×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ReplayTV May Drop "Commercial Advance"

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the not-such-a-surprise dept.

News 366

An anonymous reader writes "Wired News is reporting that the new owners of ReplayTV are considering dropping the Commercial Advance and Send Show options features." I had bad luck with that function chopping out bits of show anyway. Between that and the 30 second skip function, I'm surprised ReplayTV has lasted this long!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

366 comments

Replay TV may drink my sperm (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024783)

AC FP for the CLIT

FUCK YOU, ASSPUSSY WE ALL KNOW IT'S YOU (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024802)

Fucking retard.

FP!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024784)

SUCK A DUCK MOTHERFUCK! The Jews are coming! The Jews are coming! RUN RUN RUN!!!

I fucked Courtney Cox in her bunghole.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, DICK SUCKS *YOU* (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024805)

Another crippled product (4, Interesting)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024796)

I've thought of Tivo and Replay TV in the past, but as time goes on the companies degrade their products by getting rid of useful features like this.

How feasable is it to do something as good, but without the crippling, on a computer with a large hard disk and good video card?

Re:Another crippled product (5, Interesting)

TrueBuckeye (675537) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024837)

I love my RTV, and I'd still buy another even if they stripped out CA. As long as I can still pull the shows off to my pc and burn them to DVD, I'll use it. BUT, if they keep taking out these features, then they are removing the exact thing which makes them different (superior?) to Tivo. I hope D&M know what they are doing...other than avoiding lawsuits.

Re:Another crippled product (2, Interesting)

bathmatt (638217) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024845)

I have both soln's a Tivo and a linux box running Freevo. They are really different and have their own lackings. I mainly watch movies and listen to audio on freevo and use Tivo are archived TV. It brings more to the table with its season pass manager stuff and it suggestions and whatnot. Plus, it ia a cleaner solution. However, I think when my Tivo 1 dies I am hoping that Freevo and projects like it (xbox PVR for example) will be ready for primetime and have better predictive recording.

Re:Another crippled product (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024861)

It's not that tough at all. The open source product everyone's tinkering with scrapes the TVGuide site. Be a man. Buy the ATI 9700 Pro. Lifetime access to the raw data for life. Why scrape when you can get the real data?

Re:Another crippled product (4, Insightful)

mac123 (25118) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024924)

I must be a bit confused. Which features has Tivo removed from my system?

I can't think of one.

What features has Tivo removed (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024945)

"I must be a bit confused. Which features has Tivo removed from my system?"

I read on Slashdot a few months about about a feature, perhaps a hardware jack, that made it easy to copy TV shows to your hard disk....and that whatever feature it was, Tivo took it away or was going to take it away. Or maybe it was an encryption that was added?

Re:What features has Tivo removed (3, Informative)

phalanx (94532) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025011)

Extraction to the PC was never a feature TiVo made available it was a hack made by people that have TiVo(s).

Re:Another crippled product (3, Interesting)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024962)

None. But as a longtime TiVo subscriber, I'm perturbed more by the total absence of anything new for years now. TiVo Series 2? they can cram it. I can think of dozens of new features I'd like to see in terms of search and playback, which they could implement in their Series 1 and 2 receivers. What the hell? This product seems dead in the water.

Re:Another crippled product (3, Informative)

mac123 (25118) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024984)

If you are a longtime serier 1 owner, you also would know that the memory/cpu have really been stretched to the limit.

They've already thrown VBR, and additional wishlist capabilities (as well as others).

Unfortunately, they haven't found a way to upgrade the 33Mhz Series 1 chip or the 32MB or Series 1 RAM over a phoneline :-)

MythTV and Freevo (5, Insightful)

jared_hanson (514797) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024932)

Software solutions such as MythTV and Freevo (both run on Linux) require fairly hefty hardware to do the encoding of TV to MPEG-2, MPEG-4, etc. Then they need to decode it to play it to the screen. Both encoding and decoding is necessary in order to do the time shift.

However, MythTV is leading the charge to offload this processing to the WinTV PVR cards, freeing up the system CPU for other stuff, or just allowing the user to scrape by with minimum requirements. So the feasability is improving quite rapidly right now.

MythTV has also been doing some impressive work on their GUI (check out the screenshots). This was one area I previously thought Freevo had a leg up on, but that advantage is going away.

Links:
MythTV [mythtv.org]
Freevo [sourceforge.net]

Re:Another crippled product (1)

Cpt_Kirks (37296) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025081)

I just finished my Toolbox PC. It's a mini-itx m10000 MB, HDD, DVD and little emachine PS built into a plastic toolbox. An ATI TV Wonder VE card makes it into a portable PVR, among other things (DVD player, MP3 player, DVD ripper, mame box, etc.).

So far, it works great. I am still trying out all the features on the ATI card. I used it to record Enterprise the other night and it came out very nice.

Crippled? Barely... (3, Insightful)

Ezmate (641054) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025120)

The real power of TiVo can be found here: -A list of all your recorded programs (just browse through to see what you want to watch) -Program once, record forever (even if the show changes time slots) -Pausing live TV (great for potty breaks & getting a snack - you don't have to wait for a commercial) -Rewinding live TV (Whoa! Was that a boob I just saw?!) -Beautiful & instant Pause -Insanely speedy fast-forward & rewind (60x play speed by default - can be "hacked" to be faster) -Recommended programs that are automatically recorded I have a TiVo & the 30 second skip button is nice (yes it's an easter egg), but the "super-fast-forward" will generally get you through the commercials in 5 seconds (instead of the 2 seconds that it takes to hit the skip button 8 times), and it starts playing the instant you hit the play button. People who make the decision to buy a TiVo based on the 30-second skip button probably don't understand the product. It does so much more... Since I've had TiVo, I watch more television shows than I used to, but I spend less time doing it (i.e. watching American Idol takes 20 minutes instead of 1 hour, most shows only takes 20 minutes instead of 30, you can get right to Dave Letterman's Top Ten List, etc.)

