Why would I drop $300+ for a Tivo (or more for HD versions) PLUS a monthly subscription when I get an HD DVR from Time Warner for $9.59 per month before discounts?
Their box is guaranteed to work with their service, doesn't require internet access (or a phone line) in the living room to get guide information, is automatically waranteed for free as long as I'm already paying for the cabl;e service, is fixed in my home if I have an issue (or I can more quickly exchange it hassle free at the local office in person and son't have to wait for a repair at all or cross ship boxes or waste money on postage). Heck, it even comes with a universal remote that works with my 5 diferent HT devices... and they even give me free batteries!
The digital box I have in the other room is the same way, $495 per month. Even if the box was only $200, plus $1 per month to rent the CableCard to go in the box, I could get a cable box from the cable company for 4 years for the same price, and get a few hardware upgrades inbetween. The HD box (non-DVR) is the same price.
I don't pirate video, so I've not much to worry about, but if I did, I'd rather there be a definitive encryption system that I know I could crack, and know I have done so completely because I can see or hear the difference between encrypted and not. This is far better than the watermarking technology they're hinting at implementing (and rumor they're leaking into peer to peer networks as we speak) in downloaded music and movies. Each watermarked file is unique, and because the watermark containing your personal information (or the person who didn't know any better and uploaded the file) is buried in the digital layer and imperceptible to your eyes and ears, and even to the h264 decoder playing the file, it's impossible to identify watermarked files. It takes comparing dozens or even hundreds of copies of the same file to determine the specifics of the watermark in order to strip it, and each file released can use a unique schema for the watermark data, meaning you'd have to have a crack tool with a database of millions of watermark keys to clean files, something you really can't develop. There's no single key to unlock a watermark like there is for AACS, and worse, it's impossible to tell if it's unlocked or not.
Personally, I'm skipping blue/HD. In 3-5 years they'll have 2.8:1 true widescreen at 2-4 times the resolution of current HD max resolution. DVD is fine for me now. HD vids ripped from HBO are even better (and I get dozens of them per month for $8.99) Sure, I have to wait an extra few months for it to air, but if I wanted to see it that bad, I'd see it in the theatre.
I've got a few TV shows I love too that I'm not only ripping, but first I pass them through a scene detector and strip the commercials. I also pack 2-6 episodes together and insert new scene cuts (titles) before ripping it to DVD. Sure, it takes about 2 hours to prep and rip a disk, but I'm getting free complete TV seasons, commercial free, on DVD for not much more than my time and the cost of blanks.
I don't know where you heard this. One option that is available, but noone has put the money forward to implement, is that connected blu-ray players can catalog a movie when it begins playing and check an online service to determine if that particular disk has been played in any other non-authorised players.
You can authorise as many players as you want on your account, including those already authorised on other accounts. The system supposedly also cross checks not to see if you're playing a copy of the movie at multiple locations, but if it's insterted into multiple players "at the same time" at which point it was supposed to determine the movie was pirated and lock down ALL copies of the movie from playing in any player.
Unfortunately, to do this, every copy of every movie stamped needs an individual serial code, and all the players would be required to be network connected. This was unreasonable to the consumer and extremely expensive for the industry, and as yet is not implemented in any fashion that I am aware of or that I could find a reference to. This was a reccomendation the industry (or some designer) made when the platforms were up for standardization, but I can not find proof that this made it into the final product.
The only restrictions (as of this week) currently in use are: 1) advanced encryption in the disk to prevent copying (which won't last a week) and 2) HDCP which prevents movies in HD from playing through non-HDCP compliant equipment (to prevent stream copying by intermediate devices).
For those of you with PCs with aftermarket blue ray or HD players, keep this in mind: even if you have a DVI or HDMI connected display, if your OS, motherboard, video card, and display (as well as a few chips inbetween) don't support and are certified for HDCP, then any disks that require it (just 2 so far) will not be playable on your system. For those of you with HDTVS, not only must you have a proper player (with a functional BIOS) but your TV must specifically implement HDCP, and so must any swith or stereo amplified inline between the 2 points. As of Christmas last year, less than 50% of TVs being sold supported HDCP. CHECK WITH YOUR VENDOR BEFORE BUYING A PLAYER TO MAKE SURE IT WILL ACTUALLY WORK!!! Many of you already experienced this when hooking up your PS3 to unsuppoprted hardware...
If you're buying a new PC, Stereo, or TV, make SURE it has native HDCP support. This is most important in computers. Only DX10 video cards support this so far, but your motherboard must also be HDCP certifies as well.
It was just used in these 2 releases... way ahead of their promise. Further, the packing for the movies, though there is a tiny icon on the package somehwere, does not in any way obviously indicate the media is protected that a typical consumer would notice. These are 2 promises already broken by the industry.
nobody is expecting this system to track drug dealers based on what look to be shady hand to hand transfers, or locate a perp scoping out a store front. These things require complex logic and decision skills that we're just not capable of encoding even if the resolution of the camera and automated controlls were capable of seeing it. What it could easily do is look for simple clues: a car that circles a block several times when there are available parking spaces, someone sitting in a parked or running car for more than 15 minutes, someone standing in a no loitering zone for an unacaptable time frame, a sudden crowd reaction to an event (when dozens of people suddly back off or scatter when a fight starts, a weapon is drwan, a sudden noise panics people, etc), or even simple offences like someone smoking in a non-smoking zone or someone parking in a spot and not putting money in a meter.
The goal here as well is not to find people and prove them guily on camera, but to use feeds from the camera to dispatch real cops to the scene to make a human observation, or actually approach a suspect and question them with something simple like "can I help you with something?" Police constantly patrol the streets, but they mostly park in a spot and watch for a while, or drime aimlessly. This gives them some minor input and allows their patrols to be more effective.
Keep in mind, cameras on the street also protect you from the cops, and from other people. Now if your mugged and there's not a cop around, it's been recorded, and can be used in court to catch the guy who did it. Also, you automactically get the benefit of videotape in police brutality cases as they are allways on camera too...
Also, it's not the govenment that decided you are not subject to privacy when in public, but the courts, including at several steps in the process the opinions of a jury. Whether there is someone watching or not, a crime is a crime. Lack of an effective way to tell if you have comitted a crime does not make committing it acceptable.
Red light cameras have saved countless lives, have aided in catching hit-and-run drivers all over america. Traffic cameras have saved insurance companies (and thus you) billions of dollars in counter claims and frivilous lawsuits over who's fault is it really is arguements. Cameras inside cop cars, schools, government buildings, and more have solved tens of thousands of crimes, and prevented coutless more. Can you really say that it's worth so great a risk in getting rid of them to protect you from the simple hassle of a cop asking you why you're leaning on a lamp post at 2AM?
It's perfectly legal, provided they can state that modification of the OS by third party "may" cause conditions where after a firmware update the OS would fail to load, or cases where the modifications cause the firmware to not be automatically updatable. Apple will do nothing specific to brick the phones on purpose. Besides the PR nightmare that would cause, and beyond Job's near admission that iPhones will be in the near future unlockable by default and supported on multiple netowrks, purposely crashing the unit due to third party modification would break the law in some states.
Apple is NOT saying the upcoming patch will cause unlocked phones to fail. In fact, I'm sure they tested it. Some of the phones unlocked in different ways may prevent firmware from installing properly. In more likely cases, the updated firmware will require unlocking (again) and some applications may not work (or it might no longer be unlockable). In rare cases, it might be possbile the phone becomes bricked.
Existing law requires manufacturers to warranty devices that support 3rd party modification, unless it can be proven the modification itself damages the device. However, in this case, Apple has an out because this isn't 3rd party software, or even a 3rd party modification of their software, but end-user modification of the device. Would the firmware be reloadable from iTunes, the end user is protected, but if the phone would have to be returned to Apple for factory reset, or potentially board replacement, then that would NOT be covered under the existing laws. It would be easy for apple to prove the unlock modifications cause issues with the OS loader, firmware flash utility, or other aspects, and as long as the firmware itself does not break the phone purposely (by some detection of modification, or special code that won't work if certain modifications or programs are present) More importantly, the phone is only licenced for apple approved development, and is NOT unlocked or supported for end-user applications or modifications as other phones are. Had Apple supported 3rd party open software on the iPhone, this might be interpreted differently, but open development is explicitly forbidden on this device.
