The missus tried to go back to an iDevice after having used an Android for awhile. The salesdrone at the phone company store talked her out of it. Said that people that try to go back end up being dissatisfied by closed nature of Apple products.
Perhaps. However, the cheap labor at Walmart and McDonalds leads to increased use of welfare by people that should be well enough off not to need to be dependent on the government. This is an externality that has to be paid for by someone. That would be you and me. Meanwhile, otherwise respectable types are encouraged to be dependent on the government despite the fact that they should be self-sufficient.
This applies to both the corporations in question and to the individuals not making so little while employed that they are still classified as "poor".
> Yeah, we get it, you hate Apple. Thanks for the semi-coherent input.
If they weren't intent on interfering with my computing experience, I would be merely indifferent to them. Their products are grossly over hyped and not nearly as magical as their overpaid shills in the press like to claim.
The best thing about private organizations is that there is likely to be more than one of them. There may be meaningful choice in the market and you may get to choose the better option. You might be able to PAY for a better option.
If it's all government then you're screwed if you don't like it. You have no other alternative and bribery really isn't a good option.
Right now we have a great example of how you don't want to be stuck with the the government as the only option: the VA.
> You do, because you live in a country where sub-prime rated folk think they can afford a $500000 mansion. And thus need the Government to prevent stupid.
That's entirely the result of corrupt bankers lying to those sub-prime rated folks. You are trying to fault the least qualified and experienced member of that exchange and going out of your way to ignore the people that are supposed to be "the adults it the room".
Bankers should act like they have something to lose but don't because an entire framework has been built for them to avoid such silly ideas.
The Banker does it for a living. He's not some schmuck off the street.
> What is the point of capitalism if the system just turns against the winners and beats them down? It removes most of the incentives to try in the first place.
Profit doesn't require being the economic version of Hitler or Stalin. You can still make plenty of money without being an economy crippling monopoly.
Megalomania is not required. There's ample room to make a buck beneath that threshold.
> As it should be. You have no right to hack systems that don't belong to you unless you are asked to do so by the owner.
Sure you do. You have a right to ensure your own safety. You have a right to know whether a device is likely to harm you. Doesn't matter if this is a physical thing or something mostly governed by software.
Some of these designs are 50 to 150 years old. Many of them are specifically intended with ease of manufacture in mind.
What kind of "engineering" does it really take to pull off replicating something that's been around so long that the original examples would be considered antiques by anyone's standards?
> I decided to move completely to streaming (via iTunes), rather than buying discs. Two advantages: > > 1) When the next format comes out, I don't have to re-purchase the same movie yet again (VHS --> DVD --> Blu-ray --> 4K --> ???)
Sure you do. Services like iTunes won't give you the HD version for free. If you want that, you will have to PAY for it.
Who are you trying to kid? Apple is not a charity.
Then there are the decoders. Do you seriously think that your current ATV will be able to decode new formats as they become available. You will have to buy your video appliances ALL OVER again just as if you were switching from DVD to BD.
DeCSS doesn't require a proprietary application only available for one platform that becomes useless unless you also pay for the "support" option.
The point of AnyDVD isn't the app itself but the fact that it's being updated constantly to adapt to the constant changes in BD encryption that cause normal consumers to have to patch their BluRay players.
It's not a lot of space really. If it's something you like, then you will watch it again. When that time comes, you won't have to worry about whether or not it's being shown any more or whether or not it's being shown in some mutilated form.
"cable edits" were a big problem for awhile.
Then there are carriage disputes and the likely Netflix equivalent.
Some people are just intent on making themselves as powerless as possible.
...except you always have the costs of integration and maintenance anyways. Hiding from Free Software won't change that. Those costs can be considerable and ongoing for commercial proprietary solutions.
Your argument only works if you try and pretend that integration and maintenance of commercial software is free.
> Bennett's argument is that if Netflix has obtained the necessary rights to mail a physical copy of a newly released DVD, why can't they do the same thing virtually
It's pretty simple really. You just need to have been paying attention these last 10 years or so...
