That wasn't just a joke, it was culturally sensitive humor, pointing out the misogynistic tendencies of a popular television channel.
Perhaps I was too subtle for you: BET teaches that women are objects to be exploited for sex or random abuse. Monkeys, watching BET would learn and mimic that behavior. So might human kids.
See? That wasn't flame bait at all.
Still don't get it? Turn on BET and watch for a few minutes at any time up until 4am when it switches to religious programming.
I had a series of interviews with persons in their legal department awhile ago.
It was alleged by one of their employees at the time that as much as a third of their economic resources are dedicated to preventing people from using the red cross mark.
Among the examples that I was given: They stopped phishing web sites from using the mark in bogus charity schemes. They stopped Chinese pharma companies from using the mark on drugs.
They also stopped relief workers from using the mark when they were not explicitly affiliated with the Red Cross. They stopped fund raising efforts for victims of violence where the red cross was used to indicate charitable health services. They stopped a clinic from using the mark in a needle-exchange program. They stopped Katrina support groups from using the mark to indicate free shelters. They stopped relief workers from hand-marking red pluses and x-es on water bottles to distinguish clean water from tainted water.
The people that I met at the Red Cross had a foaming-at-the-mouth zealotry and belief in their own infallibility. They were totally indiscriminate and downright violent about not merely quashing the use of the mark by others, but also devastating anyone who dared use it without their express authorization on a mission to benefit their organization. And when I say "their organization," I mean the Red Cross -- not the people that the organization is supposed to help. They bragged about making violators into paupers.
They seemed to view the use of the mark as a sacred trust and in respect of that, it's a little shocking to realize that they've now licensed the mark to third parties in what appears to be nothing more than a money-grab. It seems like a heresy.
> > Second, satellite DVRs (from DirecTV, for example) do come with two digital tuners and can
> > simultaneously record from both. Look it up.
>
> Funny, my 3 year old DirecTivo does just that.
Okay. Thanks for agreeing with me.
> > But lets look at your new argument anyway. First of all, TiVos can't record from both digital
> > sources simultaneously, so having two digital tuners is less valuable than they would have you
> > believe.
>
> WTF are you talking about? Two channels, record two channels at once. Go ahead, produce a link to
> any tivo spec that shows "two tuners, record from only one or the other". The MPEG encoding is
> the least complicated/expensive part of the process. Once you have the second tuner, there's no
> logical reason not to encode it.
I never said that it couldn't record two channels at once. The TiVo HD can't record from 2 digital sources simultaneously. It's either 2 analog sources or 1 digital source and 1 analog source. The flaw is noted in many reviews. Maybe it will be fixed with a software update later.
To recap, the TiVidiot said, "You gimme a good way I can setup a dual tuner, ALL DIGITAL (no encoders, anywhere), DirecTV (or digital cable) box, and I would be happy to drop this DTivo."
I gave him such a way.
And once again, the (redundant) response to my post is non-sequitur. More straw man arguments.
Criticizing a TiVo is like criticizing Apple. So many people freak when they hear that their favorite product is less than perfect.
I wonder what would happen if Steve Jobs criticized TiVo. Would your heads explode?
> You gimme a good way I can setup a dual tuner, ALL > DIGITAL (no encoders, anywhere), DirecTV (or digital > cable) box, and I would be happy to drop this DTivo.
First of all, you're lame.
I criticized the TiVidiots for passively accepting push-ads on a product they've paid good money for.
You've provided a completely non-sequitur response and you're playing it like that somehow moots my criticism.
Totally lame.
But lets look at your new argument anyway. First of all, TiVos can't record from both digital sources simultaneously, so having two digital tuners is less valuable than they would have you believe. But then again, if you're a TiVidiot, you don't care because they've told you it's great.
Second, satellite DVRs (from DirecTV, for example) do come with two digital tuners and can simultaneously record from both. Look it up.
You're actually lauding that "feature"...?
on
The Trouble With TiVo
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
You pay hundreds of dollars to own the DVR and hundreds more for the mandatory subscription and you're *GLAD* that it "only" pushes ads on you on some screens, taking up "only" a portion of the screen?
Dude, grow som 'nads.