SHORTEST AND LONGEST BOOKS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024799)

SHORTEST BOOKS EVER WRITTEN

"A Guide To Arab Democracies"
"A Hiker's Guide To The Ho Chi Minh Trail"
"Advanced Linux User's Guide"
"Blacks I Met While Yachting"
"Career Opportunities for Liberal Arts Majors"
"Excellence In The CFL"
"Fast And Efficient Windows Applications"
"How To Be A Good Sport", by Tonya Harding
"How To Win The Super Bowl", by Jim Kelly
"Keebler Elves That Touch Themselves"
"My Life As A Woman", by Martina Navratilova
"The Engineer's Guide to Fashion"
"Young, Single Males Speak Out Against Masturbation"
"How to be Normal" and "How to be Polite" both by RMS
"Easy to use Linux"
A Canadian telephone book
"My Social Life" by ESR
"Correct Spelling and Grammar in English" by Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda
"Business Ethics" by William Gates III (with foreword by Ken Lay)
"Heterosexuality among the Slashdot crew"
"Truths I have told" by Al Gore
"How to Speak Clearly and Correctly" by George W. Bush
"How Canadians Stand Up for Themselves"
"How to Get a Date with a Woman" by your local LUG
"How to Tell the Truth" by William J. Clinton
"The Names of Women Interested in Linux Geeks"
"Successful Business Plans Using Linux"
"What I Wouldn't Do For Money" by Jon Katz
"How to Write Software People Would Want to Buy" by Linus Torvalds
"Addresses of Houses in Canada that aren't Igloos"

LONGEST BOOKS EVER WRITTEN

"Loneliness, Buttplugs, Linux and You" by ESR
"Why your name should have 'GNU/' in Front of It" by RMS
"Being Rude to Foriegners" by the French Government
"How to Sexually Abuse Penguins" by Linus Torvalds
"Homosexuality among the Slashdot crew"
"How to Look Like a Cave Dwelling Communist" by RMS

EXTREMELY LONG BOOKS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024979)

"Men Who Have Buttsexed Me (Abridged Version)" by CmdrTaco

"Little Boys I Have Buttsexed, Part 1 (Ultra-Abridged Version)" by CmdrTaco

"Buttsex With Little Boys: The Definitive Guide" by CmdrTaco

early post for Guy Gardner (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024808)

He's the One True Green Lantern!

Hal Jordan can suck a wang.

On Soviet Oa (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024834)

On Soviet Oa, the Guardians of the People's Galaxy power-ring YOU!

well yeah.. (1)

mschoolbus (627182) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024813)

Well honestly how can you really tell if it is going into a commercial anyways? Its not like the screen doesn't change at all within a show on TV anyways...

Re:well yeah.. (3, Informative)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024884)

I used to wonder the same thing, until a friend of mine who is messing around with mythtv [mythtv.org] pointed it out to me (and he's going to be pissed he didn't get to post this):

There are the screen changes, as you mentioned

Commercials are usually a set length: 30 seconds, 1 minute, per ad

Sometimes you get the network logo when the show comes back on

I think there are other ways...sc00p, post 'em up.

Re:well yeah.. (1)

wolfb (613683) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025043)

I think there are other ways...sc00p, post 'em up.



Commercials are typically played with higher volume than the program they're interrupting...

Re:well yeah.. (2, Funny)

L7_ (645377) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024975)

I'm not sure, but you might be able to tell from the sound level difference.

Re:well yeah.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6025067)

Some stations use encoding on the first five scanlines to indicate show information, including commercials. There are few devices that will read this right off and give it to yout, though I've had a couple of VCRs that will skip commercials on videotapes. Macrovision works in a similar way, with a signal sent on the 22nd or 23rd scanline, in a way that you don't notice watching the tape.

Silly. (2, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024821)


They sell you these products with the promise of watching "TV Your Way" (or whatever their silly tagline was) and pull stunts like this. It's bait-and-switch.

Religion is child abuse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024869)

"Religion is child abuse"

Except, of course, if it your own religion that is involved. Then there is nothing wrong with it.

Re:Religion is child abuse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024955)


"Except, of course, if it your own religion that is involved. Then there is nothing wrong with it."

If one is a free-thinker and a disbeliever in mythologies then all religions can be filed under "Rubbish".

Only if they think what you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6025057)

"If one is a free-thinker and a disbeliever in mythologies then all religions can be filed under "Rubbish"."

Except, of course, for the religion the so called "free-thinker" subscribes to. Yes, only if they think like you do are they a "free thinker".

(that term is troublesome, free-thinkers are found in and outside of all religions)

Re:Silly. (1)

jat850 (589750) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024918)

I'm not entirely sure that's what happened in this instance. SonicBlue used to own ReplayTV, and they fought (with the EFF) against removing these features.

Then SonicBlue went bankrupt and were purchased by a Japanese company mentioned in the article, and it seems as though this new company is bending to the pressure.

Re:Silly. (1)

fobbman (131816) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024987)

No it's not. It's a list of features on the side of the box that anyone can read and figure out for themselves whether it lets them watch TV their way. Bait and switch is "an illegal tactic in which a seller advertises a product with the intention of persuading customers to purchase a more expensive product".

A company has the right to add and remove features from their products as they see fit. A consumer has the right to not buy those products based on whether that feature set is one that they feel is what they are looking for at the price that they are willing to spend.

Re:Silly. (1)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025049)

We'll ALWAYS find a way to avoid commercials! Since the technology approach has failed us, how about a chemical approach?

When a commercial block occurs, grab your trusty hypodermic needle and go into a 2-minute coma.

ReplayTV Yo-Yo (2, Interesting)

johnkoer (163434) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024827)

About 3 months ago I was really considering buying a ReplayTV, but with the whole bankruptcy thing swirling around I became a bit anxious. I have been speaking with people who currently own a Replay and they said their service is still great, so I was starting to come back around. This whole thing has just sent me back towards the Tivo way. I would love to get a Tivo, but I do not have a phone line in my house (cell phone is the only phone I need). Hopefully I can find a Tivo that will not require a phone line, and I will be all over it.

Re:ReplayTV Yo-Yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024849)

the TiVo series 2 has a USB port that allows you to plug in a wired or wireless ethernet transceiver (they recommend only 2 specific linksys models) and download program information over the 'net.

with that installed, (and for an additional $99--which is a mild crock of shit) you can also stream A/V files from computers on your LAN to the TiVo.

Re:ReplayTV Yo-Yo (4, Informative)

TBone (5692) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024900)

The V4 software for Tivo supports the USB Ethernet cards. The one I just bought was V3 software, so I had a phone cord running across the house for 3 or 4 days until it got the V4 download. And I bought a Replay over Tivo, just because of their stand against the Media companies...but the product just doesn't compare. Changing channels is ass-slow, there's no multi-user guide/preference setup, nothign other than the cool sharing feature, which is likely going away. Go for the Tivo, you'll be ahppier.