If you change out the injection computer in your car, your engine warranty is automatically void, even if the component was provided by a licenced 3rd party. This component in a car is nothing more than a program-on-chip, and would be considered no different from firmware modification of the phone.
The only issue Apple may have is proving the bricked phone is bricked because of this modification, and not because of other simple software or hardware issues. They can eaisly tell if you have changed the chip inside, but if you have simply unlocked it to use as a mobile web device and not as a phone at all, how will they prove it's been modified if it won't boot?
I am a senior engineer for my company, I travel frequently to meet with resellers and customers. I work partly from home, sometimes in the office, and a lot of time in the field. As a salaried consultant, I put between 45 and 55 hours per week "on the clock" not including my lunch and other personal breaks. If you factor in time I spend in hotels, at dinner with customers or resellers, and other time I spend "tinkering," I'm averaging about 60 hours per week. Some weeks I work closer to 30 real labor hours and do a lot of tinkering, reading up on new stuff, or sitting in a plane or airport for the rest, other weeks I'm nose to the grindstone for the whole 60 hours. Sometimes I get calls at 3 or 4AM and have to wake myself up and handle an isse.
I not only make a fair salary, but I have averaged over 10% annual raises to that salary based on experience and seniority. This is a LOT faster than I'd probably get as an hourly employee. We're a small company (fewer than 100 employees) and to staff enough people, at reasonable rates, to avoid massive overtime pay would add 3-5 people to my team. With overtime in the picture, they'd prefer to call on others to do extended labor when I'm close to 40 hours. I'd also have to deal with explaining WHY I'm in overtime if I did. Most importantly, it's simpler for me to simply get a salary at a point that "expects" a limited amount of overtime, and a predictable weekly paycheck. It's also easier for the finace guy since he doesn't have to worry about overtime when planning the budget month by month and quarter by quarter.
Big sales mean big commissions for some associates, but more money in means there's more in the budget. Us support consultants don't necessarily generate the same return as a lot of our labor is customer and reseller satisfaction or hardware support, and makes no revenue. If we had a bad month, how would finance predict that?
Besides, if they convert me to hourly wage, they'd just take my current salray, divide it by 50 hours, and give me that rate. Then they'd start using metrics to control my overtime use as some employees would likely abuse it to get more money. In the end, I've been down the road before, both overtime and salary. I FAR prefer salary. It's less hassle, more predictable, and I'm still paid fair wage for my time either way. Sure, one or two weeks a year I might put in 70+ hours. There are other weeks they simply overlook my PTO and I only work 30 hours. If I find myself working too much overtime, or they abuse my salary position, I push back and get a raise, more time off, or other compensations.
Salary makes it easy to keep company budgets in line, makes my life easier (on many levels) and I'm paid well either way. If I wasn't paid well, there and 5000 companies I could apply to (and many of my clients have already made me offers that I've politely turned down) that would take my experience at the same or higher pay rate and my company would no longer have me on staff, then I'd probably end up consulting back to them at twice my current pay rate until they hired someone to replace me and spent 6 months training him, as I've already seen happen. In fact, the company knows well that my highly trained position is hard to fill, expensive to train, and giving me a 10-15% raise annually costs less than replacing me. They abuse me, and I just up the ante...
Could it not simply be that Apple wanted to release a solid, stable product, simplify maqnufacturing and supply chain logistics for what was sure to be a hot product, and work with other companies abroad in later months to release an equally stable and freely available product? Remember, this was not only a phone that's new, but AT&T and Yahoo spent millions upgrading their networks and servers to support it's technology, including visual voicemail and push e-mail, 2 things which did not prior exist, and do not yet exist from other vendors. AT&T probably provided a significant effort in development of the phone itself. Apple could not have done this simultaneously with multiple venndors and had it be successful.
Now that the phone is out, and everyone else wants to sell it, Apple has the power to negotiate and say "here are the specs you must conform to" and then users can get the same experience on every network when they finally comply. Don't pretend the AT&T deal is forever. I give it until Q2 next year, tops.
Also, you all still forget the RAZR. This phone was exclusive for near half a year, and it was $599 on release too (with far fewer features than an iPhone). Exclusive deals are the way of the phone industry.
And one more important thing: Apple's market strategies all revolve around myths and rumors leading up to launch. If the phone was being developed for all the major networks, details would have been leaked...
Give it time and you'll be able to get an iPhone for most of the networks (though don't count on Sprint/Nextel). If you contract rolls over in the meantime and you have the chance, switch to AT&T anyway, if it's available where you are. Personally, I'm waiting for the 3G version anyway (and a price point of $249)
what document I signed? I signed nothing to receive free over the air broadcasts... There's no legally binding agreement to recording and using for personal use those recordings. The argument that I also can't have that broadcast recorded elsewhere and dowload it over wire, even including time shifting and fastforwarding or skipping commercials, is dead. Time Warner Cable is testing (and planning to roll out) centralized DVR services where their own servers record the programs, and you can view via VoD any program you pre-selected to record. How is pre-selecting a torrent RSS and downloading this content over wire for over the air or other legally paid for programs illegal if Time Warner can offer the exact same service, but more over, as a SUBSCRIPTION, fee based service offering legally (as a part of basic cable with no other requirements or seperate subscription charges for that right). They're doing it as a business, for profit, and NBC gets no part of it, but I can't do it personally?
Local facilities have no guarantee that I'm not receiving via cable or satelite a different version of that aired program. I'm in their viewer base, but since it's an over the air broadcast, there's no way of tracking how many people actually watched the program, let alone how many watched the commercial. As far as those local broadcasters paying for their comercials to be also broadcast over cable TV syndicates, cable set top boxes track viewership, so the cable company would be aware I did not view the program containing those comercials, and thus it will effect the local neilson rating, and thus they can provide accurate information to their advertisers. There is no theft of revenue as i'm simply choosing to receive the national broadcast vs the local broadcast, and this has held in courts already to be perfectly legal.
Also, it's not illegal to bypass adds in the first place, so should I have made the personal choice to allways fast forward past them. My VCR has a function called Commercial Advance, which automatically displays a blue screen and fast forwards past commercials for me automatically. Should I choose to download broadcasts, even those missing commercials, but in cases where I have decided to opt out of the advertising anyway, is this still illegal, even if i's legal for me to have devices that do this automatcially?
No, i'm not saying there are unlimited rights. However, I could just as easily record music from the radio (or via streamripper from the internet) and that is also as legal as using a VCR or DVR. Once recorded, I have the right to replay that recording, in part or full, as often as I see fit for personal use.
Whether I personally record the media, or have a friend record it for me, fair use allows the transfer of that recorded medie from my home to his and back (as long as it either is not considdered a permanant transfer, or that he could have equally received and recoded the stream).
Using a torrent to get copies of eppisodes that I for some reason did not record, but could have, through a network of individuals who have agreed to record these episodes just in case others in the network wished to view them. This would be a different story if a company was providing this as a service, but in this case, we're talking about simple sharing of content we could otherwise have legally acquired ourselves. In fact, using cnet's described process, this is in fact selective in a way no different from DVRs that permit remote access to your own recorded content. It's not illegal to watch TV shows existing on your own DVR across the internet. Lets take that a step further...
Time Warner Cable is proposing DVR functionality via their own remote storage facility. The set top box simply selects the programs you want recorded. Time Warner will be recording all broadcast video on all chanels on their own hardware in central offices. Your DVR will simply connect, download a program you wanted recorded, and allow you to see it in real time, and keep it on their server until you choose to delete it (up to a storage limit) How is this technically any different than a torrent assuming you are only downloading programming that you could otherwise have legally watched?
Either way, he had a retail CD, so he had to break a seal on the package that by breaking bound him to the license agreement. The sticker referenced places where that agreement could be read before breaking the seal.
If he was not the one who broke the seal, and he acquired the disk from someone else, then there's one of 2 cases: A) he's illegally using that license in the first place, or 2) the person who broke the seal agreed in his stead as a proxy for him, still just as binding.
Also, removing the EULA from the concerned media is a violation of distribution and use rights, the GPL, and other legally binding contracts and laws. This is not a legall excuse even if microsoft had not had such a seal on the packaging.