A DVD is the personal property of Netflix and they can do what they like with it. They don't need to ask permission.
Streaming of any kind is making copies of someone's work and that sort of thing is what is specifically banned by copyright. Get permission or you may be comitting a felony. Permission is required.
Given that the cost of a music album during the early age of video rental was about the same cost as a video rental, it's hard to judge that really. People forget that movies used to cost $90 a pop. That's the sort of thing that's likely to fuel a rental market regardless of what the media moguls think.
Anyone that reads this site should already be aware of WHY something like a virtual DVD service doesn't exist. The industry would never allow it. The would sue it out of existence. They have sued similar concepts out of existence. They even try to sue non-similar concepts out of existence.
Once you separate content from physical media, all personal rights evaporate. The media moguls are free to do anything they like any time they like. You, me, and Netflix just have to take it.
Anything used by the penal system will end up banned by European busybodies. That's what this strange circus is really all about. Foreign governments are trying to meddle with the sovereignty of US states.
Personally, I think they should just start using the Guillotine.
Hopefully the irony won't be lost on European busybodies.
New Yorkers displaced to Vermont? They must all be terribly miserable. They whine about ending up in a city like Boston. Being in Vermont must be like living on the moon for them.
Slashdot Mirror
> By the same argument then we should not be allowed to import foreign cars because it hurts the Americans who work in the auto industry.
My "foreign" car was made in Kentucky and the wife's in Ohio.
The missus tried to go back to an iDevice after having used an Android for awhile. The salesdrone at the phone company store talked her out of it. Said that people that try to go back end up being dissatisfied by closed nature of Apple products.
Perhaps. However, the cheap labor at Walmart and McDonalds leads to increased use of welfare by people that should be well enough off not to need to be dependent on the government. This is an externality that has to be paid for by someone. That would be you and me. Meanwhile, otherwise respectable types are encouraged to be dependent on the government despite the fact that they should be self-sufficient.
This applies to both the corporations in question and to the individuals not making so little while employed that they are still classified as "poor".
Welfare should not be corporate welfare.
While that doesn't sound like a lot by itself, it's quite significant when compared to the price of the item in question.
> Yeah, we get it, you hate Apple. Thanks for the semi-coherent input.
If they weren't intent on interfering with my computing experience, I would be merely indifferent to them. Their products are grossly over hyped and not nearly as magical as their overpaid shills in the press like to claim.
The best thing about private organizations is that there is likely to be more than one of them. There may be meaningful choice in the market and you may get to choose the better option. You might be able to PAY for a better option.
If it's all government then you're screwed if you don't like it. You have no other alternative and bribery really isn't a good option.
Right now we have a great example of how you don't want to be stuck with the the government as the only option: the VA.
> You do, because you live in a country where sub-prime rated folk think they can afford a $500000 mansion. And thus need the Government to prevent stupid.
That's entirely the result of corrupt bankers lying to those sub-prime rated folks. You are trying to fault the least qualified and experienced member of that exchange and going out of your way to ignore the people that are supposed to be "the adults it the room".
Bankers should act like they have something to lose but don't because an entire framework has been built for them to avoid such silly ideas.
The Banker does it for a living. He's not some schmuck off the street.
> What is the point of capitalism if the system just turns against the winners and beats them down? It removes most of the incentives to try in the first place.
Profit doesn't require being the economic version of Hitler or Stalin. You can still make plenty of money without being an economy crippling monopoly.
Megalomania is not required. There's ample room to make a buck beneath that threshold.
It's poor people that are fat these days. Lack of resources and poor impulse control align nicely with both being poor and being fat.
> As it should be. You have no right to hack systems that don't belong to you unless you are asked to do so by the owner.
Sure you do. You have a right to ensure your own safety. You have a right to know whether a device is likely to harm you. Doesn't matter if this is a physical thing or something mostly governed by software.
This includes things "hosted in the cloud".
I don't live in a place where I have reason to fear my neighbors.
If I did live in such a place, guns would probably still be the least of my worries.
The paranoid narcissism of liberal busybodies would be funny if it weren't sad and anti-social.
