Service Providers (Internet, TV, Etc)
- Thread starter Denamian
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 14,670
- 2,528
I agree that a touchscreen is a horrible idea on a remote control. I had a Harmony One and the button layout/ergonomics was excellent but the touchscreen is lame. What makes a good remote is the ability to use it in the dark without looking at it. Having to turn on the screen and look down at it is the opposite of that.
I'm also not a big fan of "activities". It's nice to push one button and have everything come on, but it is so slow that I would sometimes fuck it up because I pushed the button and then sat the remote down and it was still in the process of turning everything on. You don't expect it to take 2-3 seconds to tell 3 devices to turn on but it takes that long. Then of course I eventually dropped it enough times to break the touchscreen. Remotes fall off of stuff all the time and the idea that it might cost $100 for that to happen is ridiculous. I might give the 300 a try one of these days but I will never have another touchscreen remote.
I'm also not a big fan of "activities". It's nice to push one button and have everything come on, but it is so slow that I would sometimes fuck it up because I pushed the button and then sat the remote down and it was still in the process of turning everything on. You don't expect it to take 2-3 seconds to tell 3 devices to turn on but it takes that long. Then of course I eventually dropped it enough times to break the touchscreen. Remotes fall off of stuff all the time and the idea that it might cost $100 for that to happen is ridiculous. I might give the 300 a try one of these days but I will never have another touchscreen remote.
Noodleface
A Mod Real Quick
- 38,271
- 15,093
Yeah I'm not really interested in a touch screen. It's just a remote.. I want it to turn things on and control the thing. I also don't want a remote that costs more than said thing.
Void
BAU BAU
- 9,806
- 11,721
I owned a Harmony several years ago. Unless you do crazy shit with your remote, I don't know why anyone would ever want more than this one:Amazon.com: RCA RCRP05BR 5 Device Cable Replacement Universal Remote (Black): Electronics
I've linked it a few times over the past year or two, and I don't think anyone has ever taken my advice, but perhaps someday! I actually got mine for under $10 at the time, but even at $13.50 it is a steal compared to a Harmony. It even allows you to make macros if you want, supposedly, although I've never done it because how many times does anyone do more than power on/off, play, fast forward, pause, etc.? I'll never buy another Harmony after using this thing.
Abefroman
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 12,594
- 11,937
The harmony can mimic specific buttons on your original remote. It's also easy to program the thing. I have a Technics reciever that I lost the remote for. There are certain speaker functions that can only be done with the remote. They don't even sell a replacement for the remote and the Harmony not only had the codes for it but was able to mimic those buttons that I needed. It's also good for controling just about everything else you can use a remote for.
Void
BAU BAU
- 9,806
- 11,721
Well yeah, you might have a specific instance when something more was needed. I'm not saying there is never a reason to buy a Harmony. But chances are if you had gone to hifi-remote.com with the remote I linked, they could have given you codes for it too. Or at worst, you buy the cable that lets you program it from your PC. Or maybe not, and the Harmony was your only option. But most people don't use a remote for much more than what I said, so paying $13.50 vs. several hundred seems like a good deal to me unless you really, really need the more expensive one for some reason.
Arative
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 3,050
- 4,739
FCC Chair to Make New Net Neutrality Rule Proposal After Google, Netflix, Amazon Protest - TheWrap
Some headway on changing the idiotic fast lane idea from Wheeler. Lets hope he actually listens to the public and not the companies he actually used work for. Good news though on taking public comment on classifying ISP's as public utilities. That would be a game changer.
Some headway on changing the idiotic fast lane idea from Wheeler. Lets hope he actually listens to the public and not the companies he actually used work for. Good news though on taking public comment on classifying ISP's as public utilities. That would be a game changer.
Joeboo
Molten Core Raider
- 8,157
- 140
We're all about to get fucked, folks
Today, the FCC will destroy the internet. Its been fun. | KiNE Magazine | Colorado Springs - Denver
Today, the FCC will destroy the internet. Its been fun. | KiNE Magazine | Colorado Springs - Denver
Crone
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 9,714
- 3,211
Updated with what the ruling was: they can't slow down anyone else, but they can charge people to go faster if they want to go faster.
I guess that's ok, right? But if they can't stop anyone from going slower, what's to force anyone from paying to go faster? lol
I guess that's ok, right? But if they can't stop anyone from going slower, what's to force anyone from paying to go faster? lol
Joeboo
Molten Core Raider
- 8,157
- 140
I don't really see a whole lot of difference.
Option 1) Throttle sites that don't pay, leave sites that do pay alone
Option 2) Sites that don't pay all sit at a lower speed, sites that pay get a higher speed.
Its basically the exact same thing, just different wording. It's just a matter of either starting everyone at a high speed and then bumping some sites down that don't cooperate, or starting everyone low and bumping some sites up that play along. Same net result, unfortunately.
Option 1) Throttle sites that don't pay, leave sites that do pay alone
Option 2) Sites that don't pay all sit at a lower speed, sites that pay get a higher speed.
Its basically the exact same thing, just different wording. It's just a matter of either starting everyone at a high speed and then bumping some sites down that don't cooperate, or starting everyone low and bumping some sites up that play along. Same net result, unfortunately.
Noodleface
A Mod Real Quick
- 38,271
- 15,093
I just hope that no one pays. It's the only way the right thing will be done.
Seriously fuck this guy. This shit keeps me up at night.
Seriously fuck this guy. This shit keeps me up at night.
Kirun
Buzzfeed Editor
- 19,235
- 15,625
Right, which means internet speeds completely stagnate, because now they're behind a paywall.
Folanlron
Trakanon Raider
- 2,304
- 659
Correct, basically they got what they wanted, but the wording makes it seem not bad..... thanks FCC now go fuck your self.. and someone lynch/burn that fucking retard Wheeler
Ritley
Karazhan Raider
- 15,989
- 34,967
Either the ISPs are full of shit when they say they are near capacity, or they are full of shit when they say that creating a fast lane won't slow down other traffic
Folanlron
Trakanon Raider
- 2,304
- 659
I can see maybe smaller ISP's being near full capacity...course that depends mostly on there coverage area... and how easy it is for them to access to there primary link..
but the larger ISP's like Verizon/At&T/Comcast, they are all sitting on so much dark fiber it's stupid.
but the larger ISP's like Verizon/At&T/Comcast, they are all sitting on so much dark fiber it's stupid.
AT&T and DirecTV about to try and tie the knot.
ATT nears DirecTV purchase in new jolt to TV landscape - Yahoo Finance
ATT nears DirecTV purchase in new jolt to TV landscape - Yahoo Finance
Kirun
Buzzfeed Editor
- 19,235
- 15,625