A good lawyer could also argue that the knowledge necessary to do such a remastering, and the fact that he has now admited in writing that he knew this would strip the EULA from the media, means he knew it existed, and thus circumvented his license and thus voided his right to use the product. He might even be guilty of a crime in some states by admitting so. You don;t have to read the license to be bound by it, only know it exists and that it is binding. Someone of his level of knowledge could easily be shown to understand that fact.
And the "by opening this package you are agreeing to all included license terms" didn't stop you on that retail copy? Oops... Missed that one didn't you.
OEM installs can't be bypassed using your method, and retail copies take effect as soon as you break the seal. ELA still has you...
My question is still this: Is it illegal to "steal" something that was already broadcast, typically in High definition, for free??? I guess you could argue that some of these programs are on chanels I can't get for free, and this technically would be stealing, assuming the broadcaster did have some way of collecting revenue (there's no legal standing for theft if there's no provable loss of value or goods, and in the case of free broadcast TV, good luck proving that)
Then again, if I'm paying for basic cable (or a premium service), and thus authorized to watch these shows in the first place, again, if I torrent them, is it still illegal as I could just as simply recorded it with a VCR, DVR, TV Decoder card, or even just as simply a line-in video feed to a PC...
I thought anything broadcast on TV was covered by personal use rights, as long as it's not rebroadcast for profit or trade of goods. Operating a torrent (if I did) technically would cost me money (in terms of electricty, hardware and time) and I get no goods or money from doing so, thus no profit. It's not a broadcast in that sense and thus not illegal in my interpretation of the laws. Provided the downloaded stream is "as broadcast" unedited, and containing all the appropriate commercials.
Distributing pay-for programming to those who do not have license to receive it would of course be illegal, and distributing illegally pirated or unreleased media would be as well. However, distributing legally broadcast footage to those who could otherwise recieve it already, or the reverse, downloading content you could otherwise get legally, should not be illegal. That stated, it should not be the government (or a companie's) job to make it illegal across the board, but that it should only be punishable if one is proven to be using the technology to illegally receive content. I challenge then the government to do so, prove I have actually downloaded content that I'm not already authorized or paying to recieve.
What NBC is arguing here, as are all other broadcasters who charge for downloads from sites for already broadcast content, is that they loose revenue. Really they're arguing to get more revenue then they would have gotten otherwise. They're arguing for the legal right to bill us for something they already give us for free! Downloading edited versions of these programs (where comercials have been stripped and thus advertisers are losing viewership) is a different arguement as we may actually be talking about misrepresentation of viewership and hence lost ad revenue, but these numbers are based on surveys anyway and are grossly inaccurate as noone can tell for certain what people other than cable TV subscribers watch (there's no feedback from broadcast TV or sattelite systems to pattern viewership or neilson ratings, it's all a guess).
Their argument is that people pay for TV episodes on DVD willingly, and in great numbers. Sure. Many people will not only pay for the convenience, but it's a professionally produced media, saves time, saved disk space, saves bandwidth, and MOST importantly, the commercials have been legally removed. By itself, many will be willing to pay for TV without commercials. Again, not the argument here is not "is it illegal to download,", but is it illegal to download "as broadcast" which is not the same thing.
1: your 20 year old TV had a 5 year warranty. I should argue you got your money out of it, and it's long past time you spent $100 and replaced it with a 27" from wallmart that has digital connectors... More importantly, that 20 year old TV uses a SHIT-load more electricty than a new model, even another tube TV. Simply replacing it might actually cost LESS over the life of the TV. Even comparing to a $600-800 flat panel (that will likely be $400 by 2009 as an OLED with LED backlight), assiming you keep the flat panel only 5 years, and have it on for 8 hours per day (that's the national average) than it also will cost less to replace your TV in 2009 than keep your old tube set. (note, current model energy star compliant CRT TVs in most cases use LESS power than plasma TVs, and comperable if only slightly higher than LCD TVs. This will change with LED backlighting and OLED screens, but for now, this comparison does not apply to current TVs. That 20 year old CRT on the other hand is not energy star compliant, and consumes likely 1.5-3 times the electricity of a normal set today).
2: there are SERIOUS resons we NEED to switch. This has nothing to do with corperate profits. A) we do not have enough bandwidth today to give a cell phone to every american. If there be a wide spread event, or heavy call volume, phone networks would begin to fail or brown out. Many calls would be unable to be made. As more people turn off home phones in favor of cell phones, this only gets worse. B) current emergency service systems do not typicall work indoors, a frequency change is required to overcome this. C) Free, public WiFi and extended rtange broadband internet systems need bandwidth as well. The cost to implement broadband over evtended range air waves is far cheaper than running cables directly to all rural homes in america. Do you want to pay for the wiring job? D) It's not only important for each emergency officer to have radio, but each also is issued a phone and a computer system, which need to perate independently of other systems, so in an outage they can still operate, comminucate, and access data. Add the cops, firemen, rescue workers, and military in there, and we're talking about 25% as many connection as the rest of us have combined. E) 700MHz band travels 4 times as far as current cell frequencies. This will permit cell coverage in many areas of america where there currently is none, reduce the number of cell towers and their proximity to highly populated areas or schools, and provide more consistant access nationwide as well as extending to near-coast islands and ocean areas currently only serviced by sattelite and high power radio.
Nobody is bing forced to get rid of their TV. Anyone who does not already have pay-for TV service will get a free box for their TV to convert the new signal to analog for them. The picture quality will actually improve, even on older TVs (except truly ancient sets) as most analog TVs are EDTV and only a select few true SD TVs still operate today. In 2 years, how many even of those TVs will still work?
Will the government make a lot of money off this auction? Technically yes, but actually they have earmarked that money and more to upgrade their own networks and all the cops, firemen, and military personell in the field, etc. What this is really doing is offsetting a major tax burden that all of us would have to pay and shifting it to those who choose to subscribe to fee based services (it's actually a nice change from the typically regressive tax system). Phone companies will not only pay small fortunes for bandwidth, but they have to pay a high price to actually roll that network out too, and have tight restrictions on how fast and far they must do that if they put in a bid at all. This gets all of us not only better technology, but makes it more universal, and more available to everyone.
In the end, for very little real cost to the consumer directly, we all get not just higher quality TV (an aesthetic side effect) but we get a stronger, mor
That's being debated by the FCC right now. Current laws already require them to open their networks and allow the digital tuners already present in your TVs to decode cable and satelite signals. unfortunately, the technology is not universally compatible, so how do TV makers include hardware at a reasonable cost that could be compatible with dozens of different encryption systems, different frequency ranges, and more? This is not a problem for Time Warner to be mandated to change, this is an issue where competition that you demanded we have caused a divergence of technology. Even if we could all agree on a data stream standard it would take years, and billions of dollars to implement it, far, far more than the cable company currently asks you to subsidize by having one of their boxes.
Also note, it's not only the decryption the box does, but also producing your nice interactive chanel guide. Without further requiring an international database of cable and TV providers that your TV could connect to, over an open public internet, to download that information, and even more cost, how will you know what's on? How will your $6 per month DVR work? Who pays for the central service and at what cost? Sureley more than you pay now...
You have to have a set top box. As of 2009, they will not be allowed to charge extra for that box (or at least not the first one as it becomes part of your basic cable subscription).
If you have an analog TV, the box will output analog for you (as it does today) If you have a full digital TV, then you'll connect on conponent, DVI or HDMI (or datalink, or something newer).
Heck, the HDTV DVR I got from the cable company didn't even have digital outputs for TV and audio. I had to REQUEST one that did, and this WAS a digital set top box... Asking them to continue to include analog is like asking car manufacturers to keep selling internal combustion engines...
What this staement really implies is that the govenment grant to provide free digital to analog converters for broadcast TV is not going to provide digital to analog converters for cable boxes. They'll simply have to continue spending the $1.25 or so to add the converters inside their own boxes like they continue to do now. It's not a burden for the cable companies.
We're not asking them to continue to broadcast analog. We're not asking them to give you a seperate converter. We're not asking them to give you a free set top box (in some cases they already do, but ones beyond the first are a couple bucks a month just like sattelite boxes).
Think about this like sattelite does: You buy the hardware yourself. To access signals on your TVs you pay for a subscription, plus an additional $4.99 per month for each additional TV. Now, cable is doing the same thing, but you don't BUY the hardware, ever. This is acually a better deal...