Re:ReplayTV Yo-Yo (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024905)

Actually, the new TiVo kernel (4.0+) finally makes use of the USB ports in the back. You can connect either a Wireless or Wired Ethernet device (http://customersupport.tivo.com/tivoknowbase/root /public/tv2006.htm?) and you are good to go. I do this with my TiVo and wouldn't go back to regular TV, ever.

Re:ReplayTV Yo-Yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024925)

You can slap a network card in your TIVO and with a small hack available on the net you can update via broadband.

Re:ReplayTV Yo-Yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6025056)

Series2 standalone TiVos allow ethernet connectivity through the USB port with a wired or wireless adapter. Series2 DirecTV with TiVo Service units (DirecTiVos) don't have this ability yet (nor Home Media Option features).

Series1 hardware, both standalone and DirecTiVos, can have a Turbonet card installed which provides ethernet access, but without HMO features. Plus, Series1 hardware is more hackable than Series2, allowing you to do a lot more with your TiVo, like extract closed captions to files for your own transcripts, run a web server, telnet into your TiVo, and even extract and insert digital video files.

Open Source? More like openly racist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024832)

The Open Source movement, otherwise known as 'Free Software', has been a topic of considerable debate on slashdot. The majority of this debate has centered around the technical merits of the software, with the esteemed editors argueing against adopting Linux by employing the full depth of their considerable intellects, and the other side hurling death threats and similar invective. This has allowed many who would not otherwise receive quality information about Open Source software to be made aware of many of its ramifications, but one issue has been left alone: The overt racism that is deeply embedded in the movement.

Allow me to explain.

Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.

What do you see in this list of names? Are there any African-Americans on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting black person would have! No Maurice, no Luther, no Lil' Kim. There are many other lists such as this, you can see one here. Flip through each page, do you see anything other than white faces? Of course you don't, because Open Source and its adherents are ardent racists and they absolutely forbid access to the sacred 'kernel' by any person of color.

Lets look at another list, this time a compendium of the companies using Linux. Are there any black owned companies on that list? Nooooooo. How about these companies? They all have something to do with Open Source software, any of them owned by an African-American? No again. Here is an extensive collection of photographs from a LUG (Linux User Gathering) meeting, more can be viewed at that link. What is odd about these pictures, and every other photograph I have ever seen of a LUG meeting, is that there is not one single black person to be seen, and probably none for miles.

More racist overtones can be found by examining the language of Open Source. They often refer to 'white hat' hackers. These 'white hats' scurry about the Internet doing good, but illegal, acts for their fellow man. In stark contrast we find the 'black hat' hackers. They destroy the good works of others by breaking into systems, stealing data, and generally causing havoc. These two terms reflect the mindset of most Linux developers. White means good, black means bad. Anywhere there is black, there is uncontrollable destruction and lawlessness. Looking further we see black lists that inform other users of 'bad' hardware, Samba, an obvious play on the much hated Little Black Sambo book, Mandrake, which I won't explain except to say that the French are notorious racists. This type is linguistic discrimination is widespread throughout the Open Source culture, lampooned by many of its more popular sites.

It is also a fact that all Unix 'distros' contain a plethora of racist commands with not so hidden symbolism.

It can hardly be coincidence that the prime operating system of choice of the 'open source supremacists' - Linux, features commands which are poorly disguised racist acronyms. For example: 'awk' (All White Klan) , 'sed' (shoot nEgroes dead), 'ln' (lynch negroes), 'rpm' (raical purity mandatory), 'bash' (bring a slave home), 'ps' (persecute sambo), 'mount' (murder or unseat nubians today), 'fsck' (favored supreme Christian klan). I could go on and on about the latent racist symbolism in Linux, but I fear it would take weeks to enumerate every incidence.

Is there a single unix command out there that does not have some hidden racist connotation ? Suffice it to say that the racism pervades Linux like a particularly bad smell. Can you imagine the effect of running such a racist operating system on the impressionable mind ? I don't have to remind you that transmitting subliminal messages is banned in the USA, and yet here we have an operating system that appears to be one enormous submliminal ad for the Klan!

One of the few selling points of Open Source software is that it is available in many different languages. Browsing through the list I see that absolutely none are offered in Swahili, nor Ebonics. Obviously this is done to prevent black people from having access to the kernel. If it weren't for the fact that racism is so blatantly evil I would be impressed by the efforts these Open Sourcers have invested in keeping their little hobby lilly white. It even appears that they hate the Japanese, as some of these self proclaimed hackers defaced a web site with anti-Japanese slogans. Hell, these people even go all the way to Africa (South Africa mind you, better known as White Africa) and the pictures prove that they don't even get close to a black person.

Of course, presenting overwhelming evidence such as this is a bit unfair without some attempt to determine why these Open Sourcers are so racist. Much of the evidence I have collected indicates that their views are so deeply held that they are seldom questioned by the new recruits. This, coupled with the robot-like groupthink that dominates the culture allows the racist mindset to continue to permeate the ranks. Indeed, the Open Source version of a Klan rally, OSDN (known to the world as Open Source Developer's Network, known to insiders as Open Source Denies Negroes) nearly stands up and shouts its racist views on its demographics page. It doesn't mention the black man one single time. Obviously, anyone involved with Open Source doesn't need to be told that the demographic is entirely white, it is a given.

I have a sneaking suspicion as to why their beliefs are so closely held: they are all terrible athletes.

Really. Much like the tragedy at Columbine High School, where two geeks went on a rampage to get back at 'jocks', these adult geeks still bear the emotional scars inflicted upon them due to their lack of athletic ability during their teen years. As African-Americans are well known for their athletic skills, they are an obvious target for the Open Source geeks. As we all know, sports builds character, thus it follows that the lack of sports destroys character. These geeks, locked away in their rooms, munching on stale pizza and Fritos, engage in no character building activities. Further, they interact only with computers and never develop the level of social skill that allows normal people to handle relationships with persons of color.

Contrasted with the closed source, non-geeky software house Microsoft, Open Source has a long, long way to go.

Why oh why... (3, Interesting)

sk3tch (165010) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024854)

I don't understand why ReplayTV would even consider removing those features, especially seeing as those are two of the HUGE advantages it has over its (winning) competitor Tivo.

