My justification is that in 40 years of cable tv ownership, my parents have never once been a Nielson household.
Related to how you think their package should be expanded (downloads included)?
Thats like saying "Ive been a loyal walmart customer for YEARS, but theyre trying to gouge on their candy bar prices so I dont ring it up at the register and just leave what I feel is fair".
"cant afford it" is when you say "I guess I do without" (which adults generally are supposed to know how to do), rather than saying "screw it, Ill take it anyways". Thats called "being childish".
Yes, Im republican, and (GASP) believe in the rule of law, society setting its own rules, and people making mature decisions.
If I give Joe two cookies and Jane one, you will almost have Jane whining that "its not fair" rather than being satisfied with the one she got. When people grow up, this attitude doesnt disappear; it just changes. Now, people complain when someone is successful and end up with more money than they think is "necesary".
But heres the thing; with Joe vs Jane, Jane isnt hurt by the fact that Joe got two cookies. And with you and Rowling, you arent "hurt" by the fact that she was highly successful. Why are you going to demand that she lose some of her revenue when she clearly provided something that society considered of high value? Why punish her for her contribution?
I just want to be able to access the content I've already paid for, commercial free, at my leisure.
Ah, heres the problem then. You didnt order the service you think you ordered. You THOUGHT you were ordering "unrestricted access to certain shows at any time or day ad-free", but if you check your cable subscription I think you will find that to be inaccurate.
Again: entitlement complex. People seem to think "well VMWare has a free hypervisor, so clearly they intend their entire product suite to be free!". Not how it works in the real world.
The EU can make stupid pronouncements about human rights all day long; I just wasnt aware that the internet was a fundamental reality of human society though. Funnily enough I believe people pay for internet in the EU as well, despite their "human right rhetoric".
"Free ESXi hypervisor" isnt "free vSphere", and it certainly isnt "free enterprise licenses". ESXi is a free hypervisor; vSphere constitutes the whole management / clustering solution, which is certainly NOT free.
Well, I didn't pay anything to watch it on TV. Thus: Free.
Someone else paid for it. Not free.
Yall can live in your ridiculous black-and-white reality where all programmers do 24/7 charity work and have no need to make a living; and where all services that do not involve physical goods should be free. Im going to stay firmly here in reality where people take jobs to make money and do productive work, and in an economy driven on the idea that you pay for goods and services that you receive.
Its no different than saying "you should pay your mechanic for service done because he works for a living, not charity". Im not saying one act of piracy will kill VMWare (nor would it kill your mechanic or doctor), Im saying you are depriving them of rightfully earned income for a service rendered.
If you feel sorry for them or want to do your part to encourage them to continue to create new versions you can always give them money.
In a world dominated by your principles we would not have VMWare. We would have alternatives, but I will note that the 3 by far most popular platforms are all "proprietary", not freeware (HyperV, vSphere, Xen). We would have just LibreOffice, not MS Office (and if you think theyre comparable, go ahead and pitch a plan to migrate a large org to OOO; it will be amusing to watch you deal with all the complaints).
All you have to do is ask, and I think many of us would be happy to explain it to you
The explanations Ive seen boil down to "because I feel like it and I dont want to spend money". The logic being used could justify having a mechanic fix your car and then refusing to pay him (taking a service with no payment), or shoplifting and then leaving "what you think is fair" (basing "entitlement" on your personal judgement rather than society's).
These arent grand utopian ideals, theyre the spoutings of someone who has an entitlement complex and no experience contributing to society.
If you havent noticed, the key to winning this argument is to have no sources whatsoever, and to just keep saying "but it sucks so BADLY to be in one of the richest countries in the world, why wont anyone sympathize with me?"
"The bits" require a fairly long key to actually do anything useful.
So I don't see the problem.
Ah, but its not YOUR software I want to buy, but VMWare's, so I believe they get to set the rules. You want to make your own virtualization solution and offer it for free? Noone is stopping you.