If all you want is broadcast TV, buy an anteanna and digital TV (or request a free converter for your older TV that you can't get until 2009). If you want other channels, you have to pay a subscription. The box is part of that cost. GET OVER IT.
Whether it's your wish or not, you agreed to it by clicking "I Accept" without fully having read or understood the conditions to which you accepted. It's not your code, it's their code, and their license terms with you give them permission to do what they will with that code, including refusing to allow you to continue to use it, void your contract without refund, and disable the product.
The only way to ensure they don't interacy with your system it to never allow it to connect with the net, a netowrk, or any media of any kind.
Automatic updates are only for application and OS level general patches. Other patches exist that you can't install automatically in any way (you must call Microsoft, know about the patch from a KB article, and request they install it for you) and other patches are considered fundamantal to the operation of their own license, security of their update system, and more, and will be enforced directly with or without your concent. This may include things as simple as Microsoft changing the authentication process used for automatic updates. If they had to change that for their own internal security reasons then any PCs that did not recieve this force update could potentially be a risk for Microsoft itself, or more likely would simply cause Auto update to fail if you ever tried to connect (automatically or manually).
Microsfot makes no guarantee of any kind that their software will work, nor do they guarantee that things that work today will continue to work tomorrow. No software vendor does. They try to adapt to threats as wuickly as possible. Sometimes dealing with those threats break things. Someday, they might come across something that can only be patches by throwing out i386 altogether, or obsoleting all existing windows compatible software. Though they won't likely do this with a basic patch, should they loose a patent infringment case that hinged on a critical windows componemt, a court might order it to be removed (though I'm sure the government would get involved like they did with RIM and extend exceptions to allow the government systems to operate, but home users might still be screwed)
0) Image the drive then back up the data (best to have both types of backup) 1) remove the hard disk 2) connect the power leads to something using a high but safe voltage (a few 9 volt batteries in series). This should fry the drives controller board rendering it useless. 3) bring the whole rig back to the store
It may be a bit more complicated, but with a cracked hinge, a visibly dented drive might get you knowhere but a "this appears physically abused" and "warranty void" position.
Course, if you're gonna image it anyway, might as well just throw Vista back on it, let them fix it, then ghost it back. Don't want them replacing your good drive with a crap drive as they are know to do...
Simple wooden sticks and threads made from other waste material would not only be easy to use and cheap, but would also be able to be consumed in the cellulostic process and thus don't need to be filtered from the harvested crop. Simply machinery like a wheat cutter could still be used to harvest the crop, though slight modifications might need to be made.
1st, it's already uncontrolled in most of the south. 2nd, it's easy to contain with simple natural barriers (roads or a grass field barrier) 3rd, it can be poisoned easily, and sefely, if it grows where you don't want it.
I thnik we can handle this with a simple look at the advertising contract: I'm sure almost every one states something exact like or very similar to "there is no guarantee that your ad, placed in our site, will be presented on the users screen due to any number of reasons including, but not limited to, being blocked by client side software, failure of an internet connection, hardware or software failure in the site server systems, line transiossion failures, packet loss, corrupt data, slow load times, or browsing away from a page before the ad is displayed." and further "It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser of ad space to periodically review the web site and ensure their ad is being proerly displayed."
If you post a bilboard by a freeway, and it tears in a storm, you still pay for it unless you contact the sign maker and tell him it's damaged. There's also no guarantee anyone will actually look at the bilboard even if it's in prestine condition. Advertisers are simply paying for the likelyhood that people will have the oportunity, should they wish it, to view the ad. By blocking the advertising, the user is basically "opting out."
Same goes for junkmail... There's no guarantee, even if delivered successfully, that a person will actually read the junkmail in their real mailbox. I go to the box at the street, collect my mail, walk to my outdoor trashcan, and throw out anything not immediately recognized as valid mail (anything from any company I don't have an open account with, any form of coupon sheet, flyer, or any other form of advertising). My e-mail system does the same thing for me. Why should my web browser be subject to any different financial advertising system. The advertiser simply can't guarantee I recieve it or not.
Even if this campaign actually was successful, all we need is 2 little changes to adblocker: 1) allow a user configurable spoofing tool to be integrated making certain the web host is unaware of the existance of the plugin or unaware that I'm using Firefox and 2) download the ads anyway, even if blocked from being presented to the screen so that the advertiser still pays a fee and it still costs the host bandwidth.
Me and several environmentalist friends have been screaming for years: "Kudzu you assholes!!!"
Not only is it a weed, it's practically a menace, damned near impossible to kill, grows over acres in a season, requires only rain as it produces its own nitrogen (no fertilizers needed) and grows almost everywhere in the USA and most other countries. It's also NOT poisonous, and actually smells quite nice (I wouldn't make perfume out of it, but at least not offensive).
Using celulostic conversion processes (like the new facility being built near Atlanta Georgia will be diing using wood from trees) it can produce massive ammounts of ethanol easily, efficiently, and most important, cheaply. It's easy to harvest and transport without complicated equipment (an industrial lawnmower would do just fine). We don't need any massive investments to start doing this TODAY. Other than building cellulostic ethanol factories, and some ethanol pipelines, we alredy have everything else (unlike corn, sugarbeets, biodiesel, hydrogen, dirtect electric, or other proposed systems)
In terms of ethanol per pound of material, it's not the best choice (some forms of algae do better), but in terms of ethanol per acre of land, or ethanol per dollar spent, I challenge you to find anything better!!!
Mac OS 1.1 used to run on 1 side of a low density 3.5" floppy. The footprint in RAM of the Finder was 16K. The whole original Mac (lisa) ran on 128K of RAM...
I just sold a 3 year old iMac (screen-on-a-stick model). It was only 1GHz, 768MB, 30GB. 17" display. I got $525 for it... plus shipping. This was actually lower than other bids I had seen close in recent weeks. I've seen 800MHz Imacs go for over $600, in August of this year!
You spend more for the machine than competitors, yes. Part of that is sheerly for the aesthetic of the beautiful machine, a small part for bragging rights, and the rest for the solid tech inside the box. Apple regularly, and suddenly drops prices when they add new models. This is typical of many companies. If you know there's a Mac Keynote coming up in the next 30 day, WAIT!!! Don't buy anything. Or at least make sure where you are buying it from has a 14-30 day price match guarantee.
Outside of that, what's your mac worth after 3 years compared to something else? I have a 1 year old $1100 IBM business notebook. Core Duo, advanced graphics, SATA, and more. on ebay, it's worth about $450... A 2 year old Gateway gaming notebook (my wife's rig) was $1300 new (after rebates). It's worth about $250 on ebay right now. My mom's 2 year old powerbook? Still worth 50% of what she paid for it... In fact, it's worth more used than machines with faster processors cost new today.
Add to this the hundreds of dollas I've saved in not needing AV or spyware software and that only 1 of the 11 Mac's my family has owned since 1984 needed anything more than a hard drive replaced, and that was storm damage, not really Apple's fault there. Every mac we have ran for at least 5 years before being replaced, including a Mac Classic we bought in 1988 that STILL works today, an original blue iMac that failed back in March of this year (7-8 years old?) and an ols LC II I got in 1991 that ran until 1997 when I sold it for $400 (yes $400 for a $1200 computer that was 6 years old...)
I applaud Apple for giving $100 in credit to all iPhone adopters. 2 months was a BIT quick, I'll admit, for such a drastic price drop. Honestly, I expected a $100 drop upon the intro of the new iPods as I was expecting the touch to be $100 more expensive than the classic iPod (note to Apple, you set the price too low there, I would have paid $400 for it without blinking) I expected a discount from AT&T of another hundred by mail in rebate in November and doubling that to $200 rebate in January.
Apple will be in trouble shortly as they actually won't be able to move too many iPhones on their own once their exclusive contract ends and other vendors start pushing iPhones with big rebates for big contracts. Sure, if you have a contract and want an iPhone you can just buy one outright for $400 or so, but anyone who is changing service contracts might be able to get one for $100 or $200 for signing up for a contract they needed anyway. Sure, Apple gets the kickback, but at OEM/wholesale pricing, not full price, so their money train will be stopping shorlty.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would I drop $300+ for a Tivo (or more for HD versions) PLUS a monthly subscription when I get an HD DVR from Time Warner for $9.59 per month before discounts?
