intel went with the pentium branding for their next gen chips was to avoid having to share the design with other chip makers who had clone rights to the x86 design IE AMD and Cyrix. The clone agreements with AMD and Cyrix that intel had been signed between the three makers ment that according to the courts intel had to share future chip designs as long as they carried the x86 naming convention under their agreements with AMD and Cyrix. So to avoid that and to have their new chip be considered a next generation chip they decided to go with the pentium name to delinieate it as a whole new generation chip and not a x86 chip.
So intel did not introduce the pentium name to avoid compatition with a bastardized 586 chip by some other manufacturer. It was simply to get out of it's agreements to share x86 chip designs with AMD and Cyrix so it could keep all profits from sales of it's new proccessor designs to itself and leave the other makers holding their nuts in an alley as you put it.
But I don't want a police state! I don't know anybody who would want a police state.
Why on gods green earth would anybody in their right mind want a police state?
Police states only take away from peoples rights and lead to societies like communism! And why after the soviet uninon and china not to mention korea would anybody in their right mind want that!
Police states NO! comunism NO! loss of privacy NO! NO! NO! a Million times NO!
You keep the cake and eat it i'll be happy just to lick the pan thank you very much.
Uhm yeah and actually thinking and useing common sense just doesn't apply then.
I mean seriously the coffee maker looking at newspapers and seeing that a war started and that troops are being sent you'd think he would have read that and thought to himself if he actually thought that donating free coffee to troops was a good idea on his own and he would have gotten it then not after people have bitched at him for not doing it.
Personally though I think it would be better in that senario for the government to buy and supply coffee to it's troops and not some buisness that way it keeps questions and acusation of special interest's and the like from being raised after the fact.
But all this tracking and marketing bullhockey is an excuses for company owners and heads who just don't have any common sense and need someone else to tell them what the public want's like dilberts boss.
They don't deserve to know what we wan't if they don't have the intellegence or common sense to figure things like this out on their own like other are able to.
You uh don't have a life at all don't you?
It's sad and pathetic when you run across lonely sad little loosers who think a minivan is cool!
Ahh but why would apple downgrade itself going from a 64 bit powerpc to a 32 bit x86 when both intel and amd now have 64 bit non x86 (though backwards compatable to 32 bit x86) chips?
X86 is the past and was only put into both amd and intel chip designs for compatability during their switch from 32 bit x86 to the new 64 bit chip designs. The new 64 b it chips aren't x86 except in that part which is their for 32 bit software compatability. Which will eventually be abandoned as more 64 bit programs start to replace the old 32 bit programs everybody is using today on current x86 systems.
So why on gods green earth would apple goto a old dieing platform like x86? Moreover AMD has designed and written the 64 bit code thats being used in both AMD and intels 64 bit chips, A move intel had to make to have a 64 bit chip that would work on windows 64 bit since it was written for AMDs 64 bit code before intel got theirs ready and it was to late to MS to go back and rewrite windows code to include it.
So basicly if apple wanted to go with another non powerpc 64 bit chip they would be better off going with AMD's 64 bit chips as they are the ones who designed the 64 bit chip that both intel and AMD are using and the chip that apple would be using if they went away from ibm. The newer AMD 64 bit dual core chips also have shown themselves to be heads above the intel chips as well in video encoding which has always been a big seller in apple systems. So given all this why on earth would apple choose intel over AMD and why ever would they choose to go with x86 an already dieing platform before they even announce a switch?
This whole article is just a bunch of false half thought out half baked garbage from CNET. If apple were seriously thinking about switching x86 wouldn't even be a consideration not when the industry is moving away from old flawed and aged x86. If apple were truley serious about deciding to go intel their are other intel chip designs for apple to choose from other than x86 like ARM and i know others would say itanium but that is a more expensive chip design than the current powerpc chips which would raise the cost of apple products even more.
Uhm i guess i would have to say Islam.
Mohammed laid out ground rules for a jihad or holy war (actually holy pilgrimage originally). Not that many if any modern terrorists follow thoughs rules for their holy wars. Benladen has broken every rule laid out by Mohammed for not only holy war but for many other aspects of Islam.
Why Muslims deify these terrorists like they do for violating the very fundamental roots of their religion is beyond me.
But their are ground rules for a holy war even for Christian holy wars like the crusades. You could kill Muslims and still get into heaven for one.
The only religions that don't seam to have these ground rules are the different PC/OS religious groups who seem to act like anyone and anything not using/advocating their PC/OS choice is to be smacked down with any and all violent means available to them even and especially if it goes beyond what's considered necessary.
Much like modern terrorist groups today which is were it seems these PC/OS zealots seem to get their inspiration from.
OK so this post doesn't pull any punches either but i've gotten sick and tired myelf of all these pissing contests between the PC/OS zealots going on everywhere. For gods sake it's some pieces of hardware and some stinking code get over it already.
Man of all the stupid idiotic things to fight over this has got to be the worst one possible.
Thanks but i paid for lasik with free lifetime enhancements so i don't need your future service. :D
So uhm then like how does that explain spam and popup adds? These are places consumers don't want adds but they go their anyway. Theirs also adware something i truly hate and despise as much as spam and popups. And lets not forget spyware which is often used by companies to collect information to better target adds to the people.
Id hardly say that these forms of advertising are passive, they are more often intrusive.
Minority report begins to sound more like the future of advertising based on things like we see now if you ask me.