Sure, Tivo has the 30 second skip if you have the right model and you enter in the Easter Egg, but most people don't surf around for Easter Eggs and therefore aren't aware of it (plus it isn't advertised as a feature for drones shopping at Best Buy, etc.).

They already declared bankruptcy and were bought out by another company, so somehow by eliminating some of its most compelling features they are going to rise to the top?

Re:Why oh why... (2, Insightful)

Albert Pussyjuice (675113) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024935)

Well, did you read the article? Obviously the new owners of ReplayTV feel that their inclusion of these features helped to incite some anger within major media companies and, because of this, created friction for ReplayTV.

"Hollingsworth added that ReplayTV models selling today still include Commercial Advance and Send Show options, but the company has not made up its mind about including those features in future products.

Two years ago when ReplayTV introduced its 4000 series of digital recorders, those services upset major media players such as Walt Disney (DIS), Viacom (VIA) and the TV networks, which filed lawsuits against Sonicblue claiming that ReplayTV violated copyright laws and robbed them of ad revenue."

It's a very bad idea for a company to upset the big boys and this may have been part of the reason that ReplayTV hit the ground hard. So by eliminating these features, you get more support from companies such as Disney and Viacom.

Re:Why oh why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6025112)

It's a very bad idea for a company to upset the big boys and this may have been part of the reason that ReplayTV hit the ground hard. So by eliminating these features, you get more support from companies such as Disney and Viacom.

And less support from the actual consumers, who as we all know, mean exactly dick to most companies.

No, I'm sorry, this is yet another in a long series of examples of bad companies making bone headed decisions.

Re:Why oh why... (1)

Azathoth!EDC (222280) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024968)

In the hopes that they will become more 'network friendly', and thus, better product positioning from said networks.

Before the flames begin. (4, Insightful)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024870)

You do know that advertising is what pays for TV programming, broadcasting, etc., in the USofA, don't you?

Would you rather have cat^H^H^HTV detector vans running around?

Re:Before the flames begin. (1)

Azathoth!EDC (222280) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024892)

Funny, I thought that's what I paid for on my monthly bill.

I certainly wouldn't pay to have phone service where I *also* had to listen to advertisements.

Re:Before the flames begin. (1)

sporty (27564) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024927)

I'd try and equate it to something, but analogies suck.

You pay the cable company for the connection to them and using them.

You inadvertantly pay for commercials by watching them, which fund shows as well.

Now mind you, money doesn't always flow like this, i.e. PBS or PPV easily, but that's how things work.

Re:Before the flames begin. (1)

gpinzone (531794) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024994)

Money didn't "flow" like that at all when cable was in its infancy. One of the selling points was that aside from the local stations, none of the other channels had commercials because you were already paying for it. What channel operators did was to take advantage and "double dip" without passing the savings onto the consumer. Yes, channels like Nickeloden are on basic cable because they're cheaper than HBO to the cable company, but I'd rather have no commercials and pay per channel for the ones I want rather than be forced to flip through 50 spanish-only and home shopping stations I'll never watch.

How cable started. (3, Informative)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025023)

"Money didn't "flow" like that at all when cable was in its infancy. One of the selling points was that aside from the local stations, none of the other channels had commercials because you were already paying for it."

I've had cable since the late 1960s. Its real infancy: there were no channels without commercials other than the one at the bottom of the dial where the camera panned back and forth across weather dials.

The selling point was that you could receive stations period. Without cable, the broadcasters were too distant to see.

In 2003, I still have cable since it the only way to see the broadcast networks.

Re:Before the flames begin. (1)

Albert Pussyjuice (675113) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024963)

Your monthly bill pays for some of the service - in order for everyone in the industry to make a tidy profit - commercials are included in order to make a bit more. The reason that HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax are premium channels is because there are no commercials. Therefore, HBO, Cinemax, and the like are not making any money from commercials and therefore charge the cable company more for the feed. You pay for part of the cost in your monthly bill and another portion of it is paid by the commercials that you are agreeing to have pumped into your home.

And there is no reason you have to watch commercials; turn the television off whenever a commercial comes on. Sure, you might miss some of the show but you won't see commercials.

Re:Before the flames begin. (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025041)

turn the television off whenever a commercial comes on.

Just mute it. It's very effective. You still get to look at the pretty moving pictures but you can't hear the annoying pitch. It's not perfect, but TV advertising is WAY less effective without sound.

Re:Before the flames begin. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6025016)

Just like the guy who says, "I don't know why websites have banner ads or charge a subscription. Isn't that what I pay for already when I pay my ISP every month?"

Ummm, no.

Re:Before the flames begin. (3, Interesting)

fiddlesticks (457600) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025031)

> You do know that advertising is what pays for TV programming, broadcasting, etc., in the USofA, don't you?

nope. consumers pay for broadcasting in the usa with the extra cost of their consumer goods due to the spend on advertising. The adverts don't come for free, and the companies advertising the goods pass that cost on to the consumer.

in countries with a TV licence, the cost is yearly/ monthly/ not-optional, but it costs *less* (unless you buy *no* consumer goods during the year.)

IF FMCG companies weren't spending the money on adverstising, your goods would be cheaper, and your TV viewing would be uninterrupted by ads.

Re:Before the flames begin. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6025047)

shut the fuck up you dirty commie faggot. you eat shit and so do your oppressive leaders. that is not healthy and you should cut it the fuck out, you douchebag. oh, by the way, you have no penis.

Re:Before the flames begin. (1)

zackbar (649913) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025096)

But the quality of the programming would suck.

Oh, wait. It does anyway.

Re:Before the flames begin. (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025109)

> You do know that advertising is what pays for TV programming, broadcasting, etc., in the USofA, don't you?

nope. consumers pay for broadcasting in the usa with the extra cost of their consumer goods due to the spend on advertising. The adverts don't come for free, and the companies advertising the goods pass that cost on to the consumer.

You've got to complete the sequence: Consumer pays for goods; Manufacturer pays for advertising so that consumer knows goods exist; Network pays for programming with money made by selling advertising space.
IF FMCG companies weren't spending the money on adverstising, your goods would be cheaper, and your TV viewing would be uninterrupted by ads.
It would be uninterrupted by programming, too, because no one would be paying for shows to be produced.

Re:Before the flames begin. (1)

fobbman (131816) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025036)

They don't have to make me watch commercials. Are they going to also make sure that I don't get up during those commercials to get more food & drink, use the restroom, or surf the other channels until my show comes back on?