When you pay for the product, it shouldn't push ads on you at all.
TiVO blows chunks. They treat customers like chattel. I have no respect for TiVidiots. They are suckers who can't recognize their value as citizens and the value of their dollars as consumers.
You encourage companies to treat customers like sh!t. You are responsible for the decline in QOS and quality manufacturing in this world. You accept what you're given and thank your corporate masters.
Fools settle for TiVo.
Go ahead and mod this down if you feel the need. Some people can't handle the truth.
Apparently, the emissions are within both state and federal guidelines. ...
Nobody is getting special treatment.
You've either been drinking that water or you didn't bother to read the article.
From the article:
> The request to dump more chemicals into the lake ran counter to a provision of
> the Clean Water Act that prohibits any downgrade in water quality near a
> pollution source even if discharge limits are met. To get around that rule,
> state regulators are allowing BP to install equipment that mixes its toxic
> waste with clean lake water about 200 feet offshore.
>
> Actively diluting pollution this way by creating what is known as a mixing
> zone is banned in Lake Michigan under Indiana law. Regulators granted BP the
> first-ever exemption.
1. The emissions clearly are not within guidelines or else they would not need to use an illegal method of diluting it to circumvent EPA regulations.
2. Getting an exemption from criminal laws and civil sanctions is pretty reasonably construed as "special treatment."
> The receptionist is a key player, far more important that most > managers in a building. He or she knows all, and usually they are nice > people to talk to anyways because who else wants to do that type of > job, and have to deal with the amount of crap.
So you'd kiss up to the receptionist for the sole purpose of getting favors from that person and you have no moral problem with that?
No qualms about manipulating that person solely for your material benefit?
No reason strikes your fancy that would promote being nice to anyone else in the office?
Your reply was completely wrong and your rant was irrelevant.
First of all, any good IT manager gets into the office before the receptionist does.
Second, if you have to single-out the female receptionist and only the receptionist to treat politely then you're a an infantile narcissist who's overcompensating for a misogynistic streak.
And you're a nincompoop.
Treat everyone in the office with a bit of respect and you won't need to schmooze the receptionist whenever you want to get something accomplished.
When I'm supervising, I always try to get in at least a half hour before anyone on my team.
First thing: Check my voice-mail. I've had night crews try to call or page me and for whatever reason not be able to get me. If there's trouble, that's likely to be my first warning.
Then I'd read the server logs and confirm that the servers are all up.
I've never required regular status reports from a night crew, but when there are big jobs for them, I usually require them to email me with their status at the end of the shift, so email's next.
Then I'd grab a bagel with a schmear and a coffee and I'd get to morning busy-work. When the rest of my team came in, I'd have a little chit-chat, go over what they've recently accomplished and what I'd like them to get to and send them on their way.
> The survey found that more than one-third of IT professionals > admit they could still access their company's network once > they'd left their current job, with no one to stop them.
Does it seem that people are villainizing the IT guys that left?
Shouldn't the criticism be levied upon the IT guys who REMAIN?
And as for snooping, it's not the snooping that bugs me, but the disclosures that sometimes follow. I was really pissed off when my boss started publicly ripping on me for the quality of some code scraps he found in my documents folder.
I didn't mind that he looked -- I don't expect privacy on a corporate computer. But he used what he found in an attempt to humiliate me (which failed since the rest of the department knew that the code was something that I was reviewing from a new intern).
...because documentation is available on Apple's developer site and a simple Google search would have gotten you decent instructions on how to get even the earliest versions working under Tiger.
Also, developers know that the shipping version of iCal uses a different file format than the version in Leopard.
I'm guessing that rather than being a legit developer, you got your hands on an illicit copy of the (now ancient and obsolete) Leopard preview from last August's developers conference. Otherwise, you'd know WTF you were talking about.
You're referring to the tour bus sponsored by Apple for roughly 3 years and sporting copies of Apple's Pro hardware and software line including Logic and Final Cut Pro?
It does seem that the logo only appeared on the front of the bus in late 2006.
But since Apple has always been one of their top three sponsors, it could just be that one of the other sponsors dropped out.