Ah and it will keep us in the suns comfort zone a few million years longer to boot.
Sounds like a win win to me!
And then they go out of buisness because they stopped making money from not having any content to broadcast or because the content becomes even more like crap-tent instead of content as their broadcast station bleeds money like a gutted whale (Pardon the expression).
Saying play our way or we take our ball and go home doesn't work not when people are just fine to let the spoilt brat take his ball and leave. It just means he looses out on playing the game and everything that went with it. Only now his ball is a big expensive broadcast station that bleeds money like a sive if he's not producing/broadcasting content that people wanna watch.
Sounds more like you have forgone all logic. Personally though even if this wasn't the case i would still be just fine letting the broadcasters stomp home like spoilt brats anyway. Better to find other ways of entertaining ourselves than to bow to the whims of some spoilt brat content providers (and i use that term tounge in cheek since they aren't much of content producers as it is anyway).
The people don't need them but they sure need us so slitting their own throwts to spit us and tech isn't a good idea.
Ewoks roasting on and open fire ROFL! :D
Uhm we saw ROTS on friday afternoon and i heard democracy.
Well the $7 for the ticket $5.90 for popcorn and 3.50 for small pop and $3.50 for candy might have something to do with the dimming the magic of movies.
$7.00
$5.90
$3.50
$3.50
------
$19.90
Man thats crazy $20 to see a movie with popcorn pop and a candy. The real magic isn't the movies themselves it's how movie theaters can get away with this kind of highway robbery.
I took my nephews and niece to see ROTS and it costed $50.00 for me and 4 kids plus popcorn and candy which we all split plus 5 soda's.
Who is ripping off who here? This is the reason at least for me why i don't goto watch movies in the theater instead of waiting for them to come out on DVD. I only took the kids to see ROTS because it was the last of the series and everybody would be talking about it in school at work etc. So i wanted them to see it as well as see it myself so it wouldn't be ruined for us. But at thoughs prices i'd rather chance them being ruined for us than pay thoughs outragous prices. And thats why my last movie i saw before DVD release in a theater was pirates of the carribian. Can't recall the movie i saw before that one because it was so long before that.
* Anyway I bring this up because it seems to me that nothing has changed in the last 5000 years of human history. The more that things change the more they stay the same. Here we are in 2005 having the same friggin fight that Archimedes had. It's as if the last couple of thousand years never happened.*
Ahh sorta brings a whole new meaning to the words "The earth stands still" as God is proported to have said. Of course early christians took it to mean the earth doesn't move and theirfore is the center of the universe or at least the solar system.
And we all know what saying anything against that meant for people like capernicus and galileo.
Weren't you paying attention or did you even RTFA's MS already stated the the 360 will be backwards compatable to old xbox games.
sheesh learn to pay attention or read or something.
If you ask me what the MPAA and RIAA has been doing isn't fair either. Were better off without TV and music at this rate. Heck i wish fair use wasn't created to prop up an otherwise unconstitutional law to begin with.
Make the rich richer and screw the poor back into serfdom were we all belong right!
Well thats one way of looking at it but here's another.
The FCC lost in court over the broadcast flag (BF) because it excedes their authority. The FCC has authority over Radio and TV signals transmited over the airwaves as well as telephony (wire). What they were trying to do with the BF was to take without the authority to do so control over what happens to tv signals once they leave the airwaves when they enter the home device IE your TV tuner or TV tuner card.
This is outside of their mandate (their authority to act on). Without Congress voting to extend their authority to such devices (effectively giving the FCC control over TV's (scary)) the FCC couldn't introduce regulations like the broadcast flag without congress giving them extended authority to do so hence why the courts overturned the broadcast flag regulation.
What the FCC was trying to do i have heard of as being called a grab for power over electronic devices in the home IE judge's question of the FCC trying to control washing machines and how they might be used you'd have to read the quote on that as i don't recall how it went but the judge's statment sounded all 1984ish. Iv'e also heard it being called the FCC trying to extend it's power to censorship of TV or playing piracy cop.
Im sure their are others but however you look at it the FCC was way outta line with what it was trying to do or should be allowed to do. They weren't created to play content cop over what is and isn't recorded on tv's or other devices once the content leaves the airwaves. It wasn't isn't nor should it ever be the FCC's place to do so.
So why'd they do it?
To appease the MPAA and the interest's they serve who threatened to not produce/broadcast HD content over the air (OTA) for HD tv's (basicly like spoilt children on the playground saying play our way or we take our ball and go home) unless the HD content could be locked down to devices or reduced in quality to standard definition (SD) when a home owner decides to move BF content off their flaged devices. Without HD content for public consumption OTA their would be a big roadblock to public adoption of HD (if you ask me the prices for the TV's tuners and or HD recorders is a big roadblock in itself) so the FCC agreed to the flag with some alterations to appease the MPAA and their handlers as well as to be acceptable to the FCC. But this had to be done quickly as times running out as SD TV's are supposed to be abandoned by 06 and no longer be produced and VHF being surrendered back to the FCC by 2011 or 2012 it think it was or as soon as HD saturation reaches 80%. So with the speed of congress on such matters and the timeframes needed to allow manufactures to make new BF enabled devices they had to get the regulation in place quickly so they tried to make a regulation themselves i guess hoping it wouldn't be challanged.
But that is just a guess on my part. They could have done it thinking they had the authority for all i know heck they may have thought it was a grey area that they could win if challenged but i stick with my orriginal guess.