The commercials are there for people who want to watch them, plain and simple.

Re:Before the flames begin. (4, Insightful)

kwerle (39371) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025037)

Funny how capitalism works. If enough folks skipped ads (not bloody likely), shows/networks would find another way to get funding. Or they would die. Either way is just fine.

Re:Before the flames begin. (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025040)

No, I would rather pay for all of my television via a subscription service a la HBO (+ small maintenance fee to cable/sat co) and have commercial-free programming. Think packages of channels (ie Discovery Network; A&E Network: A&E, History, Biography; Disney Network: ABC, ESPN, Disney, etc.) For those that aren't aware, HBO and other premium services actually give you 7 channels for one price now.

Now, I will have more say over what I watch because I will be the customer to the TV network and not some advertiser.

Re:Before the flames begin. (4, Insightful)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025052)

You do know that advertising is what pays for TV programming, broadcasting, etc., in the USofA, don't you? Would you rather have cat^H^H^HTV detector vans running around?

Not really, but I don't think that's necessary. Look at HBO's model, or any other specialzied subscription-based channel.

I've been dying to select exactly the cable channels I want for years. It seems vastly preferable - to me, anyways - to pay $40/month for 8-12 channels that I actually like, through and through. Of course the media giants are all-too aware of this; after all, they watch TV too. You can't shovel your pap in with the good stuff if people have the power to only receive the good stuff, and filter out the pap.

As for Replay... these companies have got to stop with the fucking bait-and-switch routine. This is the precise reason I'll never consider a subscription-based PVR. It was too easy to see it coming. It's also too easy to just buy the parts for the computer that I need to make it happen there. (Where it belongs, IMHO.)

Look, I sympathize a bit with the broadcasters, they have some tough questions and sitations to answer. But that's the extent: a bit. I don't care a lot, nor should you. TV will not 'go away' any more than music will. The presupposition that without this one specific economic model for media dissemination, we'll all be without any art whatsoever, is ludicrous.

Big deal, I hope they drop more features. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024883)

Company wants to drop features from their proprietary product. One more feature the open source solutions can have over the product.

Maybe someone can convince Microsoft to drop all network support.

"Respecting the intent of copyright"? (4, Funny)

tuffy (10202) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024886)

If the "intent of copyright", according to ReplayTV, is to play shows the way the network intended, why not show them only at the times they were intended also. For example, if "Brand new episode of series Foo" is airing at 7pm wednesday May 28th, ReplayTV can "respect the intent of copyright" and show it only at 7pm on wednesday May 28th.

I'm sure it'll be a big hit.

Re:"Respecting the intent of copyright"? (3, Funny)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025009)

The hardware would be amazingly simple! A peek inside the box reveals a stunningly minimal part count, enclosed in what only appears to be a single wire running from "VIDEO IN" to "VIDEO OUT."

Re:"Respecting the intent of copyright"? (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025062)

They should do this for the "intent of copyright" with movies. I would love to be able to watch a movie on TV without all the controversial words and scenes cut out of them.

Stop Watching TV (2, Offtopic)

taradfong (311185) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024888)

TV is evil anyway. It really adds no value to one's life. It is a disease in that it gives your brain just enough stimulation to prevent it from getting bored and doing something worthwhile. Stop watching it. Doing so will change your life. I'm not joking. Watching TV conditions you for the worse, and the only way you'll know I'm not making this up is to go without for 2 months.

Re:Stop Watching TV (2, Funny)

tuffy (10202) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024923)

Stop watching it. Doing so will change your life. I'm not joking. Watching TV conditions you for the worse, and the only way you'll know I'm not making this up is to go without for 2 months.

And, not watching television will give you something to mention to people [theonion.com] on a regular basis.

I aggree (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024974)

Haven't watched TV for at least two years, don't miss it one bit.

People should go out, talk and get their own lives instead of borrowing fictional lives off of the TV.

Did you know that the US government gave money to ER (is it still running?) to show positions favourable to government policy. (e.g. evil drug addicts)

Burn the books! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024990)

"own lives instead of borrowing fictional lives off of the TV"

The same argument can be used for stopping reading books, never seeing plays.

Re:Burn the books! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6025005)

Funny you should mention that, what are books again? I havn't read a fiction book for at least 10years, and before that only when I was forced to.

TV is bad for your life (3, Insightful)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025038)

My Parents:

Watch TV all the time. Requests to turn the damn thing off are met with a confused gaze.

My Apartment:

TV gets turned on when we have friends over for the purpose of watching a movie, or we're too brain drained to do anything but sit and watch pretty colors. Oh, and when I want to play with my PS2.

How does that impact our lives? I spend most of my time with my friends. A night to myself becomes a rare and cherished thing spent reading a book I've been looking forward to or on a game I haven't played in ages.

My GF and I throw dinner parties, have nights out with friends, spend time talking to each other and interacting as adult human beings.

Hell, I didn't have cable for four years and never missed it.

Although I do admit, the Food Chanel is pretty fun. Of course, my GF and I end up trying a lot of the tings we see on the shows there.

My mother can give a run down of the entire life story of all the characters on "Friends" and "Stargate SG1" (The latter watched not for the content, but for MacGyver's presence.) Her social life consists largely of people from Church, and she doesn't see them very often.

I prefer my life, thank you very much.

And to add a slice of irony, I'll quote a character from a very bad sci-fi show: "We stopped watching movies when we realized that our own lives were far more interesting."

Re:Stop Watching TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6025059)

It really adds no value to one's life. It is a disease in that it gives your brain just enough stimulation to prevent it from getting bored and doing something worthwhile.

Unlike browsing /. during the workday, which does none of the above mentioned. ;-)

Re:Stop Watching TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6025121)

Something so simple. Yet I feel inspired; it makes perfect sense. I waste way too much time watching Simpsons, HBO, Seinfeld, etc.

I've decided to give up TV for a month. Wish me luck.

TV is a drug. And that's a good thing. (2, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025122)

Like any drug, used occasionally, wisely, and with moderation, it can add pleasure to your life without ruining it.

I like TV when I'm frustrated; it can reset my mind when I'm spinning on some issue. I like TV when I'm ill; it takes my mind off the suffering. I like TV when I have 30 minutes to kill and there happens to be an episode of The Simpsons on.

