If most of your stations are in one direction, get a directional HD antenna and an amplifier, I like electroline, check out ebay, get a new one if you can. For cable, if all your interested in is the OTA channels, you can get the base OTA package (usually like $15/month) which is ridiculous compared to investing in a good antenna. (And you need to record QM channels, and hope vista doesn't bloc them) If you want other cable channels, you won't be able to record HD, unless you invest $250 in the HD PVR. Then you probably need to upgrade your htpc for H.264 HD video.
Software is also an issue, I wouldn't recommend MCE for my worst enemy (let alone the vista version). You're better off with Beyondtv or Sage, or if you tinker Media Portal. You'll get better pvr support from these programs. Otherwise, I recommend just using the Wintv software that came with your Hauppauge card. Hauppauge also has a decent signal monitor that will let you know how well you can tune in stations.
Ok, I call bullshit on this one. People lacking any clue what they are talking about keep writing about fructose as being the culprit, and of course jumping on high fructose corn syrup as the same. It is not. Here are some facts, feel free to try to dispute or verify them.
Sucrose - table sugar - is composed of two molecules, one fructose and one glucose (also called dextrose) molecule, joined together as a disaccharide. As soon as this hits any of the enzymes in your mouth or stomach, the connecting bond is hydrolized and you get 42% furctose and 58% glucose (weight difference, fructose is a 5 carbon sugar, glucose a six)
High fructose corn syrup is sold in ratios of 42, 55, and 90% fructose, the remainder being glucose and trace higher saccharides. The bulk of the material used in foods is either 42 or 55, 42 being the ideal proportion to sucrose. 90 is used mostly for special applicaitons and not as a sweetener. Soft drinks use the 42, meaning it is exactly the same as sucrose as soon as it hits your mouth and stomach.
Finally, all health effects of fructose are compared to pure glucose, not sucrose, and they are using the pure fructose, not high fructose corn syrup. If you compared high fructose to sucrose, guess what, not a bit of difference. This is a charlatans comparison, and pretty effective in fooling intelligent people who know little or anything about food chemistry.
You want to ban fructose, try this, give up apples, pears, oranges, berries, every fruit has fructose in it, I don't see any doctors (sorry "cough" nutritionists) calling for a ban of fruit. Hell, look it up in a real source, or here's wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose_malabsorptio n#Foods_with_high_fructose_content Remember, they called it fructose because it initially came from fruit.
You want to reduce obesity, reduce all sugars, reduce starchy foods low in fiber, increase unrefined (aka -non bleached) foods, fat under 30% of calories, less salt, and get off your goddamn computer chairs and take a freakin walk!
Now, Lustig may have credentials to study insulin hypersecretion, but his conclusions are clueless. He relates fructose intake of 1/2 lb a year in 1970 to 56lbs now, but fails to account for the bound fructose in sucrose, all he did was cheat the facts and sensationalize his main source of income, research on obesity.
Good news is, with the government stupidly touting the inefficient production of ehtanol from corn, the bulk of the corn crop in 2015 will be going to ethanol production, and most food makers will have to revert back to sucrose (and making ethanol from sugarcane is much more efficient than corn, ask Brazil) and of course all your food will triple in cost (as well meat, dairy, anything that was corn fed, so, look forward to being fat and broke in the future, food, gas, everything will skyrocket, everything but our salaries, as we will all be outsourced to China or Bolivia by then.
Sad to back these tools up, but they (claim) did have evidence, they tracked an ip address that was traced to an account, then filed a lawsuit against that account. Paul claims he did not share files and does not have them on his computer. So, the tools want to verify his claims by inspecting his computer etc etc. This is all reasonable (while the concept of the lawsuits may not be)
Hopefully, Paul (or Paule) does not have any evidence of those songs on his computer (and more importantly, does not have evidence that they may have been erased, there was a precedent where someone got the book thrown at them after using a drive wiper, hopefully that gets thrown back on appeal). Sadly, even if he is innocent, if they (the tools) can convince a judge that the data has been tampered with (wiped hard drive, another computer, whatever) they could still reak (pun intended) havoc.
This is an opportunity to raise the bar by requiring much more specific proof of infringement before violating a person's right to privacy and disrupting their lives, but don't expect that to come out of Chicago. Next best thing is that if Paul can withstand the expedited discovery (and many dirty tricks will probably be used) then he wins and precedent is set. This will limit and force the hand of the tools in future cases and encourage others to resist the suit (specifically if Paul can get attorney fees).
