The difference with Quantum, as I understand it, is rather than have satellite boxes work off the main DVR, each box serves as its own independent DVR. I could be wrong however. But now at least we can watch/record up to 6 channels at once rather than the 2 we are limited to now. Plus much more storage capacity to record shows we'll never actually get around to watching.
Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
Nuke wrote:
The difference with Quantum, as I understand it, is rather than have satellite boxes work off the main DVR, each box serves as its own independent DVR. I could be wrong however. But now at least we can watch/record up to 6 channels at once rather than the 2 we are limited to now. Plus much more storage capacity to record shows we'll never actually get around to watching.
Quantum "Enhanced" is one DVR, with 6 tuners, capable of recording/watching up to six things at once through the available set top boxes. The set top boxes now have DVR controls built into them, but they control the one Quantum DVR with 100 hours of HD storage.
Quantum "Premium" is two DVRs, 12 tuners, capable of capable of recording/watching up to 12 things at once through the available set top boxes. The two Quantum DVRs each have 100 hours of HD storage so 200 hours total.
It is based on the same platform as existing FiOS tech, but enhanced as you noted, with 4 more tuners.
vansmack wrote:I use TiVo. I didn't buy stock in them. I pay 11.99/month for DVR capabilities in 4 rooms and get a $5 monthly credit on my cable bill for user owned equipment. What option could possibly be cheaper (even factoring in initial hardware cost)?Nuke wrote:
I upgraded to Fios Quantum. Not sure what the new setup will be. I currently have a multi-room DVR. They claim you can have DVR-like control of up to 10 TVs.
You have one DVR shared to all other STB's. AT&T, FIOS, DirecTV and Dish all utilize this setup. TiVo is only necessary for those that use cable and wish to have the same share feature.Julian, wrote:a TiVo Roamio/Bolt + 2 TiVo minis, I hope you die bankrupt).
TiVo people talking about others being bankrupt still cracks me up.
You have to have cable or live in one of the 12 cities that support FiOS. End of discussion.
vansmack wrote:SideStageHead wrote:
so if they are buying them back…what are they going to do with all that inventory?
Not looking good for you sir.
Perhaps I was a little quick here.
Apparently, the Government has agreed to allow VW to exceed the limits in exchange for payments to an air quality mitigation fund. Thus, the first generation EA189 engines will only be fit with a larger soot trap with software adjustments and they will be allowed to stay on the roads despite despite spewing out twice the legal limit of NOx.
If approved, you may be able to acquire one of those on the cheap, if you have no conscience.
Smackie is backstage at a Keith Urban show. If I see one more pair of short shorts and boots I'm gonna….
Who'm I kidding? This is well worth listening to Mr. Kidman.
Who'm I kidding? This is well worth listening to Mr. Kidman.
vansmack wrote:I cleared $140 for my four free K.U. tickets through the ticketmaster settlement. Admittedly, you're making me regret going liquid on this. . .
Smackie is backstage at a Keith Urban show. If I see one more pair of short shorts and boots I'm gonna….
Who'm I kidding? This is well worth listening to Mr. Kidman.
The show itself was awful. Gawd awful actually.
But the crowd was among the best looking I've seen and will continue to escort the missus to country shows for that alone.
But the crowd was among the best looking I've seen and will continue to escort the missus to country shows for that alone.
this seems appropriate for this tread
At its peak in 2000, Yahoo had a market value of $128 billion.
Bought Broadcast.com for $5.7 billion, bought Geocities for $3.6 billion
Yahoo agreed to buy Facebook for $1 billion, but the deal fell through when Yahoo tried to negotiate down the price. It passed on an offer to buy YouTube, and its purchase of eBay fell through because of clashing egos.
Microsoft's offer was actually $45 billion.
Yahoo bought Tumblr for $1.1 billion in 2013. It paid for it by selling 20% stake of it's 30% stake in Alibaba, the only thing it had that was making any money.
Bought Broadcast.com for $5.7 billion, bought Geocities for $3.6 billion
Yahoo agreed to buy Facebook for $1 billion, but the deal fell through when Yahoo tried to negotiate down the price. It passed on an offer to buy YouTube, and its purchase of eBay fell through because of clashing egos.
Microsoft's offer was actually $45 billion.
Yahoo bought Tumblr for $1.1 billion in 2013. It paid for it by selling 20% stake of it's 30% stake in Alibaba, the only thing it had that was making any money.
#3 my ass, especially not behind a Kardashian or a Trump.
vansmack wrote:Well, Smacks, I'm not really sure how official these rankings are. . .
#3 my ass, especially not behind a Kardashian or a Trump.
I can usually measure the success of the Angels by my progress in the Economist.
At 6:52AM PT on Aug 3, I caught up on the Economist, approximately 6 hours ahead of the release of this week's Audio Edition.
This is one gawd awful Angels team.
At 6:52AM PT on Aug 3, I caught up on the Economist, approximately 6 hours ahead of the release of this week's Audio Edition.
This is one gawd awful Angels team.
Julian, wrote:cosign
Number one in our hearts, rankings be damned.
http://www.espn.com/golf/leaderboard
I post this here only because I think smackie is the only other person who might care but Jim Furyk just shot a fucking 58.
I post this here only because I think smackie is the only other person who might care but Jim Furyk just shot a fucking 58.
I woke up this morning to watch United, then switched over when I saw he was close.
