Luckily there are many online services you can switch to but the cost is higher. Look at Vudu... Purchases in HDX format cost $20. So you got there a DVD/Bluray replacement but it costs you more.
>
I'll never get the douches who buy those $20 vudu/(insert other online digital retailer) movies. For the same price, and most often cheaper, you can get the disc (which has a good chance at including an ultraviolet copy, which can be streamed through vudu). Plus, you can always resell/lend/trade the disc (and keep the ultraviolet, though it's not legit). Also, what happens when the company folds? Fools, I tell ya.
Bandwidth is way, way cheaper than packaging and retail distribution (especially if they distribute via torrent. where's my distribution discount?), so the costs should be less. that, and the fact that most physical goods can be easily borrowed, resold, whatever. taking away that should also lower the cost. I do realize this is about pc software, most of which is p.i.t.a. to resell, as cd-keys are now generally tied to an account, but hey, the account can be sold; license terms be damned. I also realize that because there are still physical goods, the digital distribution system has to pick up some of that slack, but what about when it's 100% download-only?
totally overpriced, even compared to other physical stores. perhaps barnes and noble will be next? i have no idea who is keeping these places in business.
I wonder how this will effect their "my k-cup" that allows brewing any kind of ground coffee in a washable/reusable container. If they don't get rid of that, which would wholly lock in customers, then surely other vendors would just make cups that fit in that thing.
also add:
1. dlna support (lacking on the roku).
2. a browser [chrome?] so hbo go will work (it works on the appletv through comcast but not on the roku, apparently shotime anywhere also suffers this way).
3. a phone app that can also be used as a remote (typing into search fields on the roku app is awesome)
Isn't someone always using ~30% of ALL internet traffic? If it's not netflix, it's torrents or youtube. These 3 must use 99.999999% of all internet traffic from what people post here.
or there's some sort of throttling based on the streaming device going on?
This wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Sometimes, they'll actively block certain devices. Just look at hbo go. I can stream on my computer or iphone app over wi-fi (or cellular), but, and this is the most retarded thing ever, it will not work on my roku because comcast and hbo go don't have a deal (which I don't get why they'd even have too, considering the previous 2 services work fine and both require linking my comcast and hbo accounts).
I guess it has to start somewhere. Perhaps a tv show, that has voting after every episode, so next week we see the results, would be a good start. Eventually, a live tv show, with votes during the commercial breaks. I guess it'd have to be good improv performers. I guess I'm surprised that someone that either a rich Spielberg-type or some indie super director hasn't done it yet, even, as you said, with a short. Lynch or Cronenberg would we rad.
I'm still waiting for a movie that allows the viewers' choices to affect it. The technology is here for home video, and, if it ever took off, it wouldn't take much for purely theaters to build 3-4 button "voting consoles" into the armrests or something (as conventional film would not work).
Stop any and all public funding (either money from research grants or data from publicly funded universities) that helps these monsters and make them pay their own way 100%. This should be applied to all areas of medicine.
Oh, I guess the lack of mentioning it in the summary or TFAs made me think otherwise. The Gawker article quotes The Wrap, who seems to be the real culprit. This also casts doubt. So, yeah, it is in dispute. Regardless what they've done in the past, I'd want hard evidence if the courts are involved.
"Defamer quoted only a brief excerpt and a short summary published earlier that day by the Wrap."
They merely quoted some other site's excerpt and summary. Why isn't the Wrap being sued?
If you tell me where to buy drugs and your experience on them, and I post your dealer's whereabouts and quote your experience, why should I go to jail for drug use?
Said mining company also built the high school ($4million), which I didn't appreciate during time I was there, but after seeing other shitty, cookie-cutter public schools around the country, I take great pride of having attended. I do believe it had the first (or one of; definitely before the white house) indoor swimming pools. Sample of documentary about it.
Or you get a little bit of money from everyone who buys it, forever.
That's absolutely absurd and goes against what copyright was founded on. Now if you had said "Or you get a little bit of money from everyone who buys it, for a reasonably limited time (definitely not a lifetime or for your children's children), and we will protect this work, but at some point it goes back to the public, from whence it came". Don't you get it? All works are inherently public domain, but the creator's get a little time to monopolize on it. This life + 90 is treachery at its finest.
i've only watched one movie on crackle since i got my roku, there was an ad every 10 minutes. i say AN ad, as it was the same ad for crackle, nontheless, every single time.
Well, true that it isn't entrapment, it is true that most sting operations reek of desperation on the part of LEOs. If you have to facilitate/enable ANY part of the crime, you must really suck at your job. The crimes only happen because the LEOs are involved. Totally pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily there are many online services you can switch to but the cost is higher. Look at Vudu... Purchases in HDX format cost $20. So you got there a DVD/Bluray replacement but it costs you more.