Their box is guaranteed to work with their service, doesn't require internet access (or a phone line) in the living room to get guide information, is automatically waranteed for free as long as I'm already paying for the cabl;e service, is fixed in my home if I have an issue (or I can more quickly exchange it hassle free at the local office in person and son't have to wait for a repair at all or cross ship boxes or waste money on postage). Heck, it even comes with a universal remote that works with my 5 diferent HT devices... and they even give me free batteries!
The digital box I have in the other room is the same way, $495 per month. Even if the box was only $200, plus $1 per month to rent the CableCard to go in the box, I could get a cable box from the cable company for 4 years for the same price, and get a few hardware upgrades inbetween. The HD box (non-DVR) is the same price.
I don't pirate video, so I've not much to worry about, but if I did, I'd rather there be a definitive encryption system that I know I could crack, and know I have done so completely because I can see or hear the difference between encrypted and not. This is far better than the watermarking technology they're hinting at implementing (and rumor they're leaking into peer to peer networks as we speak) in downloaded music and movies. Each watermarked file is unique, and because the watermark containing your personal information (or the person who didn't know any better and uploaded the file) is buried in the digital layer and imperceptible to your eyes and ears, and even to the h264 decoder playing the file, it's impossible to identify watermarked files. It takes comparing dozens or even hundreds of copies of the same file to determine the specifics of the watermark in order to strip it, and each file released can use a unique schema for the watermark data, meaning you'd have to have a crack tool with a database of millions of watermark keys to clean files, something you really can't develop. There's no single key to unlock a watermark like there is for AACS, and worse, it's impossible to tell if it's unlocked or not.
Personally, I'm skipping blue/HD. In 3-5 years they'll have 2.8:1 true widescreen at 2-4 times the resolution of current HD max resolution. DVD is fine for me now. HD vids ripped from HBO are even better (and I get dozens of them per month for $8.99) Sure, I have to wait an extra few months for it to air, but if I wanted to see it that bad, I'd see it in the theatre.
I've got a few TV shows I love too that I'm not only ripping, but first I pass them through a scene detector and strip the commercials. I also pack 2-6 episodes together and insert new scene cuts (titles) before ripping it to DVD. Sure, it takes about 2 hours to prep and rip a disk, but I'm getting free complete TV seasons, commercial free, on DVD for not much more than my time and the cost of blanks.
I don't know where you heard this. One option that is available, but noone has put the money forward to implement, is that connected blu-ray players can catalog a movie when it begins playing and check an online service to determine if that particular disk has been played in any other non-authorised players.
You can authorise as many players as you want on your account, including those already authorised on other accounts. The system supposedly also cross checks not to see if you're playing a copy of the movie at multiple locations, but if it's insterted into multiple players "at the same time" at which point it was supposed to determine the movie was pirated and lock down ALL copies of the movie from playing in any player.
Unfortunately, to do this, every copy of every movie stamped needs an individual serial code, and all the players would be required to be network connected. This was unreasonable to the consumer and extremely expensive for the industry, and as yet is not implemented in any fashion that I am aware of or that I could find a reference to. This was a reccomendation the industry (or some designer) made when the platforms were up for standardization, but I can not find proof that this made it into the final product.
The only restrictions (as of this week) currently in use are: 1) advanced encryption in the disk to prevent copying (which won't last a week) and 2) HDCP which prevents movies in HD from playing through non-HDCP compliant equipment (to prevent stream copying by intermediate devices).
For those of you with PCs with aftermarket blue ray or HD players, keep this in mind: even if you have a DVI or HDMI connected display, if your OS, motherboard, video card, and display (as well as a few chips inbetween) don't support and are certified for HDCP, then any disks that require it (just 2 so far) will not be playable on your system. For those of you with HDTVS, not only must you have a proper player (with a functional BIOS) but your TV must specifically implement HDCP, and so must any swith or stereo amplified inline between the 2 points. As of Christmas last year, less than 50% of TVs being sold supported HDCP. CHECK WITH YOUR VENDOR BEFORE BUYING A PLAYER TO MAKE SURE IT WILL ACTUALLY WORK!!! Many of you already experienced this when hooking up your PS3 to unsuppoprted hardware...
If you're buying a new PC, Stereo, or TV, make SURE it has native HDCP support. This is most important in computers. Only DX10 video cards support this so far, but your motherboard must also be HDCP certifies as well.
It was just used in these 2 releases... way ahead of their promise. Further, the packing for the movies, though there is a tiny icon on the package somehwere, does not in any way obviously indicate the media is protected that a typical consumer would notice. These are 2 promises already broken by the industry.
nobody is expecting this system to track drug dealers based on what look to be shady hand to hand transfers, or locate a perp scoping out a store front. These things require complex logic and decision skills that we're just not capable of encoding even if the resolution of the camera and automated controlls were capable of seeing it. What it could easily do is look for simple clues: a car that circles a block several times when there are available parking spaces, someone sitting in a parked or running car for more than 15 minutes, someone standing in a no loitering zone for an unacaptable time frame, a sudden crowd reaction to an event (when dozens of people suddly back off or scatter when a fight starts, a weapon is drwan, a sudden noise panics people, etc), or even simple offences like someone smoking in a non-smoking zone or someone parking in a spot and not putting money in a meter.
The goal here as well is not to find people and prove them guily on camera, but to use feeds from the camera to dispatch real cops to the scene to make a human observation, or actually approach a suspect and question them with something simple like "can I help you with something?" Police constantly patrol the streets, but they mostly park in a spot and watch for a while, or drime aimlessly. This gives them some minor input and allows their patrols to be more effective.
Keep in mind, cameras on the street also protect you from the cops, and from other people. Now if your mugged and there's not a cop around, it's been recorded, and can be used in court to catch the guy who did it. Also, you automactically get the benefit of videotape in police brutality cases as they are allways on camera too...
Also, it's not the govenment that decided you are not subject to privacy when in public, but the courts, including at several steps in the process the opinions of a jury. Whether there is someone watching or not, a crime is a crime. Lack of an effective way to tell if you have comitted a crime does not make committing it acceptable.
Red light cameras have saved countless lives, have aided in catching hit-and-run drivers all over america. Traffic cameras have saved insurance companies (and thus you) billions of dollars in counter claims and frivilous lawsuits over who's fault is it really is arguements. Cameras inside cop cars, schools, government buildings, and more have solved tens of thousands of crimes, and prevented coutless more. Can you really say that it's worth so great a risk in getting rid of them to protect you from the simple hassle of a cop asking you why you're leaning on a lamp post at 2AM?
It's perfectly legal, provided they can state that modification of the OS by third party "may" cause conditions where after a firmware update the OS would fail to load, or cases where the modifications cause the firmware to not be automatically updatable. Apple will do nothing specific to brick the phones on purpose. Besides the PR nightmare that would cause, and beyond Job's near admission that iPhones will be in the near future unlockable by default and supported on multiple netowrks, purposely crashing the unit due to third party modification would break the law in some states.
Apple is NOT saying the upcoming patch will cause unlocked phones to fail. In fact, I'm sure they tested it. Some of the phones unlocked in different ways may prevent firmware from installing properly. In more likely cases, the updated firmware will require unlocking (again) and some applications may not work (or it might no longer be unlockable). In rare cases, it might be possbile the phone becomes bricked.
Existing law requires manufacturers to warranty devices that support 3rd party modification, unless it can be proven the modification itself damages the device. However, in this case, Apple has an out because this isn't 3rd party software, or even a 3rd party modification of their software, but end-user modification of the device. Would the firmware be reloadable from iTunes, the end user is protected, but if the phone would have to be returned to Apple for factory reset, or potentially board replacement, then that would NOT be covered under the existing laws. It would be easy for apple to prove the unlock modifications cause issues with the OS loader, firmware flash utility, or other aspects, and as long as the firmware itself does not break the phone purposely (by some detection of modification, or special code that won't work if certain modifications or programs are present) More importantly, the phone is only licenced for apple approved development, and is NOT unlocked or supported for end-user applications or modifications as other phones are. Had Apple supported 3rd party open software on the iPhone, this might be interpreted differently, but open development is explicitly forbidden on this device.