Baking a cake is actually quite difficult
So is creating a hypervisor as fully featured as vShpere (or [insert your favorite solution here]). Just as "delivering me a free cake" doesnt do much for the baker, "delivering me a free Enterprise Plus key" doesnt do much for all of the VMWare employees who are expecting a paycheck this month.
I really dont get how people can try to justify this. VMWare spent substantial resources creating a solution, and have employees to pay. Those employees get paid on the basis of how good the software is, with the expectation that that results in sales. Their entire model revolves around you buying a license. How are you going to justify taking their work for free simply because "their livelihood" == "just bits"?
I selected "1 year" because there doesnt appear to be any reliable data for bitcoin before that; however I recall a massive crash earlier than that.
I was attempting to be generous to bitcoin, but if you like we can look at average USD volatility over the last decade vs bitcoin over the last 3 years; I think it will just further prove my point.
You didnt share your reasoning, I was hoping to present it to our VMWare sales rep and ask if they could also hurry up with version 6, and perhaps deliver it with a free cake.
My own testing has generally shown that it does, unless theyre trying to be super sneaky about it-- which is honestly not productive for google as they would eventually get found out anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
I am ok with paying, but I should be able to watch videos on my terms.
This is the crux of it: People think that "I want" is the same as "I should be able to" or "I deserve".
Its not. Learning that is part of growing up.
I dont get it, how is this
My justification is that in 40 years of cable tv ownership, my parents have never once been a Nielson household.
Related to how you think their package should be expanded (downloads included)?
Thats like saying "Ive been a loyal walmart customer for YEARS, but theyre trying to gouge on their candy bar prices so I dont ring it up at the register and just leave what I feel is fair".
"cant afford it" is when you say "I guess I do without" (which adults generally are supposed to know how to do), rather than saying "screw it, Ill take it anyways". Thats called "being childish".
Yes, Im republican, and (GASP) believe in the rule of law, society setting its own rules, and people making mature decisions.
This is what people dont get.
If I give Joe two cookies and Jane one, you will almost have Jane whining that "its not fair" rather than being satisfied with the one she got. When people grow up, this attitude doesnt disappear; it just changes. Now, people complain when someone is successful and end up with more money than they think is "necesary".
But heres the thing; with Joe vs Jane, Jane isnt hurt by the fact that Joe got two cookies. And with you and Rowling, you arent "hurt" by the fact that she was highly successful. Why are you going to demand that she lose some of her revenue when she clearly provided something that society considered of high value? Why punish her for her contribution?
Well, phew, glad you averted that crisis. Who knows what would have happened if you missed watching The Walking Dead.
The question is why do copyright holders feel entitled to prevent people from sharing the content they bought.
The question is why do skilled workers feel entitled to charge for services rendered?
Do I have this right?
I just want to be able to access the content I've already paid for, commercial free, at my leisure.
Ah, heres the problem then. You didnt order the service you think you ordered. You THOUGHT you were ordering "unrestricted access to certain shows at any time or day ad-free", but if you check your cable subscription I think you will find that to be inaccurate.
Again: entitlement complex. People seem to think "well VMWare has a free hypervisor, so clearly they intend their entire product suite to be free!". Not how it works in the real world.
The EU can make stupid pronouncements about human rights all day long; I just wasnt aware that the internet was a fundamental reality of human society though. Funnily enough I believe people pay for internet in the EU as well, despite their "human right rhetoric".
"Free ESXi hypervisor" isnt "free vSphere", and it certainly isnt "free enterprise licenses". ESXi is a free hypervisor; vSphere constitutes the whole management / clustering solution, which is certainly NOT free.
Well, I didn't pay anything to watch it on TV. Thus: Free.
Someone else paid for it. Not free.
Yall can live in your ridiculous black-and-white reality where all programmers do 24/7 charity work and have no need to make a living; and where all services that do not involve physical goods should be free. Im going to stay firmly here in reality where people take jobs to make money and do productive work, and in an economy driven on the idea that you pay for goods and services that you receive.
Its no different than saying "you should pay your mechanic for service done because he works for a living, not charity". Im not saying one act of piracy will kill VMWare (nor would it kill your mechanic or doctor), Im saying you are depriving them of rightfully earned income for a service rendered.
