From the first linked article in the summary: In recent years, American distributors have experimented with what’s known as premium VOD (video on demand), a scheme by which a newly released film is made available simultaneously on pay-per-view television for a high price. (This tactic is virtually unheard of in Canada.) Goon’s U.S. distributor, Magnolia Pictures, made the film available via U.S. cable providers for $30.
$30?? This shows exactly what is wrong with the movie studios and why they'll never "get it". It should be priced at $15 at the most. I hate movie theatres these days. Mostly due to the ignorant jackholes that can't shut up or stop checking their damn phone during the movie. I'd pay $15 to watch a first run movie on demand at home and I'm sure I'm not the only one. But $30? They can go blow it out their @ss.
When are we going to ban JSTOR and PACER's theft from the public? When are JSTOR and PACER going to return their ill gotten gains to the people whose documents they stole?
For those who will make the argument: Copying is not theft. Keeping people from accessing things they rightfully own or should have access to is. A car is stolen when the owner cannot use it anymore, not when the same model is produced again by the factory. The owners of these documents are all the members of the public. Denying access to anyone for any reason is theft.
You obviously have no idea what JSTOR is or how it works. JSTOR is not withholding anything from the public. The articles JSTOR has are available through other methods. You want access to those papers? Well, then go use the other methods, including digging through print journals for them. Nothing JSTOR does is preventing you from doing so.
Not only that, but your reimbursement had to come from somewhere, and it's not the CEO's pocket. It's everyone else's pockets in increased fees.
THIS.
As well as increased insurance costs. The authors of the article are rather dense if they honestly think that the costs of reimbursement are not passed down to consumers.
A phone immediately fails when you need to do any tech support for it at all.
So based on your argument, if you don't need to do tech support for an iPhone I'd call that a win. If Android needs tech support than it has failed as a phone.
Tried this in every app I could think of and have had no issues (TextEdit, Komodo, iCal, Eclipse, Libra Office, Chrome, FireFox). Not calling shenanigans, but a specific example would be nice.
Whoa. So much wrong with that statement. You do realize that insecure programs can cause many problems other than just exploiting holes in the OS, right?
So, yes while there are definitely problems with Linux, Windows, Unix, and Mac OS, programs themselves still need to be secure and application programmers need to be the ones making sure their programs are secure.
Putting a web server on the internet means that people will connect to it with various types of software. You don't get to determine what that software is -- a TOS that says "no IE" is meaningless, and so it one that says "no bots"; and using IE or bots to access that site, in and of itself, is not a wrong.
When you are selling access to your servers to academic institutions you most certainly do get to determine how those users then connect to you, how much they can download, etc. If the academic institution doesn't like those terms they can go elsewhere for the content.
Blame the litigation happy culture that has arisen.
"My boy Jonny died on your property. Sure he had to climb a 10 foot electrified fence with barbed wire on top and then get past 5 security guards and surveillance cameras. But you should have done more to stop him. I'm going to sue!!!"
Oh, come on, please - that's intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, apple paid for it, but they certainly killed lala, and it was certainly part of the contract. They didn't want Google to get that power, and they didn't want an iTunes competitor. Trying to wrap this in a "free market" huggy-blanket is not just naive, it's dishonest.
You seemed to have missed this in the article: Google was worried, they moved fast. They presented Nguyen with an offer for the company. Previously, Bill told M&A from Google what it would take to acquire the company. Instead of meeting his demands they decided (via a lowball offer) to see if Nguyen was desperate or bluffing.
Nguyen went to Google before Apple. Google had a chance but decided to play games by lowballing. They lost out. It's not like Apple shut Google out of a chance to buy Lala.
I've used PacSafe stuff many times. Basically all of my paranoia is gone when I go way over the top some times. I often use them to hold bags on motorcycles and when I just want to leave my heavy bag somewhere and keep it safe so I can do something more casual.
You can't use them for checked or carry on on a plane. TSA freaks out. You have to pack the packsafe stuff in a normal bag when on a plane.
I have no affiliation with pacsafe what so ever. I'm just a happy customer.
The best feature of the password is that it's in your head. You carry it around everywhere, and it can never be physically taken from you.
This proposed plan just makes cellphones that much more attractive to steal.
The WORST feature of the password is that it's in your head. I have 20+ login passwords between work and home, my security is lower because you have to simplify them to remember them. If we can find a way to escape the tyranny of passwords that can generally be cracked by anyone who's determined anyway it can only be progress. Not that I have any faith in any organisation to do it after many failed or barely passable attempts (biometrics, smart cards etc).
Maybe YOU have to simplify them. Don't lump the rest of us in with your inability to remember complex passwords.
Where I live phone books only list landlines and the name and address tied to that land line.
A lot of people are going cell phone only. One of the benefits being you have a private number without having to pay the phone company extortion money to keep your name, number and address out of their phone book.
Slashdot Mirror
From the first linked article in the summary:
In recent years, American distributors have experimented with what’s known as premium VOD (video on demand), a scheme by which a newly released film is made available simultaneously on pay-per-view television for a high price. (This tactic is virtually unheard of in Canada.) Goon’s U.S. distributor, Magnolia Pictures, made the film available via U.S. cable providers for $30.
$30?? This shows exactly what is wrong with the movie studios and why they'll never "get it". It should be priced at $15 at the most. I hate movie theatres these days. Mostly due to the ignorant jackholes that can't shut up or stop checking their damn phone during the movie. I'd pay $15 to watch a first run movie on demand at home and I'm sure I'm not the only one. But $30? They can go blow it out their @ss.