If you change out the injection computer in your car, your engine warranty is automatically void, even if the component was provided by a licenced 3rd party. This component in a car is nothing more than a program-on-chip, and would be considered no different from firmware modification of the phone.
The only issue Apple may have is proving the bricked phone is bricked because of this modification, and not because of other simple software or hardware issues. They can eaisly tell if you have changed the chip inside, but if you have simply unlocked it to use as a mobile web device and not as a phone at all, how will they prove it's been modified if it won't boot?
I am a senior engineer for my company, I travel frequently to meet with resellers and customers. I work partly from home, sometimes in the office, and a lot of time in the field. As a salaried consultant, I put between 45 and 55 hours per week "on the clock" not including my lunch and other personal breaks. If you factor in time I spend in hotels, at dinner with customers or resellers, and other time I spend "tinkering," I'm averaging about 60 hours per week. Some weeks I work closer to 30 real labor hours and do a lot of tinkering, reading up on new stuff, or sitting in a plane or airport for the rest, other weeks I'm nose to the grindstone for the whole 60 hours. Sometimes I get calls at 3 or 4AM and have to wake myself up and handle an isse.
I not only make a fair salary, but I have averaged over 10% annual raises to that salary based on experience and seniority. This is a LOT faster than I'd probably get as an hourly employee. We're a small company (fewer than 100 employees) and to staff enough people, at reasonable rates, to avoid massive overtime pay would add 3-5 people to my team. With overtime in the picture, they'd prefer to call on others to do extended labor when I'm close to 40 hours. I'd also have to deal with explaining WHY I'm in overtime if I did. Most importantly, it's simpler for me to simply get a salary at a point that "expects" a limited amount of overtime, and a predictable weekly paycheck. It's also easier for the finace guy since he doesn't have to worry about overtime when planning the budget month by month and quarter by quarter.
Big sales mean big commissions for some associates, but more money in means there's more in the budget. Us support consultants don't necessarily generate the same return as a lot of our labor is customer and reseller satisfaction or hardware support, and makes no revenue. If we had a bad month, how would finance predict that?
Besides, if they convert me to hourly wage, they'd just take my current salray, divide it by 50 hours, and give me that rate. Then they'd start using metrics to control my overtime use as some employees would likely abuse it to get more money. In the end, I've been down the road before, both overtime and salary. I FAR prefer salary. It's less hassle, more predictable, and I'm still paid fair wage for my time either way. Sure, one or two weeks a year I might put in 70+ hours. There are other weeks they simply overlook my PTO and I only work 30 hours. If I find myself working too much overtime, or they abuse my salary position, I push back and get a raise, more time off, or other compensations.
Salary makes it easy to keep company budgets in line, makes my life easier (on many levels) and I'm paid well either way. If I wasn't paid well, there and 5000 companies I could apply to (and many of my clients have already made me offers that I've politely turned down) that would take my experience at the same or higher pay rate and my company would no longer have me on staff, then I'd probably end up consulting back to them at twice my current pay rate until they hired someone to replace me and spent 6 months training him, as I've already seen happen. In fact, the company knows well that my highly trained position is hard to fill, expensive to train, and giving me a 10-15% raise annually costs less than replacing me. They abuse me, and I just up the ante...
Could it not simply be that Apple wanted to release a solid, stable product, simplify maqnufacturing and supply chain logistics for what was sure to be a hot product, and work with other companies abroad in later months to release an equally stable and freely available product? Remember, this was not only a phone that's new, but AT&T and Yahoo spent millions upgrading their networks and servers to support it's technology, including visual voicemail and push e-mail, 2 things which did not prior exist, and do not yet exist from other vendors. AT&T probably provided a significant effort in development of the phone itself. Apple could not have done this simultaneously with multiple venndors and had it be successful.
Now that the phone is out, and everyone else wants to sell it, Apple has the power to negotiate and say "here are the specs you must conform to" and then users can get the same experience on every network when they finally comply. Don't pretend the AT&T deal is forever. I give it until Q2 next year, tops.
Also, you all still forget the RAZR. This phone was exclusive for near half a year, and it was $599 on release too (with far fewer features than an iPhone). Exclusive deals are the way of the phone industry.
And one more important thing: Apple's market strategies all revolve around myths and rumors leading up to launch. If the phone was being developed for all the major networks, details would have been leaked...
Give it time and you'll be able to get an iPhone for most of the networks (though don't count on Sprint/Nextel). If you contract rolls over in the meantime and you have the chance, switch to AT&T anyway, if it's available where you are. Personally, I'm waiting for the 3G version anyway (and a price point of $249)
what document I signed? I signed nothing to receive free over the air broadcasts... There's no legally binding agreement to recording and using for personal use those recordings. The argument that I also can't have that broadcast recorded elsewhere and dowload it over wire, even including time shifting and fastforwarding or skipping commercials, is dead. Time Warner Cable is testing (and planning to roll out) centralized DVR services where their own servers record the programs, and you can view via VoD any program you pre-selected to record. How is pre-selecting a torrent RSS and downloading this content over wire for over the air or other legally paid for programs illegal if Time Warner can offer the exact same service, but more over, as a SUBSCRIPTION, fee based service offering legally (as a part of basic cable with no other requirements or seperate subscription charges for that right). They're doing it as a business, for profit, and NBC gets no part of it, but I can't do it personally?
Local facilities have no guarantee that I'm not receiving via cable or satelite a different version of that aired program. I'm in their viewer base, but since it's an over the air broadcast, there's no way of tracking how many people actually watched the program, let alone how many watched the commercial. As far as those local broadcasters paying for their comercials to be also broadcast over cable TV syndicates, cable set top boxes track viewership, so the cable company would be aware I did not view the program containing those comercials, and thus it will effect the local neilson rating, and thus they can provide accurate information to their advertisers. There is no theft of revenue as i'm simply choosing to receive the national broadcast vs the local broadcast, and this has held in courts already to be perfectly legal.
Also, it's not illegal to bypass adds in the first place, so should I have made the personal choice to allways fast forward past them. My VCR has a function called Commercial Advance, which automatically displays a blue screen and fast forwards past commercials for me automatically. Should I choose to download broadcasts, even those missing commercials, but in cases where I have decided to opt out of the advertising anyway, is this still illegal, even if i's legal for me to have devices that do this automatcially?
No, i'm not saying there are unlimited rights. However, I could just as easily record music from the radio (or via streamripper from the internet) and that is also as legal as using a VCR or DVR. Once recorded, I have the right to replay that recording, in part or full, as often as I see fit for personal use.
Whether I personally record the media, or have a friend record it for me, fair use allows the transfer of that recorded medie from my home to his and back (as long as it either is not considdered a permanant transfer, or that he could have equally received and recoded the stream).
Using a torrent to get copies of eppisodes that I for some reason did not record, but could have, through a network of individuals who have agreed to record these episodes just in case others in the network wished to view them. This would be a different story if a company was providing this as a service, but in this case, we're talking about simple sharing of content we could otherwise have legally acquired ourselves. In fact, using cnet's described process, this is in fact selective in a way no different from DVRs that permit remote access to your own recorded content. It's not illegal to watch TV shows existing on your own DVR across the internet. Lets take that a step further...
Time Warner Cable is proposing DVR functionality via their own remote storage facility. The set top box simply selects the programs you want recorded. Time Warner will be recording all broadcast video on all chanels on their own hardware in central offices. Your DVR will simply connect, download a program you wanted recorded, and allow you to see it in real time, and keep it on their server until you choose to delete it (up to a storage limit) How is this technically any different than a torrent assuming you are only downloading programming that you could otherwise have legally watched?
Either way, he had a retail CD, so he had to break a seal on the package that by breaking bound him to the license agreement. The sticker referenced places where that agreement could be read before breaking the seal.
If he was not the one who broke the seal, and he acquired the disk from someone else, then there's one of 2 cases: A) he's illegally using that license in the first place, or 2) the person who broke the seal agreed in his stead as a proxy for him, still just as binding.
Also, removing the EULA from the concerned media is a violation of distribution and use rights, the GPL, and other legally binding contracts and laws. This is not a legall excuse even if microsoft had not had such a seal on the packaging.