>
I'll never get the douches who buy those $20 vudu/(insert other online digital retailer) movies. For the same price, and most often cheaper, you can get the disc (which has a good chance at including an ultraviolet copy, which can be streamed through vudu). Plus, you can always resell/lend/trade the disc (and keep the ultraviolet, though it's not legit). Also, what happens when the company folds? Fools, I tell ya.
yeah, i should've said "this new console", but hearing that even some ps4 games are nerfed down is pretty lame.
While I wasn't expecting 4k levels of resolution, that these new consoles aren't even pure 1080p/60 is pretty fucking pathetic.
Bandwidth is way, way cheaper than packaging and retail distribution (especially if they distribute via torrent. where's my distribution discount?), so the costs should be less. that, and the fact that most physical goods can be easily borrowed, resold, whatever. taking away that should also lower the cost. I do realize this is about pc software, most of which is p.i.t.a. to resell, as cd-keys are now generally tied to an account, but hey, the account can be sold; license terms be damned. I also realize that because there are still physical goods, the digital distribution system has to pick up some of that slack, but what about when it's 100% download-only?
totally overpriced, even compared to other physical stores. perhaps barnes and noble will be next? i have no idea who is keeping these places in business.
Thought I'd give it a go.
I wonder how this will effect their "my k-cup" that allows brewing any kind of ground coffee in a washable/reusable container. If they don't get rid of that, which would wholly lock in customers, then surely other vendors would just make cups that fit in that thing.
also add:
1. dlna support (lacking on the roku).
2. a browser [chrome?] so hbo go will work (it works on the appletv through comcast but not on the roku, apparently shotime anywhere also suffers this way). 3. a phone app that can also be used as a remote (typing into search fields on the roku app is awesome)
Isn't someone always using ~30% of ALL internet traffic? If it's not netflix, it's torrents or youtube. These 3 must use 99.999999% of all internet traffic from what people post here.
or there's some sort of throttling based on the streaming device going on?
This wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Sometimes, they'll actively block certain devices. Just look at hbo go. I can stream on my computer or iphone app over wi-fi (or cellular), but, and this is the most retarded thing ever, it will not work on my roku because comcast and hbo go don't have a deal (which I don't get why they'd even have too, considering the previous 2 services work fine and both require linking my comcast and hbo accounts).
I guess it has to start somewhere. Perhaps a tv show, that has voting after every episode, so next week we see the results, would be a good start. Eventually, a live tv show, with votes during the commercial breaks. I guess it'd have to be good improv performers. I guess I'm surprised that someone that either a rich Spielberg-type or some indie super director hasn't done it yet, even, as you said, with a short. Lynch or Cronenberg would we rad.
I'm still waiting for a movie that allows the viewers' choices to affect it. The technology is here for home video, and, if it ever took off, it wouldn't take much for purely theaters to build 3-4 button "voting consoles" into the armrests or something (as conventional film would not work).
Stop any and all public funding (either money from research grants or data from publicly funded universities) that helps these monsters and make them pay their own way 100%. This should be applied to all areas of medicine.
Oh, I guess the lack of mentioning it in the summary or TFAs made me think otherwise. The Gawker article quotes The Wrap, who seems to be the real culprit. This also casts doubt. So, yeah, it is in dispute. Regardless what they've done in the past, I'd want hard evidence if the courts are involved.
Can you prove the ransom existed?
Surely this offer should be linked to and/or archived; its existence easily verifiable.
"Defamer quoted only a brief excerpt and a short summary published earlier that day by the Wrap."
They merely quoted some other site's excerpt and summary. Why isn't the Wrap being sued?
If you tell me where to buy drugs and your experience on them, and I post your dealer's whereabouts and quote your experience, why should I go to jail for drug use?
If I plot to kill someone and am stopped, I am hardly a straight, uncut murderer. He is an attempted-terrorist at best.
Said mining company also built the high school ($4million), which I didn't appreciate during time I was there, but after seeing other shitty, cookie-cutter public schools around the country, I take great pride of having attended. I do believe it had the first (or one of; definitely before the white house) indoor swimming pools. Sample of documentary about it.
tv on dvd and streaming are all nothing but bonus revenue.
I guess exposing the already known shouldn't affect anything then.
Or you get a little bit of money from everyone who buys it, forever.
That's absolutely absurd and goes against what copyright was founded on. Now if you had said "Or you get a little bit of money from everyone who buys it, for a reasonably limited time (definitely not a lifetime or for your children's children), and we will protect this work, but at some point it goes back to the public, from whence it came". Don't you get it? All works are inherently public domain, but the creator's get a little time to monopolize on it. This life + 90 is treachery at its finest.
i've only watched one movie on crackle since i got my roku, there was an ad every 10 minutes. i say AN ad, as it was the same ad for crackle, nontheless, every single time.
Well, true that it isn't entrapment, it is true that most sting operations reek of desperation on the part of LEOs. If you have to facilitate/enable ANY part of the crime, you must really suck at your job. The crimes only happen because the LEOs are involved. Totally pathetic.
they should charge 50% of the supposed losses