Slashdot Mirror
If most of your stations are in one direction, get a directional HD antenna and an amplifier, I like electroline, check out ebay, get a new one if you can. For cable, if all your interested in is the OTA channels, you can get the base OTA package (usually like $15/month) which is ridiculous compared to investing in a good antenna. (And you need to record QM channels, and hope vista doesn't bloc them) If you want other cable channels, you won't be able to record HD, unless you invest $250 in the HD PVR. Then you probably need to upgrade your htpc for H.264 HD video. Software is also an issue, I wouldn't recommend MCE for my worst enemy (let alone the vista version). You're better off with Beyondtv or Sage, or if you tinker Media Portal. You'll get better pvr support from these programs. Otherwise, I recommend just using the Wintv software that came with your Hauppauge card. Hauppauge also has a decent signal monitor that will let you know how well you can tune in stations.
Ok, I call bullshit on this one. People lacking any clue what they are talking about keep writing about fructose as being the culprit, and of course jumping on high fructose corn syrup as the same. It is not. Here are some facts, feel free to try to dispute or verify them.
o n#Foods_with_high_fructose_content Remember, they called it fructose because it initially came from fruit.
Sucrose - table sugar - is composed of two molecules, one fructose and one glucose (also called dextrose) molecule, joined together as a disaccharide. As soon as this hits any of the enzymes in your mouth or stomach, the connecting bond is hydrolized and you get 42% furctose and 58% glucose (weight difference, fructose is a 5 carbon sugar, glucose a six)
High fructose corn syrup is sold in ratios of 42, 55, and 90% fructose, the remainder being glucose and trace higher saccharides. The bulk of the material used in foods is either 42 or 55, 42 being the ideal proportion to sucrose. 90 is used mostly for special applicaitons and not as a sweetener. Soft drinks use the 42, meaning it is exactly the same as sucrose as soon as it hits your mouth and stomach.
Finally, all health effects of fructose are compared to pure glucose, not sucrose, and they are using the pure fructose, not high fructose corn syrup. If you compared high fructose to sucrose, guess what, not a bit of difference. This is a charlatans comparison, and pretty effective in fooling intelligent people who know little or anything about food chemistry.
You want to ban fructose, try this, give up apples, pears, oranges, berries, every fruit has fructose in it, I don't see any doctors (sorry "cough" nutritionists) calling for a ban of fruit. Hell, look it up in a real source, or here's wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose_malabsorpti
You want to reduce obesity, reduce all sugars, reduce starchy foods low in fiber, increase unrefined (aka -non bleached) foods, fat under 30% of calories, less salt, and get off your goddamn computer chairs and take a freakin walk!
Now, Lustig may have credentials to study insulin hypersecretion, but his conclusions are clueless. He relates fructose intake of 1/2 lb a year in 1970 to 56lbs now, but fails to account for the bound fructose in sucrose, all he did was cheat the facts and sensationalize his main source of income, research on obesity.
Good news is, with the government stupidly touting the inefficient production of ehtanol from corn, the bulk of the corn crop in 2015 will be going to ethanol production, and most food makers will have to revert back to sucrose (and making ethanol from sugarcane is much more efficient than corn, ask Brazil) and of course all your food will triple in cost (as well meat, dairy, anything that was corn fed, so, look forward to being fat and broke in the future, food, gas, everything will skyrocket, everything but our salaries, as we will all be outsourced to China or Bolivia by then.
Sad to back these tools up, but they (claim) did have evidence, they tracked an ip address that was traced to an account, then filed a lawsuit against that account. Paul claims he did not share files and does not have them on his computer. So, the tools want to verify his claims by inspecting his computer etc etc. This is all reasonable (while the concept of the lawsuits may not be)
Hopefully, Paul (or Paule) does not have any evidence of those songs on his computer (and more importantly, does not have evidence that they may have been erased, there was a precedent where someone got the book thrown at them after using a drive wiper, hopefully that gets thrown back on appeal). Sadly, even if he is innocent, if they (the tools) can convince a judge that the data has been tampered with (wiped hard drive, another computer, whatever) they could still reak (pun intended) havoc.
This is an opportunity to raise the bar by requiring much more specific proof of infringement before violating a person's right to privacy and disrupting their lives, but don't expect that to come out of Chicago. Next best thing is that if Paul can withstand the expedited discovery (and many dirty tricks will probably be used) then he wins and precedent is set. This will limit and force the hand of the tools in future cases and encourage others to resist the suit (specifically if Paul can get attorney fees).