A good lawyer could also argue that the knowledge necessary to do such a remastering, and the fact that he has now admited in writing that he knew this would strip the EULA from the media, means he knew it existed, and thus circumvented his license and thus voided his right to use the product. He might even be guilty of a crime in some states by admitting so. You don;t have to read the license to be bound by it, only know it exists and that it is binding. Someone of his level of knowledge could easily be shown to understand that fact.
And the "by opening this package you are agreeing to all included license terms" didn't stop you on that retail copy? Oops... Missed that one didn't you.
OEM installs can't be bypassed using your method, and retail copies take effect as soon as you break the seal. ELA still has you...
My question is still this: Is it illegal to "steal" something that was already broadcast, typically in High definition, for free??? I guess you could argue that some of these programs are on chanels I can't get for free, and this technically would be stealing, assuming the broadcaster did have some way of collecting revenue (there's no legal standing for theft if there's no provable loss of value or goods, and in the case of free broadcast TV, good luck proving that)
Then again, if I'm paying for basic cable (or a premium service), and thus authorized to watch these shows in the first place, again, if I torrent them, is it still illegal as I could just as simply recorded it with a VCR, DVR, TV Decoder card, or even just as simply a line-in video feed to a PC...
I thought anything broadcast on TV was covered by personal use rights, as long as it's not rebroadcast for profit or trade of goods. Operating a torrent (if I did) technically would cost me money (in terms of electricty, hardware and time) and I get no goods or money from doing so, thus no profit. It's not a broadcast in that sense and thus not illegal in my interpretation of the laws. Provided the downloaded stream is "as broadcast" unedited, and containing all the appropriate commercials.
Distributing pay-for programming to those who do not have license to receive it would of course be illegal, and distributing illegally pirated or unreleased media would be as well. However, distributing legally broadcast footage to those who could otherwise recieve it already, or the reverse, downloading content you could otherwise get legally, should not be illegal. That stated, it should not be the government (or a companie's) job to make it illegal across the board, but that it should only be punishable if one is proven to be using the technology to illegally receive content. I challenge then the government to do so, prove I have actually downloaded content that I'm not already authorized or paying to recieve.
What NBC is arguing here, as are all other broadcasters who charge for downloads from sites for already broadcast content, is that they loose revenue. Really they're arguing to get more revenue then they would have gotten otherwise. They're arguing for the legal right to bill us for something they already give us for free! Downloading edited versions of these programs (where comercials have been stripped and thus advertisers are losing viewership) is a different arguement as we may actually be talking about misrepresentation of viewership and hence lost ad revenue, but these numbers are based on surveys anyway and are grossly inaccurate as noone can tell for certain what people other than cable TV subscribers watch (there's no feedback from broadcast TV or sattelite systems to pattern viewership or neilson ratings, it's all a guess).
Their argument is that people pay for TV episodes on DVD willingly, and in great numbers. Sure. Many people will not only pay for the convenience, but it's a professionally produced media, saves time, saved disk space, saves bandwidth, and MOST importantly, the commercials have been legally removed. By itself, many will be willing to pay for TV without commercials. Again, not the argument here is not "is it illegal to download,", but is it illegal to download "as broadcast" which is not the same thing.
1: your 20 year old TV had a 5 year warranty. I should argue you got your money out of it, and it's long past time you spent $100 and replaced it with a 27" from wallmart that has digital connectors... More importantly, that 20 year old TV uses a SHIT-load more electricty than a new model, even another tube TV. Simply replacing it might actually cost LESS over the life of the TV. Even comparing to a $600-800 flat panel (that will likely be $400 by 2009 as an OLED with LED backlight), assiming you keep the flat panel only 5 years, and have it on for 8 hours per day (that's the national average) than it also will cost less to replace your TV in 2009 than keep your old tube set. (note, current model energy star compliant CRT TVs in most cases use LESS power than plasma TVs, and comperable if only slightly higher than LCD TVs. This will change with LED backlighting and OLED screens, but for now, this comparison does not apply to current TVs. That 20 year old CRT on the other hand is not energy star compliant, and consumes likely 1.5-3 times the electricity of a normal set today).
2: there are SERIOUS resons we NEED to switch. This has nothing to do with corperate profits. A) we do not have enough bandwidth today to give a cell phone to every american. If there be a wide spread event, or heavy call volume, phone networks would begin to fail or brown out. Many calls would be unable to be made. As more people turn off home phones in favor of cell phones, this only gets worse. B) current emergency service systems do not typicall work indoors, a frequency change is required to overcome this. C) Free, public WiFi and extended rtange broadband internet systems need bandwidth as well. The cost to implement broadband over evtended range air waves is far cheaper than running cables directly to all rural homes in america. Do you want to pay for the wiring job? D) It's not only important for each emergency officer to have radio, but each also is issued a phone and a computer system, which need to perate independently of other systems, so in an outage they can still operate, comminucate, and access data. Add the cops, firemen, rescue workers, and military in there, and we're talking about 25% as many connection as the rest of us have combined. E) 700MHz band travels 4 times as far as current cell frequencies. This will permit cell coverage in many areas of america where there currently is none, reduce the number of cell towers and their proximity to highly populated areas or schools, and provide more consistant access nationwide as well as extending to near-coast islands and ocean areas currently only serviced by sattelite and high power radio.
Nobody is bing forced to get rid of their TV. Anyone who does not already have pay-for TV service will get a free box for their TV to convert the new signal to analog for them. The picture quality will actually improve, even on older TVs (except truly ancient sets) as most analog TVs are EDTV and only a select few true SD TVs still operate today. In 2 years, how many even of those TVs will still work?
Will the government make a lot of money off this auction? Technically yes, but actually they have earmarked that money and more to upgrade their own networks and all the cops, firemen, and military personell in the field, etc. What this is really doing is offsetting a major tax burden that all of us would have to pay and shifting it to those who choose to subscribe to fee based services (it's actually a nice change from the typically regressive tax system). Phone companies will not only pay small fortunes for bandwidth, but they have to pay a high price to actually roll that network out too, and have tight restrictions on how fast and far they must do that if they put in a bid at all. This gets all of us not only better technology, but makes it more universal, and more available to everyone.
In the end, for very little real cost to the consumer directly, we all get not just higher quality TV (an aesthetic side effect) but we get a stronger, mor
That's being debated by the FCC right now. Current laws already require them to open their networks and allow the digital tuners already present in your TVs to decode cable and satelite signals. unfortunately, the technology is not universally compatible, so how do TV makers include hardware at a reasonable cost that could be compatible with dozens of different encryption systems, different frequency ranges, and more? This is not a problem for Time Warner to be mandated to change, this is an issue where competition that you demanded we have caused a divergence of technology. Even if we could all agree on a data stream standard it would take years, and billions of dollars to implement it, far, far more than the cable company currently asks you to subsidize by having one of their boxes.
Also note, it's not only the decryption the box does, but also producing your nice interactive chanel guide. Without further requiring an international database of cable and TV providers that your TV could connect to, over an open public internet, to download that information, and even more cost, how will you know what's on? How will your $6 per month DVR work? Who pays for the central service and at what cost? Sureley more than you pay now...
You have to have a set top box. As of 2009, they will not be allowed to charge extra for that box (or at least not the first one as it becomes part of your basic cable subscription).
If you have an analog TV, the box will output analog for you (as it does today) If you have a full digital TV, then you'll connect on conponent, DVI or HDMI (or datalink, or something newer).
Heck, the HDTV DVR I got from the cable company didn't even have digital outputs for TV and audio. I had to REQUEST one that did, and this WAS a digital set top box... Asking them to continue to include analog is like asking car manufacturers to keep selling internal combustion engines...
What this staement really implies is that the govenment grant to provide free digital to analog converters for broadcast TV is not going to provide digital to analog converters for cable boxes. They'll simply have to continue spending the $1.25 or so to add the converters inside their own boxes like they continue to do now. It's not a burden for the cable companies.
We're not asking them to continue to broadcast analog. We're not asking them to give you a seperate converter. We're not asking them to give you a free set top box (in some cases they already do, but ones beyond the first are a couple bucks a month just like sattelite boxes).
Think about this like sattelite does: You buy the hardware yourself. To access signals on your TVs you pay for a subscription, plus an additional $4.99 per month for each additional TV. Now, cable is doing the same thing, but you don't BUY the hardware, ever. This is acually a better deal...