It's a drug many, many people abuse, and I'm sure that's what you're thinking of in your post. If you're watching TV three hours a night, every night, it's clearly a drug that has begun to control you. If you're settling for the best thing on TV rather than getting on with your life, you're doing it wrong.

To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Good TV is a good familiar creature, if it be well used; exclaim no more against it."

I do wish most people would watch less TV, but I think that declaring TV in general to be a "disease" is counterproductive. Try thinking of it as a drug that too many people are addicted to.

Its a good start (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024897)

I always thought these PVRs were way too confusing. Dropping the commercial advance and send features will be a good first step in simplifying Replay's interface. I would also eliminate the ability to store and playback content on demand. In addition to simplifying the interface, moves like these should also slightly cut down the production costs of future models.

Market vs users (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024911)

US readers might not be aware that in the UK (and other parts of Europe), analogue TV programmes are accompanied by "Programme Delivery Control" -signals which allow your recorder to switch on at the right time even if the show goes out late (not uncommon in countries which don't have the same strict on-the-hour and half-past schedule straitjacket). Although the spec makes provision for the broadcaster to pause the recorder when unrelated content (such as adverts!) is present, commercial stations have decided it isn't in their interests to use this option.

More worryingly, the BBC's PDC system seems to be in a complete mess right now (The Simpsons haven't recorded automatically for weeks!), mainly, it seems because they don't have the staff to set up the PDC information in the transmission control system and it's clearly not a commercial priority for them either.

It looks like commercial pressures are bearing down on all services that are designed to assist viewers in choosing what they wish to watch...

Yet another reason to go with Tivo (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024912)

Replay may disable this feature because of pressure from the networks. That's why it's great that with Tivo the 30 second skip is an undocumented and unadvertised feature, but very easy to enable. This keeps the heat of them, but saves me from having to sit through another 30 second Vagisil spot.

Also, in reply to another post, you can hook the Tivo to the net using a USB Ethernet adapter, eliminating the need for a phone line.

UltimateTV (2, Interesting)

IsleOfView (23825) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024914)

OK, OK - I'm not in love with Microsoft --- but, I picked up an UltimateTV/DirectTV Receiver w/ 35 hours recording last year for $99. Hard to pass up. Not a perfect device, but it does have (surprise, surprise) a 30 second skip button that works great. I'm surprised I don't see discussions about that more often?

Never Happen (3, Insightful)

splatter (39844) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024934)

I'm surprised ReplayTV has lasted this long!

Yup and I'm never surprised that you continue your crappy yellow journalism!

Face it folks it's not going to happen. There are a lot of consumers out already using the replay that will raise holy hell if they discontinue this function. What they need to do is get off their ass and countersue like the VCR makers did in the 80's since these functions are no different then hitting FF on a VCR.
These suits have no basis or merit. They need to let them run the course, and make the precident so that the product can go back to normal operations.
DP

AP Article (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024939)

I read an AP article on this last week, and it mentioned features were being removed to make some cheaper models of the device, not being removed from the whole product.

Since the article doesn't say, how exactly ... (-1, Troll)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024943)

can we blame Microsoft for this? It helps to truly get a handle on these situations. Since Microsoft has their own PVR, UltimateTV, and since they are attempting to forge DRM relationships with the RIAA and MPAA, I'll have to assume that they're involved somehow.

Not a big loss (3, Interesting)

HopeUnknown (668633) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024964)

Commercial skip features like the 30 second skip don't work well enough anyways...but you have to wonder what will happen once we can bypass commercials at the press of a button. My guess: embedded advertising (imagine watching your favorite tv show, and a coke bottle starts dancing across the screen during the middle of an important conversation. Fun times!)

Re:Not a big loss (1)

bazabba (669692) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025068)

Commercial skip features like the 30 second skip don't work well enough anyways...
Well enough? I love my RTV because of the Commercial Adv. and 30second skip. They are not perfect but I think they work more than "well enough". What other device has these capabilities and had them work better?
Hollingsworth added that ReplayTV models selling today still include Commercial Advance and Send Show options, but the company has not made up its mind about including those features in future products.
Seems to me they haven't made up their minds yet. Do not decide to cancel your purchase of a RTV because of this article, instead go out and get one BEFORE they remove these options. I sure hope they don't get rid of them. I hope they don't force them upon older machines as well via a software update.

what is this "TV commercial"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6024991)

What is this "TV commercial" everyone speaks of?

This is why you roll your own PVR. (4, Insightful)

IpSo_ (21711) | more than 9 years ago | (#6024992)

I believe there was a Ask Slashdot a few weeks ago regarding building your own PVR. The majority of the comments seemed say "Why bother, just buy a TIVO/Replay TV, its already done for."

Well, this is why you roll your own. Yes, its a little more work, the cost is pretty much the same, but there is no monthly fee, and features don't get yanked out from under you.

MythTV is absolutely amazing, and its evolving incredibly fast. If your lookinng for a PVR, I recommend giving it a shot.

WHY ABORTION IS OKAY (-1)

JismTroll (588456) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025002)

In the United States one of the most controversial and emotional topics of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been abortion. "Pro-lifers" hurl accusations at those in favor of abortion, calling them baby-killers, while "pro-choicers" reply that to outlaw abortion would be to restrict the freedoms of the woman. Both sides often resort to hurling epithets at their opponents, asserting that their god would not allow it, or dismissing the issue by saying that they simply feel a proclivity toward one side or the other.

Reflecting this sentiment, abortion's legal history has been a tumultuous one. Prior to the twentieth century, abortion was uncommon because at the time it was dangerous, and a premarital pregnancy generally resulted in a couple's marriage. However, the public was tolerant of abortion, and it was often a practical solution to the hard times faced by any family who doubted whether they could financially support a child (Langum 5). At the beginning of the century, however, it became anathema to many, and with the emergence of the American Medical Association, many legislators were pressured to criminalize abortion (Langum 4). Although experts argue on the exact date that widespread abortions became common, during the 1960's women's rights groups began calling for the decriminalization of abortion (Pollitt). In 1973, the Supreme Court reached its verdict on the status of abortion, legalizing it in the monumental Roe v. Wade case (Mauro 1). Although it has been legally resolved, "pro-lifers" continue to bomb abortion clinics, and those in favor of abortion feel the need to qualify their position by supporting abortion "before the third trimester."