> Is 2 quarters a day really an over-inflated price > for a service that automates recording my favorite > shows and allows me to fast-forward commercials > that I don't want to watch?
I have a LiteOn PVR that records my favorite shows without Tivo.
My LiteOn records about 80 hours of tv at reasonable quality without added fees and privacy concerns. It allows me to ff past commercials and it can record my shows to DVD. The hard drive and burner can be replaced by anyone of moderate skill if they ever fail. It cost me a one-time payment of $130 dollars. It's a nice little box.
I pay for cable tv. I pay a LOT for cable tv. Analog, not digital. And they've been raising rates pretty damned frequently as they add more digital channels and pass on their expenses to users. So I'm already paying a premium for a service that I don't use.
Paying an extra $13 dollars each month for a service that offers no special features over my existing PVR or even a standard $10 dollar per month PVR from the cable company AND which delivers more ads and threatens what little privacy I have left seems incredibly offensive to me.
Without a receipt for repair services the most that you can qualify for is $25 dollars, at their discretion.
If you removed the unlawful hack yourself, no matter how much pain and suffering it caused, there is every probability that they will compensate you exactly nothing.
(I mean nothing but the opportunity to exchange your defective CD for a slightly less defective one or a DRM-laden download.)
I think the kicker is that this is one of those fancy federal consent-decrees -- like the one that was used to "break" the Microsoft monopoly way back when. They agree not to be such meanies and in exchange, they receive total immunity from prosecution on any related federal charges and all state laws that conflict with the federal decision are automatically superseded.
I'm so glad that the feds are looking out for me. With punishment like that, Sony surely KNOWS they've been naughty. It's certain that they won't do anything like THAT again.
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, welcome our newly Constitutionally-conscious judicial overlords.
> Maybe the moderator didn't know about how BET is misogynist... ...
>> Thanks for explaining it, because it wasn't funny until you did.
I apologize. I assumed that it was common knowledge.
I truly did not intend to make a racial slur.
Modded Flamebait?!
That wasn't just a joke, it was culturally sensitive humor, pointing out the misogynistic tendencies of a popular television channel.
Perhaps I was too subtle for you: BET teaches that women are objects to be exploited for sex or random abuse. Monkeys, watching BET would learn and mimic that behavior. So might human kids.
See? That wasn't flame bait at all.
Still don't get it? Turn on BET and watch for a few minutes at any time up until 4am when it switches to religious programming.
They've been watching BET.
> I wonder where the money goes?
I had a series of interviews with persons in their legal department awhile ago.
It was alleged by one of their employees at the time that as much as a third of their economic resources are dedicated to preventing people from using the red cross mark.
Among the examples that I was given: They stopped phishing web sites from using the mark in bogus charity schemes. They stopped Chinese pharma companies from using the mark on drugs.
They also stopped relief workers from using the mark when they were not explicitly affiliated with the Red Cross. They stopped fund raising efforts for victims of violence where the red cross was used to indicate charitable health services. They stopped a clinic from using the mark in a needle-exchange program. They stopped Katrina support groups from using the mark to indicate free shelters. They stopped relief workers from hand-marking red pluses and x-es on water bottles to distinguish clean water from tainted water.
The people that I met at the Red Cross had a foaming-at-the-mouth zealotry and belief in their own infallibility. They were totally indiscriminate and downright violent about not merely quashing the use of the mark by others, but also devastating anyone who dared use it without their express authorization on a mission to benefit their organization. And when I say "their organization," I mean the Red Cross -- not the people that the organization is supposed to help. They bragged about making violators into paupers.
They seemed to view the use of the mark as a sacred trust and in respect of that, it's a little shocking to realize that they've now licensed the mark to third parties in what appears to be nothing more than a money-grab. It seems like a heresy.
Why can't you have 1 partition with ext3, 1 with HFS+ and one with NTFS file systems?
I never said that it couldn't record two channels at once. The TiVo HD can't record from 2 digital sources simultaneously. It's either 2 analog sources or 1 digital source and 1 analog source. The flaw is noted in many reviews. Maybe it will be fixed with a software update later.
To recap, the TiVidiot said, "You gimme a good way I can setup a dual tuner, ALL DIGITAL (no encoders, anywhere), DirecTV (or digital cable) box, and I would be happy to drop this DTivo."
