I don't believe I ever made any such statement. Not only is it in beta, you have to join. Hit me up when its available as an option on the front page or in the user settings.
I sincerely hope that no one contributing to this thread is in any kind of support position. What happens when I click on a YouTube video in Safari is that it opens the usual page with video and comments, and where the video should be playing is an error message, and I quote, "You need to upgrade your Adobe Flash Player to watch this video." So where does this "thought experiment" end, exactly?
What research do I need to do? I have an iPod touch - I log into YouTube using Safari, I can't play any videos. I log in using Apple's sorry excuse of a substitute, I can play videos, but there are several things I can't do. What am I missing here?
First, this is a beta - they're testing it. Second, this is an example of someone else fixing a problem created by Apple, who refuses to let its users exercise choice based on what provides value to them.
but it's their control over the thing that makes it as easy to use as possible.
When is the last time you used Apple's YouTube application (which ironically, CAN play YouTube videos). It is an utter JOKE. But too bad - if you decide to use a regular browser to deal with the many deficiencies in Apple's application, you can't play videos! How is this good? It's pathetically comedic at best.
It seems like your line of reasoning is becoming more mainstream - slbeit slowly. And it's a good thing, because no matter how much people like to rationalize why their behavior is better (cracking, stealing), it will never change the fact that money (revenue), or lack thereof, is the one universal dynamic that will give all these complaints about DRM some real meaning. When the consequences associated with a solution (DRM) starts becoming too costly, it stops being a solution.
If their customers would just grow a pair. Send that crap back, demand a refund. It's defective. Let them know, and that you'll FOLLOW THROUGH, by refusing to spend another dime on their DRM-tainted software. Faced with no (or very little) revenue *with* this ridiculous DRM, or a much healthier revenue stream without, they'd have only two options - concede their stupidity and remove it, or close up shop.
Actually, I view debit cards as just the opposite - for people who aren't inclined to spend money they don't have. Credit cards are a trap that get people into a lot of trouble, quite frequently.
The problem isn't that privacy is a recent invention, it's that technology has made it much harder to come by. Back in the day privacy was automatic, as there was no other way it could be. This was due primarily to geographical considerations and the effort required to get information from one location to another. Once there, the "processing" of said information was another matter entirely. This wall no longer exists - acquiring information - in terms of both its scope and detail - is relatively effortless. Further, it can be disseminated almost instantaneously - to just about anywhere.
Considering that much of Disney's stuff is a knockoff of earlier works that are out of copyright, I don't see your point of view as having much validity. Second, this whole "lock it up for eons" mentality has spread beyond copyright - there has been talk of incorporating patents on things like plots or the very subject matter of a given story. This whole ownership thing is WAY out of hand.
Ironically, today's technology offers copyright holders means of distribution (opportunity to make money) that FAR exceed what was available when copyright was first enacted. So to be fair, what do they do...demand longer copyrights? No, they should be feel lucky that the term of a copyright hasn't been reduced. I don't think it was ever the intent of copyright to provide for multi-generational revenue streams.
I have, and will continue to, refuse to conduct business with online entities that do not support a non-Paypal option. I have never used Paypal, and I don't anticipate that this will change.
Slashdot Mirror
For as many people bitch about Apple here, there aren't enough that actually go out and do something about it.
Well, if you're not going to buy an iPad, you won't be going anywhere to do it. So yeah, in order to do something, you really won't be doing anything.
Maybe because 'nothing' can be a highly motivating factor for those that want 'something' (typically your money).
I don't believe I ever made any such statement. Not only is it in beta, you have to join. Hit me up when its available as an option on the front page or in the user settings.
I sincerely hope that no one contributing to this thread is in any kind of support position. What happens when I click on a YouTube video in Safari is that it opens the usual page with video and comments, and where the video should be playing is an error message, and I quote, "You need to upgrade your Adobe Flash Player to watch this video." So where does this "thought experiment" end, exactly?
What research do I need to do? I have an iPod touch - I log into YouTube using Safari, I can't play any videos. I log in using Apple's sorry excuse of a substitute, I can play videos, but there are several things I can't do. What am I missing here?
First, this is a beta - they're testing it. Second, this is an example of someone else fixing a problem created by Apple, who refuses to let its users exercise choice based on what provides value to them.
Posted by an AC. Instant credibility.
No, it doesn't.
With, or without jailbreaking?
but it's their control over the thing that makes it as easy to use as possible.
When is the last time you used Apple's YouTube application (which ironically, CAN play YouTube videos). It is an utter JOKE. But too bad - if you decide to use a regular browser to deal with the many deficiencies in Apple's application, you can't play videos! How is this good? It's pathetically comedic at best.
It seems like your line of reasoning is becoming more mainstream - slbeit slowly. And it's a good thing, because no matter how much people like to rationalize why their behavior is better (cracking, stealing), it will never change the fact that money (revenue), or lack thereof, is the one universal dynamic that will give all these complaints about DRM some real meaning. When the consequences associated with a solution (DRM) starts becoming too costly, it stops being a solution.
It was documented at http://highscalability.com/scaling-twitter-making-twitter-10000-percent-faster that a language change would have provided a 10%-20% speed increase, while architectural changes that Ruby on Rails could easily accommodate would provide with them with increases of 10,000%.
If their customers would just grow a pair. Send that crap back, demand a refund. It's defective. Let them know, and that you'll FOLLOW THROUGH, by refusing to spend another dime on their DRM-tainted software. Faced with no (or very little) revenue *with* this ridiculous DRM, or a much healthier revenue stream without, they'd have only two options - concede their stupidity and remove it, or close up shop.
...they realize that the power to fix this is right in the palm of their hand - inside their wallet, to be exact.
Actually, I view debit cards as just the opposite - for people who aren't inclined to spend money they don't have. Credit cards are a trap that get people into a lot of trouble, quite frequently.
I hear your pain.
Balloon popping fetish? I'm SO there.
The problem isn't that privacy is a recent invention, it's that technology has made it much harder to come by. Back in the day privacy was automatic, as there was no other way it could be. This was due primarily to geographical considerations and the effort required to get information from one location to another. Once there, the "processing" of said information was another matter entirely. This wall no longer exists - acquiring information - in terms of both its scope and detail - is relatively effortless. Further, it can be disseminated almost instantaneously - to just about anywhere.
Doesn't TiVo track, like *everything* you do?
Notice the movie they use for the demo - Blender Foundation's Big Buck Bunny.
Considering that much of Disney's stuff is a knockoff of earlier works that are out of copyright, I don't see your point of view as having much validity. Second, this whole "lock it up for eons" mentality has spread beyond copyright - there has been talk of incorporating patents on things like plots or the very subject matter of a given story. This whole ownership thing is WAY out of hand.
Ironically, today's technology offers copyright holders means of distribution (opportunity to make money) that FAR exceed what was available when copyright was first enacted. So to be fair, what do they do...demand longer copyrights? No, they should be feel lucky that the term of a copyright hasn't been reduced. I don't think it was ever the intent of copyright to provide for multi-generational revenue streams.
...If I have to register to check out anything that I may find interesting or useful, it's a complete non-starter.
The ACLU has an interesting video regarding data retention and proliferation: http://www.aclu.org/ordering-pizza
It's not quite all here yet, but it's definitely not outside the realm of probability.
What would the results look like if the two students switched places? Would the results coincide with the switch?
I have, and will continue to, refuse to conduct business with online entities that do not support a non-Paypal option. I have never used Paypal, and I don't anticipate that this will change.