One may wonder why, after a century of quibbling, the populace has not yet reached a verdict on the issue. The answer is that one often dwells on the specifics, such as whether or not abortion is a safe practice. That abortion is safe for a mother is beyond dispute, given the medical advantages we enjoy. The issue is simplified if we take a more fundamental approach to it and ask whether or not abortion is morally permissible. Leaving behind our emotional predispositions, we can reach a logical conclusion. Abortion is morally permissible in all circumstances; therefore, it should remain legal.

So-called "pro-lifers" are quick to point out that a fetus looks like a human and performs some of the basic biological functions of a human being; it should be pointed out, however, that ninety percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, meaning most fetuses can't even be considered biologically human (Back-Alley 2). I am willing to agree with them, but I stipulate that a fetus is not a person in morally relevant respects. According to philosopher Mary Anne Warren, a being must meet some basic criteria to be considered a person, such as "consciousness (of objects and events external...to the being);...the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems; self-motivated activity;...the capacity to communicate; and the presence of self-concepts" (4). Thus, there is a difference between being human and being a person. Some human beings aren't people, and some non-humans are people (Warren 4). It is reasonable to assume that if a being cannot satisfy any of these criteria, that being is not a person. A fetus cannot reason, communicate messages, or engage in "self-motivated activity." Likewise, even a fetus of seven or eight months lacks the ability to reason or possess self-awareness (Warren 5). According to Warren, "in the relevant aspects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less personlike than is the average mammal, indeed the average fish" (5). The act of removing the fetus from the womb is not tantamount to slitting a person's throat. While the latter involves the direct termination of an autonomous being's life, the former is more like removing a parasite or a tumor.

Although a fetus is clearly not a person in the true sense of the word, having an abortion would still be morally right even if we were to assume that the fetus were a person. My opponents talk about the sanctity of human life or a "right to life" and argue that it is always wrong to kill another person. Similarly, they will say that it is wrong to knowingly allow another to die when one could intervene and save that person. However, killing a person is different than allowing that person to die. A person's right to life does not allow him or her to take the life of another; correspondingly, a person's right to life does not hold any claims over others. In Judith Thomson's classic defense of abortion, she compares a fetus to an unconscious man hooked to an unwitting woman while she sleeps. Surely, she reasons, most would have no problem with unhooking the annoying person even if it meant he were to die (Thomson, par. 4). One could treat any fetus like this unconscious pest and logically reach the same conclusion. Although this draws the obvious parallel to circumstances involving rape, if one were to agree that the fetus produced by rape were less of a "person" than the one produced by consenting adults, as most abortion opponents do, we would see the logical inconsistency in my opposition's argument. Though it would be generous to allow the man to stay attached to one's organs, his right to life does not override one's right not to be inconvenienced. In the same manner, Thomson writes, "if the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda's cool hand upon my fevered brow, I have no right to receive it" even if it will only slightly inconvenience Mr. Fonda (par. 10). Thus, a woman is morally permitted to have an abortion even if she were not to be harmed by bearing the fetus.

Another reason why abortion is justifiable is that a potential person has no value. Those who would seek to outlaw abortion use the misguiding idea that it would be evil to deprive a potential person of his right to live a life in the future. Taken to its logical extreme, this ludicrous belief would treat birth control as a crime, mourn a vasectomy as a loss of potential people, and even advocate polygamy on the grounds that it helps create more people. The idea is logically unfeasible; the idea of a potential person is a paradox. If a person is a being that is conscious, the potential to be conscious does not constitute personhood. Thus, we need not take into account the possibility that someday a fetus could become a person. As most philosophers agree, an actual person has more importance than any number of nonexistent "lives" (Warren 9). As Warren asserts, one need not be inconvenienced even slightly even if many potential lives were at stake, for "so great is the margin by which one actual person's right to liberty outweighs whatever right to life even a hundred thousand potential people have" (9). The contradiction central to the so-called "pro-lifers" is the assertion that they value life; but what they actually value is the fantasy of a life that does not by any means exist nor will ever undeniably exist. To value a life that is not a life is illogical. The only people that should be taken into account when deciding to have an abortion are the mother and father, the people who will undoubtedly be affected by it.

Slippery slope argument begins--hell, the other side does it too. While abortion is clearly a desirable and acceptable practice for all those involved, criminalizing or outlawing abortion would result in a number of grave evils. My opponents mistakenly claim that allowing abortion results in the devaluing of human life. In actuality, the reverse is true. Prohibiting women from exercising freedom over their bodies depreciates respect for human rights. Refusing abortions to women is equal to treating them as mere incubators and not recognizing their ability and right to make rational decisions. If abortion were to be outlawed, our society would place a premium on fetuses over women's rights. It is not inconceivable that soon thereafter pregnant women would be required to meet government health standards and submit regular blood tests to guarantee that a fetus would not be harmed.

Just as making abortions illegal would cheapen human life, criminalizing the practice would cause physical harm to those set on having abortions. For this reason, it is in the best interest of society to keep abortion legal. While antiabortionists claim that outlawing abortions would prevent the practice, this is clearly false. Ideological opposite abortion historians Marvin Olasky and James Mohr both agree that during the years of abortion's criminalization, incidences of abortion actually increased (Langum 6). Illegal "back-alley" abortions became a common practice, resulting in increasingly dangerous procedures. The practice of back-alley abortions often involves rudimentary tools and a lack of anesthetics, usually resulting in the death of the woman. As Dorothy Fadiman, a back-alley abortion survivor, says, "no woman should have to go through this" (qtd. in Coale par. 2). Fadiman was denied an abortion by a bona fide medical establishment and received an abortion, "blindfolded and unanaesthetized," from a back-alley abortionist; she later fell ill and nearly died from blood poisoning and peritonitis (Coale par. 4). Like many other pregnant women with no place to turn, she decided to receive an abortion despite its illegality and suffered greatly for it. Women will continue to receive abortions even if they are illegal, but the practice itself will once again become unsafe.

Sources:
Coale, Kristi. "When Abortion was Illegal." Progressive Aug. 1995: 16-24.
Langum, David J. "A Personal Voyage of Exploration through the Literature of Abortion History." Law and Social Inquiry Spring 2000: 693-704.
Mauro, Tony. "Roe v. Wade, 30 Years Later." Texas Lawyer 20 Jan. 2002: 23.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. "A Defense of Abortion." Philosophy and Public Affairs 1971: 47-50.
Warren, Mary Anne. "The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion." The Right Thing To Do. Ed. James Rachels. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw, 2003: 97-106.