I gave him such a way.
And once again, the (redundant) response to my post is non-sequitur. More straw man arguments.
Criticizing a TiVo is like criticizing Apple. So many people freak when they hear that their favorite product is less than perfect.
I wonder what would happen if Steve Jobs criticized TiVo. Would your heads explode?
> You gimme a good way I can setup a dual tuner, ALL
> DIGITAL (no encoders, anywhere), DirecTV (or digital
> cable) box, and I would be happy to drop this DTivo.
First of all, you're lame.
I criticized the TiVidiots for passively accepting push-ads on a product they've paid good money for.
You've provided a completely non-sequitur response and you're playing it like that somehow moots my criticism.
Totally lame.
But lets look at your new argument anyway. First of all, TiVos can't record from both digital sources simultaneously, so having two digital tuners is less valuable than they would have you believe. But then again, if you're a TiVidiot, you don't care because they've told you it's great.
Second, satellite DVRs (from DirecTV, for example) do come with two digital tuners and can simultaneously record from both. Look it up.
You pay hundreds of dollars to own the DVR and hundreds more for the mandatory subscription and you're *GLAD* that it "only" pushes ads on you on some screens, taking up "only" a portion of the screen?
Dude, grow som 'nads.
When you pay for the product, it shouldn't push ads on you at all.
TiVO blows chunks. They treat customers like chattel. I have no respect for TiVidiots. They are suckers who can't recognize their value as citizens and the value of their dollars as consumers.
You encourage companies to treat customers like sh!t. You are responsible for the decline in QOS and quality manufacturing in this world. You accept what you're given and thank your corporate masters.
Fools settle for TiVo.
Go ahead and mod this down if you feel the need. Some people can't handle the truth.
You've either been drinking that water or you didn't bother to read the article.
From the article:
> The request to dump more chemicals into the lake ran counter to a provision of
> the Clean Water Act that prohibits any downgrade in water quality near a
> pollution source even if discharge limits are met. To get around that rule,
> state regulators are allowing BP to install equipment that mixes its toxic
> waste with clean lake water about 200 feet offshore.
>
> Actively diluting pollution this way by creating what is known as a mixing
> zone is banned in Lake Michigan under Indiana law. Regulators granted BP the
> first-ever exemption.
1. The emissions clearly are not within guidelines or else they would not need to use an illegal method of diluting it to circumvent EPA regulations.
2. Getting an exemption from criminal laws and civil sanctions is pretty reasonably construed as "special treatment."
> The receptionist is a key player, far more important that most
> managers in a building. He or she knows all, and usually they are nice
> people to talk to anyways because who else wants to do that type of
> job, and have to deal with the amount of crap.
So you'd kiss up to the receptionist for the sole purpose of getting favors from that person and you have no moral problem with that?
No qualms about manipulating that person solely for your material benefit?
No reason strikes your fancy that would promote being nice to anyone else in the office?
Your reply was completely wrong and your rant was irrelevant.
First of all, any good IT manager gets into the office before the receptionist does.
Second, if you have to single-out the female receptionist and only the receptionist to treat politely then you're a an infantile narcissist who's overcompensating for a misogynistic streak.
And you're a nincompoop.
Treat everyone in the office with a bit of respect and you won't need to schmooze the receptionist whenever you want to get something accomplished.
When I'm supervising, I always try to get in at least a half hour before anyone on my team.
First thing: Check my voice-mail. I've had night crews try to call or page me and for whatever reason not be able to get me. If there's trouble, that's likely to be my first warning.
Then I'd read the server logs and confirm that the servers are all up.
I've never required regular status reports from a night crew, but when there are big jobs for them, I usually require them to email me with their status at the end of the shift, so email's next.
Then I'd grab a bagel with a schmear and a coffee and I'd get to morning busy-work. When the rest of my team came in, I'd have a little chit-chat, go over what they've recently accomplished and what I'd like them to get to and send them on their way.
Well, not in THIS forum. But elsewhere.
/ 06/sun-ceo-jonathan-schwartz-zfs-to-be-the-file-sy stem-in-leopard
5:1 that it's not the default root file system in Leopard.