If all you want is broadcast TV, buy an anteanna and digital TV (or request a free converter for your older TV that you can't get until 2009). If you want other channels, you have to pay a subscription. The box is part of that cost. GET OVER IT.
Whether it's your wish or not, you agreed to it by clicking "I Accept" without fully having read or understood the conditions to which you accepted. It's not your code, it's their code, and their license terms with you give them permission to do what they will with that code, including refusing to allow you to continue to use it, void your contract without refund, and disable the product.
The only way to ensure they don't interacy with your system it to never allow it to connect with the net, a netowrk, or any media of any kind.
Automatic updates are only for application and OS level general patches. Other patches exist that you can't install automatically in any way (you must call Microsoft, know about the patch from a KB article, and request they install it for you) and other patches are considered fundamantal to the operation of their own license, security of their update system, and more, and will be enforced directly with or without your concent. This may include things as simple as Microsoft changing the authentication process used for automatic updates. If they had to change that for their own internal security reasons then any PCs that did not recieve this force update could potentially be a risk for Microsoft itself, or more likely would simply cause Auto update to fail if you ever tried to connect (automatically or manually).
Microsfot makes no guarantee of any kind that their software will work, nor do they guarantee that things that work today will continue to work tomorrow. No software vendor does. They try to adapt to threats as wuickly as possible. Sometimes dealing with those threats break things. Someday, they might come across something that can only be patches by throwing out i386 altogether, or obsoleting all existing windows compatible software. Though they won't likely do this with a basic patch, should they loose a patent infringment case that hinged on a critical windows componemt, a court might order it to be removed (though I'm sure the government would get involved like they did with RIM and extend exceptions to allow the government systems to operate, but home users might still be screwed)
better yet:
0) Image the drive then back up the data (best to have both types of backup)
1) remove the hard disk
2) connect the power leads to something using a high but safe voltage (a few 9 volt batteries in series). This should fry the drives controller board rendering it useless.
3) bring the whole rig back to the store
It may be a bit more complicated, but with a cracked hinge, a visibly dented drive might get you knowhere but a "this appears physically abused" and "warranty void" position.
Course, if you're gonna image it anyway, might as well just throw Vista back on it, let them fix it, then ghost it back. Don't want them replacing your good drive with a crap drive as they are know to do...
Simple wooden sticks and threads made from other waste material would not only be easy to use and cheap, but would also be able to be consumed in the cellulostic process and thus don't need to be filtered from the harvested crop. Simply machinery like a wheat cutter could still be used to harvest the crop, though slight modifications might need to be made.
Here's a facility already under construction (comercial development) to do just what you say would be if it was feasible...
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2007/07/02/daily6.html
1st, it's already uncontrolled in most of the south.
2nd, it's easy to contain with simple natural barriers (roads or a grass field barrier)
3rd, it can be poisoned easily, and sefely, if it grows where you don't want it.
I thnik we can handle this with a simple look at the advertising contract: I'm sure almost every one states something exact like or very similar to "there is no guarantee that your ad, placed in our site, will be presented on the users screen due to any number of reasons including, but not limited to, being blocked by client side software, failure of an internet connection, hardware or software failure in the site server systems, line transiossion failures, packet loss, corrupt data, slow load times, or browsing away from a page before the ad is displayed." and further "It is the sole responsibility of the purchaser of ad space to periodically review the web site and ensure their ad is being proerly displayed."
If you post a bilboard by a freeway, and it tears in a storm, you still pay for it unless you contact the sign maker and tell him it's damaged. There's also no guarantee anyone will actually look at the bilboard even if it's in prestine condition. Advertisers are simply paying for the likelyhood that people will have the oportunity, should they wish it, to view the ad. By blocking the advertising, the user is basically "opting out."
Same goes for junkmail... There's no guarantee, even if delivered successfully, that a person will actually read the junkmail in their real mailbox. I go to the box at the street, collect my mail, walk to my outdoor trashcan, and throw out anything not immediately recognized as valid mail (anything from any company I don't have an open account with, any form of coupon sheet, flyer, or any other form of advertising). My e-mail system does the same thing for me. Why should my web browser be subject to any different financial advertising system. The advertiser simply can't guarantee I recieve it or not.
Even if this campaign actually was successful, all we need is 2 little changes to adblocker: 1) allow a user configurable spoofing tool to be integrated making certain the web host is unaware of the existance of the plugin or unaware that I'm using Firefox and 2) download the ads anyway, even if blocked from being presented to the screen so that the advertiser still pays a fee and it still costs the host bandwidth.
Me and several environmentalist friends have been screaming for years: "Kudzu you assholes!!!"
Not only is it a weed, it's practically a menace, damned near impossible to kill, grows over acres in a season, requires only rain as it produces its own nitrogen (no fertilizers needed) and grows almost everywhere in the USA and most other countries. It's also NOT poisonous, and actually smells quite nice (I wouldn't make perfume out of it, but at least not offensive).
Using celulostic conversion processes (like the new facility being built near Atlanta Georgia will be diing using wood from trees) it can produce massive ammounts of ethanol easily, efficiently, and most important, cheaply. It's easy to harvest and transport without complicated equipment (an industrial lawnmower would do just fine). We don't need any massive investments to start doing this TODAY. Other than building cellulostic ethanol factories, and some ethanol pipelines, we alredy have everything else (unlike corn, sugarbeets, biodiesel, hydrogen, dirtect electric, or other proposed systems)
In terms of ethanol per pound of material, it's not the best choice (some forms of algae do better), but in terms of ethanol per acre of land, or ethanol per dollar spent, I challenge you to find anything better!!!
Mac OS 1.1 used to run on 1 side of a low density 3.5" floppy. The footprint in RAM of the Finder was 16K. The whole original Mac (lisa) ran on 128K of RAM...
I just sold a 3 year old iMac (screen-on-a-stick model). It was only 1GHz, 768MB, 30GB. 17" display. I got $525 for it... plus shipping. This was actually lower than other bids I had seen close in recent weeks. I've seen 800MHz Imacs go for over $600, in August of this year!
You spend more for the machine than competitors, yes. Part of that is sheerly for the aesthetic of the beautiful machine, a small part for bragging rights, and the rest for the solid tech inside the box. Apple regularly, and suddenly drops prices when they add new models. This is typical of many companies. If you know there's a Mac Keynote coming up in the next 30 day, WAIT!!! Don't buy anything. Or at least make sure where you are buying it from has a 14-30 day price match guarantee.
Outside of that, what's your mac worth after 3 years compared to something else? I have a 1 year old $1100 IBM business notebook. Core Duo, advanced graphics, SATA, and more. on ebay, it's worth about $450... A 2 year old Gateway gaming notebook (my wife's rig) was $1300 new (after rebates). It's worth about $250 on ebay right now. My mom's 2 year old powerbook? Still worth 50% of what she paid for it... In fact, it's worth more used than machines with faster processors cost new today.
Add to this the hundreds of dollas I've saved in not needing AV or spyware software and that only 1 of the 11 Mac's my family has owned since 1984 needed anything more than a hard drive replaced, and that was storm damage, not really Apple's fault there. Every mac we have ran for at least 5 years before being replaced, including a Mac Classic we bought in 1988 that STILL works today, an original blue iMac that failed back in March of this year (7-8 years old?) and an ols LC II I got in 1991 that ran until 1997 when I sold it for $400 (yes $400 for a $1200 computer that was 6 years old...)
I applaud Apple for giving $100 in credit to all iPhone adopters. 2 months was a BIT quick, I'll admit, for such a drastic price drop. Honestly, I expected a $100 drop upon the intro of the new iPods as I was expecting the touch to be $100 more expensive than the classic iPod (note to Apple, you set the price too low there, I would have paid $400 for it without blinking) I expected a discount from AT&T of another hundred by mail in rebate in November and doubling that to $200 rebate in January.
Apple will be in trouble shortly as they actually won't be able to move too many iPhones on their own once their exclusive contract ends and other vendors start pushing iPhones with big rebates for big contracts. Sure, if you have a contract and want an iPhone you can just buy one outright for $400 or so, but anyone who is changing service contracts might be able to get one for $100 or $200 for signing up for a contract they needed anyway. Sure, Apple gets the kickback, but at OEM/wholesale pricing, not full price, so their money train will be stopping shorlty.