Some of these designs are 50 to 150 years old. Many of them are specifically intended with ease of manufacture in mind.
What kind of "engineering" does it really take to pull off replicating something that's been around so long that the original examples would be considered antiques by anyone's standards?
I don't need to know how to build a bridge to know when one has been built badly.
It's like your piss poor argument. Probably a product of the teacher indoctrination apparatus.
Your elitism is hardly convincing.
I dunno? Maybe we put it in the hands of the guy that hosted it during it's entire original run?
To sum up the man's own words: "This is about passion, not mechanics'.
Your elitism is unconvincing. The "permissions society" you seem to pine for is unwanted.
> I think the person to whom you replied is Bill Cosby, PhD.
The question still holds. Throwing around a credential or a famous name doesn't alter that.
Is this a real problem or just nonsense from idiots?
> I decided to move completely to streaming (via iTunes), rather than buying discs. Two advantages:
>
> 1) When the next format comes out, I don't have to re-purchase the same movie yet again (VHS --> DVD --> Blu-ray --> 4K --> ???)
Sure you do. Services like iTunes won't give you the HD version for free. If you want that, you will have to PAY for it.
Who are you trying to kid? Apple is not a charity.
Then there are the decoders. Do you seriously think that your current ATV will be able to decode new formats as they become available. You will have to buy your video appliances ALL OVER again just as if you were switching from DVD to BD.
Advantage Apple? Hardly.
DeCSS doesn't require a proprietary application only available for one platform that becomes useless unless you also pay for the "support" option.
The point of AnyDVD isn't the app itself but the fact that it's being updated constantly to adapt to the constant changes in BD encryption that cause normal consumers to have to patch their BluRay players.
Much bigger level of bother there.
It's not a lot of space really. If it's something you like, then you will watch it again. When that time comes, you won't have to worry about whether or not it's being shown any more or whether or not it's being shown in some mutilated form.
"cable edits" were a big problem for awhile.
Then there are carriage disputes and the likely Netflix equivalent.
Some people are just intent on making themselves as powerless as possible.
If I can't "own" a copy on my own disk and copy that to another disk that I also control, then I don't really "own" anything.
Doesn't matter if it's physical media, a stream, or a file.
Centralized revocation of rights through DRM is a very real problem. Access to works get revoked or entire services go offline.
Some of my own media is older than any corresponding "service".
...except you always have the costs of integration and maintenance anyways. Hiding from Free Software won't change that. Those costs can be considerable and ongoing for commercial proprietary solutions.
Your argument only works if you try and pretend that integration and maintenance of commercial software is free.
> Bennett's argument is that if Netflix has obtained the necessary rights to mail a physical copy of a newly released DVD, why can't they do the same thing virtually
It's pretty simple really. You just need to have been paying attention these last 10 years or so...
A DVD is the personal property of Netflix and they can do what they like with it. They don't need to ask permission.
Streaming of any kind is making copies of someone's work and that sort of thing is what is specifically banned by copyright. Get permission or you may be comitting a felony. Permission is required.
Given that the cost of a music album during the early age of video rental was about the same cost as a video rental, it's hard to judge that really. People forget that movies used to cost $90 a pop. That's the sort of thing that's likely to fuel a rental market regardless of what the media moguls think.
A $6 album, not so much...
Anyone that reads this site should already be aware of WHY something like a virtual DVD service doesn't exist. The industry would never allow it. The would sue it out of existence. They have sued similar concepts out of existence. They even try to sue non-similar concepts out of existence.
Once you separate content from physical media, all personal rights evaporate. The media moguls are free to do anything they like any time they like. You, me, and Netflix just have to take it.
Anything used by the penal system will end up banned by European busybodies. That's what this strange circus is really all about. Foreign governments are trying to meddle with the sovereignty of US states.
Personally, I think they should just start using the Guillotine.
Hopefully the irony won't be lost on European busybodies.
New Yorkers displaced to Vermont? They must all be terribly miserable. They whine about ending up in a city like Boston. Being in Vermont must be like living on the moon for them.