If you feel sorry for them or want to do your part to encourage them to continue to create new versions you can always give them money.
In a world dominated by your principles we would not have VMWare. We would have alternatives, but I will note that the 3 by far most popular platforms are all "proprietary", not freeware (HyperV, vSphere, Xen). We would have just LibreOffice, not MS Office (and if you think theyre comparable, go ahead and pitch a plan to migrate a large org to OOO; it will be amusing to watch you deal with all the complaints).
All you have to do is ask, and I think many of us would be happy to explain it to you
The explanations Ive seen boil down to "because I feel like it and I dont want to spend money". The logic being used could justify having a mechanic fix your car and then refusing to pay him (taking a service with no payment), or shoplifting and then leaving "what you think is fair" (basing "entitlement" on your personal judgement rather than society's).
These arent grand utopian ideals, theyre the spoutings of someone who has an entitlement complex and no experience contributing to society.
If you havent noticed, the key to winning this argument is to have no sources whatsoever, and to just keep saying "but it sucks so BADLY to be in one of the richest countries in the world, why wont anyone sympathize with me?"
I wasnt not aware that "Anonymous Coward" was a publicly traded company, whats your ticker symbol?
"The bits" require a fairly long key to actually do anything useful.
So I don't see the problem.
Ah, but its not YOUR software I want to buy, but VMWare's, so I believe they get to set the rules. You want to make your own virtualization solution and offer it for free? Noone is stopping you.
Baking a cake is actually quite difficult
So is creating a hypervisor as fully featured as vShpere (or [insert your favorite solution here]). Just as "delivering me a free cake" doesnt do much for the baker, "delivering me a free Enterprise Plus key" doesnt do much for all of the VMWare employees who are expecting a paycheck this month.
I really dont get how people can try to justify this. VMWare spent substantial resources creating a solution, and have employees to pay. Those employees get paid on the basis of how good the software is, with the expectation that that results in sales. Their entire model revolves around you buying a license. How are you going to justify taking their work for free simply because "their livelihood" == "just bits"?
I selected "1 year" because there doesnt appear to be any reliable data for bitcoin before that; however I recall a massive crash earlier than that.
I was attempting to be generous to bitcoin, but if you like we can look at average USD volatility over the last decade vs bitcoin over the last 3 years; I think it will just further prove my point.
We have the #2 median household income in the world.
Why are you arguing this with not a shred to back you up and every single statistic against you?-
You didnt share your reasoning, I was hoping to present it to our VMWare sales rep and ask if they could also hurry up with version 6, and perhaps deliver it with a free cake.
But then again everyone is recommending to uninstall these versions anyway.
For values where $theseversions >= JRE 0.1, of course.
because you are not allowed to save the media
I believe that is kind of the point, and kind of the agreement.
because some of them do not allow movies licensed under CC
If the MPAA came after you for CC media, I believe your case would be fairly simple to win.
because not everyone is entitled to a credit card
I think theres a LOT of things people arent de-facto entitled to. Doesnt seem to stop them from thinking they are.
Because 5 dollars for every movie or episode of a show id like to watch will break me.
In other words, based on some undisclosed justification, you are entitled to all-you-can-eat entertainment.
Care to share what that reason is? Are you also entitled to free internet, free Office software, free MS SQL CALs, free vSphere enterprise licenses?
I dont think we know that, which is why the question was asked.
I mean I know its slashdot and its super hip to make wild assumptions and go off on a rant based on them, but lets humor the guy.
Thats slightly hillarious, and more than a litlte useful.
It's incredible that this is not a more important to the Chrome developers,
No its not, because,
most people don't care about [color profiles].
(FTFY)
I dont know of anyone (outside of IT colleagues) who would even know what a color profile is. I dont know that Ive ever used one, or that I care to.
undo close tab is "ctrl shift t".
My own testing has generally shown that it does, unless theyre trying to be super sneaky about it-- which is honestly not productive for google as they would eventually get found out anyways.