ONCE UPON A TIME WHILE WALKING THROUGH A PARK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6025021)

I asked a geek "Do you have a girlfriend?". He responded with a very puzzled look. "A girlfriend?," he mused, "Who is the developer?". I chuckled and told him this was not an open source project. He then became slightly angry and told me "Are you trying to insult me? Only the best geeks use open source only!". I reassured him I was well aware of his integrity of a geek (white skin, clumsy, pants that are too short, lack of daily shower, etc), but a girlfriend was a female who one to a male (most oftenly a male) has an intimat friendship with. He gave me a very confused look. "I have never heard of such a thing.. this.. g-g-irlfriend?" He asked me, sound very baffled. "I have heard of friends before, those pets other people have. But what is this thing you say.. Girl?" I asked him to sit down on a bench nearby so I could explain it too him, the poor, helpless thing. I told him that for human beings to reproduce, sexual intercourse must occur between a male and a female. "Perhaps you hear the trolls mention a thing called "pussy" on slashdot?". The geek burst into laughter, "Haha, you have been browsing at -1 lately, haven't you? You know that is just Troll talk. Those silly trolls never have anything intelligent to say." My face turned serious. "My dear geek, are you not aware of the female population amongst you? Do you not stare in the street when you pass by a hot, slim, gorgeous looking chick with a firm bust and well sculpted ass?". The geek immediately began to appear as if we was having a nervous breakdown. His glasses began to fog up and he took them off to wipe them with this linux embroidered shirt, "I think I know what you are talking about. Those things are icky. They have cooties. Get away from me!" I felt offended. "Nonsense, I pleaded! Pussy is a beautiful thing. A sacred thing." The geek would not listen and he began to cry. "STOP IT!! You are EVIL!!" He then skipped off. I walked back to my house quite sad. Why don't they listen to me I asked myself? When I got home my girlfriend opened the door. She was wearing short-shorts and a sports bra. She had been doing the thigh master for the past 30 minutes and was sweating. I could see her dark nipples underneath her slightly damp bra. Oh god I could fuck her to the moon and back. I could smell her horniness the second I took my shoes off. I chased her, both of us laughing, to our bedroom [THE FOLLOWING has been censored for the well-being of Geeks].... Six hours later, finally satisfied a little, I sat up and noticed that same Geek hiding in the trees. He had been watchings us the entire time. I swear his penis had to have been the size of a fucking horse cock. I thought to myself. There is one geek, finally brought into the real world.

not perfect (4, Interesting)

chill182 (591443) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025029)

The commercial skip works great on sitcoms that are on the main network stations. That's about it. On TechTV and G4 it doesn't skip past the long commericals (video professor, that air filter thing). On dramas like 24, Buffy or Alias it skips too far, requiring me to rewind several minutes. I probably use commercial skip on about 1/4th of all my recorded shows.

Calm Down (1)

Dark1 (179489) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025069)

What exactly is the legal problem with Commercial Advance? Replay doesn't remove commercials from the recording, it just marks the video with indexes that it later uses to identify commericials. Skipping ahead about 3 minutes (3, QuickSkip) works pretty well too. It would seem to me that if Big Media has a problem with Commercial Advance, they'd have a problem with ALL DVRs.

Tivo and Replay (2, Insightful)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025073)

I have the DSS tivo, very nice as its all digital, no analog saving. Saw that the Replay was onsale at costco, and the slashdot article on copying files to your PC/MAC.

Bought the replay, found out you had to buy a subscription, it wouldnt work without one. (and it was refurbished...)

Hooked it up off the tivo, and the picture quality saving fromt the Tivo to the Replay was not that great. Could of been the Digital->Analog problem, but even my VCR recorded better. But I was able to move the files to the PC or MAC and edit them. But in the end, I didnt want to pay for the subscription, and he quality wasnt as good. Also, it didnt work with my normal DSS box. (the IR didnt control it) So I returned it.

Even thou Tivo doesnt have an option to copy the movies off, the DSS models have a great picture, even better than the normal broadcast quality. Im thinking of getting the series 2 for DSS, could use more HD space also.

BTW, i used the litttle secret code to enable 30 second skip, works great. Only problem tivo has, season pass manager is slow.

30 skip on Tivo (2, Informative)

asv108 (141455) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025085)

I know this works on my Tivo Series 2

While watching a show hit:

Select -> Play -> Select -> 3 -> 0 -> Select

The move to the end of the show button turns in to a 30 second skip button. It works great for me, sometimes it turns off after software updates so you will have to run the button sequence again.

Workaround: for bug# ????? (3, Informative)

DA_MAN_DA_MYTH (182037) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025086)

I had bad luck with that function chopping out bits of show anyway.

turn off commercial advance, after the advance and rewind a couple of seconds to desired point. Turn commercial advance back on.

Commercial advance is by far one of the greatest features, it makes hour long shows into 40 minute shows saving me time and giving me more tv!

Setting things straight - REPLAYTV 4040 owner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#6025113)

Ok first of all:
I had bad luck with that function chopping out bits of show anyway.
1. Not sure exactly what was meant by this. But it doesn't actually chop the show an commercial is still there. If you meant that it might of skipped some of your show that would of been better said.
2. Seems to be some confusion at least it seems in this article about the 30 second skip and Commercial Advance. These are 2 different features. 30 sec skip seems like it is on all PVR's but CA is only on the ReplayTV. It actually skips commercials while watching (doesn't skip the recording of commercials) the show. It is a great feature. Hope it doesn't get removed.
3. A lot of people responses sound like they think this is a for sure decision. It is not! It is an option DNNA is looking at. They will make that decision based on the cost. Lawyers compared to sales from feature. Also if they believe they can win.

I can say one thing and this is the main reason I supported ReplayTV. Sonicblue stood up for the consumer; you don't see any other PVR doing this. The fought until it emptied their pockets but they didn't let up! I only hope DNNA also has the guts to stand up for the consumer! I lose the features no big deal it is the principal of Hollywood thinking they can prevent innovation that bothers me!

Replaytv owner - Proud and Extremly Happy!!! Plus must add a brag, we have DVarchive!

Fast Forward? (3, Insightful)

mikeboone (163222) | more than 9 years ago | (#6025118)

I have not made the move to a PVR, but we use our 9 year old VCR to tape shows and watch later. And guess what, I use the fast forward button to get through the commercials! Perhaps we should remove that button from all remotes.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...