The first bootable release of ZFS (not "BUILD," but "RELEASE") isn't even due until the Fall.
I'm not alone in this skepticism. See this Ars story, for example.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/06
> The survey found that more than one-third of IT professionals
> admit they could still access their company's network once
> they'd left their current job, with no one to stop them.
Does it seem that people are villainizing the IT guys that left?
Shouldn't the criticism be levied upon the IT guys who REMAIN?
And as for snooping, it's not the snooping that bugs me, but the disclosures that sometimes follow. I was really pissed off when my boss started publicly ripping on me for the quality of some code scraps he found in my documents folder.
I didn't mind that he looked -- I don't expect privacy on a corporate computer. But he used what he found in an attempt to humiliate me (which failed since the rest of the department knew that the code was something that I was reviewing from a new intern).
In fact, enzymes are just protein chains and allergies are frequently reactions to foreign proteins so it is a very legitimate concern.
What a surprise!
I've never heard of such a thing.
I'll bet nobody could have predicted anything like this!
...because documentation is available on Apple's developer site and a simple Google search would have gotten you decent instructions on how to get even the earliest versions working under Tiger.
Also, developers know that the shipping version of iCal uses a different file format than the version in Leopard.
I'm guessing that rather than being a legit developer, you got your hands on an illicit copy of the (now ancient and obsolete) Leopard preview from last August's developers conference. Otherwise, you'd know WTF you were talking about.
"Samsung's UpStage Looks To Trump iPhone"
And fails.
Okay, I have no experience with the phone. I'm just saying that as with all recent Samsung phones, it almost certainly has two fatal weaknesses:
1) the typical Samsung phone interface (designed for the cheap and ignorant and their pet hamsters); and
2) the typical Samsung advanced feature-set (a.k.a. the self-destruct which activates immediately upon using it for anything other than voicemail).
From the look of those mandibles, it's the foreplay that kills 'em.
You're referring to the tour bus sponsored by Apple for roughly 3 years and sporting copies of Apple's Pro hardware and software line including Logic and Final Cut Pro?
It does seem that the logo only appeared on the front of the bus in late 2006.
But since Apple has always been one of their top three sponsors, it could just be that one of the other sponsors dropped out.
I'm just imagining how uncomfortable it would make Sir Paul to be in that sandwich.
> Is 2 quarters a day really an over-inflated price
> for a service that automates recording my favorite
> shows and allows me to fast-forward commercials
> that I don't want to watch?
I have a LiteOn PVR that records my favorite shows without Tivo.
My LiteOn records about 80 hours of tv at reasonable quality without added fees and privacy concerns. It allows me to ff past commercials and it can record my shows to DVD. The hard drive and burner can be replaced by anyone of moderate skill if they ever fail. It cost me a one-time payment of $130 dollars. It's a nice little box.
I pay for cable tv. I pay a LOT for cable tv. Analog, not digital. And they've been raising rates pretty damned frequently as they add more digital channels and pass on their expenses to users. So I'm already paying a premium for a service that I don't use.
Paying an extra $13 dollars each month for a service that offers no special features over my existing PVR or even a standard $10 dollar per month PVR from the cable company AND which delivers more ads and threatens what little privacy I have left seems incredibly offensive to me.
I'm being gouged enough already, thank you.
Without a receipt for repair services the most that you can qualify for is $25 dollars, at their discretion.
If you removed the unlawful hack yourself, no matter how much pain and suffering it caused, there is every probability that they will compensate you exactly nothing.
(I mean nothing but the opportunity to exchange your defective CD for a slightly less defective one or a DRM-laden download.)
I think the kicker is that this is one of those fancy federal consent-decrees -- like the one that was used to "break" the Microsoft monopoly way back when. They agree not to be such meanies and in exchange, they receive total immunity from prosecution on any related federal charges and all state laws that conflict with the federal decision are automatically superseded.
I'm so glad that the feds are looking out for me. With punishment like that, Sony surely KNOWS they've been naughty. It's certain that they won't do anything like THAT again.
4GB.
Thanks. I mis-remembered. FAT16 has a 2GB limit.