Awesome.
Awesome.
I'm going to move this here as I don't like to clutter up topic based threads.
I think there's a difference between a sex tape that you recorded of you and your partner that you lose control of, and being unknowingly recorded having sex. That Hulk Hogan has sex is not news - he has two children after all (Gawker's editor even said this in deposition). Gawker publishing a video that may have been illegally recorded with the sole purpose of embarrassing an individual for their own profit makes you complicit in the action and cannot be done without consequences. Hiding behind Freedom of the Press when there is no news is an affront to Freedom of the Press, and cannot be a defense to violating other laws.
I did, however, feel that $140 million in damages was excessive, and that a lesser penalty or even settling would have kept Gawker open.
Julian, wrote:vansmack wrote:While I find celebrity sex tapes (especially of Hulk Hogan) distasteful, I fully support some trash rag publishing them because they are "news." I find the idea of bankrupting a media entity because they show unflattering footage of a reality TV star really gross and think it opens a Pandora's box.Julian, wrote:inane lawsuits
Interesting.
I think the punishments were harsh, but I didn't think the case was without merit.
I'm not bemoaning the loss of Gawker (a trash rag that disgustingly outs homosexuals and lowers the level of public discourse), but we've just basically seen a court-validated approach for the next Peter Thiel to go after (insert publication here) because of their political/editorial view.
I think there's a difference between a sex tape that you recorded of you and your partner that you lose control of, and being unknowingly recorded having sex. That Hulk Hogan has sex is not news - he has two children after all (Gawker's editor even said this in deposition). Gawker publishing a video that may have been illegally recorded with the sole purpose of embarrassing an individual for their own profit makes you complicit in the action and cannot be done without consequences. Hiding behind Freedom of the Press when there is no news is an affront to Freedom of the Press, and cannot be a defense to violating other laws.
I did, however, feel that $140 million in damages was excessive, and that a lesser penalty or even settling would have kept Gawker open.
vansmack wrote:Let me start with the obvious concession that I am a layperson, not a lawyer such as yourself.
I'm going to move this here as I don't like to clutter up topic based threads.Julian, wrote:vansmack wrote:While I find celebrity sex tapes (especially of Hulk Hogan) distasteful, I fully support some trash rag publishing them because they are "news." I find the idea of bankrupting a media entity because they show unflattering footage of a reality TV star really gross and think it opens a Pandora's box.Julian, wrote:inane lawsuits
Interesting.
I think the punishments were harsh, but I didn't think the case was without merit.
I'm not bemoaning the loss of Gawker (a trash rag that disgustingly outs homosexuals and lowers the level of public discourse), but we've just basically seen a court-validated approach for the next Peter Thiel to go after (insert publication here) because of their political/editorial view.
I think there's a difference between a sex tape that you recorded of you and your partner that you lose control of, and being unknowingly recorded having sex. That Hulk Hogan has sex is not news - he has two children after all (Gawker's editor even said this in deposition). Gawker publishing a video that may have been illegally recorded with the sole purpose of embarrassing an individual for their own profit makes you complicit in the action and cannot be done without consequences. Hiding behind Freedom of the Press when there is no news is an affront to Freedom of the Press, and cannot be a defense to violating other laws.
I did, however, feel that $140 million in damages was excessive, and that a lesser penalty or even settling would have kept Gawker open.
That said, I found it most curious that Hogan's thought was to sue, not the person who "illegally" recorded and distributed a sex tape of himself, "Bubba the Love Sponge," but Gawker, a company who had had several courts (if I'm not mistaken) shooting down orders against Gawker showing the footage. It's also curious – and quite telling, IMO – that Hogan only claimed the video was shot "illegally" and his privacy was violated once courts shot down his original claim that he had a copyright to the footage.
Also as a layperson, I do think this should fall under fair use by the press and reeks of a roundabout first amendment violation. Hulk Hogan is a public figure who has spoken at length about his sex life. The fact that there is footage of him sleeping with the wives of one of his best friends is newsworthy to someone, I'm sure, albeit not to me. It is not newsworthy that Katy Perry wears underwear but I don't think that means some creepo gossip rag shouldn't be allowed to publish an upskirt photograph just because we were already aware Katy Perry wears underwear. I dunno, I just don't see it that way.
And I agree Gawker would've been smart to settle. I feel the judgment (and especially the ridiculous amount) had more to do with Nick Denton's absurd smug behavior on the stand and saying he found celebrity sex tapes only un-newsworthy "if the person was under 4 years old" or whatever the line was. I really don't believe the jury ruled on this based on any facts so much as going, "well that dudes an ass and his website sounds awful." (Which it is.)
And that is to say nothing to the fact the entire genesis of the case had nothing to do with Hulk Hogan and everything to do with Peter Thiel seeing some way he could pump money into something to try and blow up a website who outed his boorish behavior with regularity.
The original suit was with the people who filmed the incident. Gawker was joined later so the suit became against all three.
The Copyright claim was an attempt to get them to take it down. While it failed in court, it did cause Gawker to link to the video instead of hosting it themselves.
And yes, Gawker did not help themselves out with ridiculous decisions along the way.
The Copyright claim was an attempt to get them to take it down. While it failed in court, it did cause Gawker to link to the video instead of hosting it themselves.
And yes, Gawker did not help themselves out with ridiculous decisions along the way.