They tend to do this when they are about to ask for more aid. I wonder what they want this time?
And once again, the collective /. intelligence drops a little.
"What should I do the summer before I start my PhD program, party or work?"
Drops a little?
To subby....WTF? You need to ask Slashdot what to do over the summer? Do you ask your parents for permission to stay out late on a school night too?
When are we going to ban JSTOR and PACER's theft from the public? When are JSTOR and PACER going to return their ill gotten gains to the people whose documents they stole?
For those who will make the argument: Copying is not theft. Keeping people from accessing things they rightfully own or should have access to is. A car is stolen when the owner cannot use it anymore, not when the same model is produced again by the factory. The owners of these documents are all the members of the public. Denying access to anyone for any reason is theft.
You obviously have no idea what JSTOR is or how it works. JSTOR is not withholding anything from the public. The articles JSTOR has are available through other methods. You want access to those papers? Well, then go use the other methods, including digging through print journals for them. Nothing JSTOR does is preventing you from doing so.
Not only that, but your reimbursement had to come from somewhere, and it's not the CEO's pocket. It's everyone else's pockets in increased fees.
THIS.
As well as increased insurance costs. The authors of the article are rather dense if they honestly think that the costs of reimbursement are not passed down to consumers.
Gee whatever did the professors and students do for all those decades of university courses before the invention of computer networks?
A phone immediately fails when you need to do any tech support for it at all.
So based on your argument, if you don't need to do tech support for an iPhone I'd call that a win. If Android needs tech support than it has failed as a phone.
Good to know it can run games from Steam in a completely unsatisfactory way.
It can't even run a 5 year old game that uses a 8-9 year old graphics engine.
Oh look, crappy hardware struggles to run old games. WTF was the point of this review?
Java... free.
Rebranded Sun Java that was already free.
VirtualBox... free.
Rebranded Sun VirtualBox that was already free.
Oracle Linux... free.
Rebranded Linux distro that was already free.
How can you say they're greedy?
Look at the products Oracle made themselves and not those they acquired from Sun. They're greedy.
Tried this in every app I could think of and have had no issues (TextEdit, Komodo, iCal, Eclipse, Libra Office, Chrome, FireFox). Not calling shenanigans, but a specific example would be nice.
Try typing it into the URL field in Safari.
No crash in Firefox for me but it took down Safari.
Sorry, but if you are stupid enough to stick any part of your body into a moving fan you get no sympathy.
Laws like this are to protect the "too dumb to live" population, which should be allowed to die off so they don't infect the gene pool.
Whoa. So much wrong with that statement. You do realize that insecure programs can cause many problems other than just exploiting holes in the OS, right?
So, yes while there are definitely problems with Linux, Windows, Unix, and Mac OS, programs themselves still need to be secure and application programmers need to be the ones making sure their programs are secure.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Oh. He's serious.
Then its up to JSTOR to detect and block bots.
Putting a web server on the internet means that people will connect to it with various types of software. You don't get to determine what that software is -- a TOS that says "no IE" is meaningless, and so it one that says "no bots"; and using IE or bots to access that site, in and of itself, is not a wrong.
When you are selling access to your servers to academic institutions you most certainly do get to determine how those users then connect to you, how much they can download, etc. If the academic institution doesn't like those terms they can go elsewhere for the content.
Nice try. But it wasn't his window he was trying to force.
Blame the litigation happy culture that has arisen.
"My boy Jonny died on your property. Sure he had to climb a 10 foot electrified fence with barbed wire on top and then get past 5 security guards and surveillance cameras. But you should have done more to stop him. I'm going to sue!!!"
Oh, come on, please - that's intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, apple paid for it, but they certainly killed lala, and it was certainly part of the contract. They didn't want Google to get that power, and they didn't want an iTunes competitor. Trying to wrap this in a "free market" huggy-blanket is not just naive, it's dishonest.
You seemed to have missed this in the article:
Google was worried, they moved fast. They presented Nguyen with an offer for the company. Previously, Bill told M&A from Google what it would take to acquire the company. Instead of meeting his demands they decided (via a lowball offer) to see if Nguyen was desperate or bluffing.
Nguyen went to Google before Apple. Google had a chance but decided to play games by lowballing. They lost out. It's not like Apple shut Google out of a chance to buy Lala.
He put it up for sale. Apple made and offer and he accepted. End of story.
I've used PacSafe stuff many times. Basically all of my paranoia is gone when I go way over the top some times. I often use them to hold bags on motorcycles and when I just want to leave my heavy bag somewhere and keep it safe so I can do something more casual.
You can't use them for checked or carry on on a plane. TSA freaks out. You have to pack the packsafe stuff in a normal bag when on a plane.
I have no affiliation with pacsafe what so ever. I'm just a happy customer.
http://pacsafe.com/products
So you have to pack your stuff in another suitcase that is not your pacsafe suitcase and pack your pacsafe suitcase into that other suitcase as well?
That's stupid.
The best feature of the password is that it's in your head. You carry it around everywhere, and it can never be physically taken from you.
This proposed plan just makes cellphones that much more attractive to steal.
The WORST feature of the password is that it's in your head. I have 20+ login passwords between work and home, my security is lower because you have to simplify them to remember them. If we can find a way to escape the tyranny of passwords that can generally be cracked by anyone who's determined anyway it can only be progress. Not that I have any faith in any organisation to do it after many failed or barely passable attempts (biometrics, smart cards etc).
Maybe YOU have to simplify them. Don't lump the rest of us in with your inability to remember complex passwords.
Where I live phone books only list landlines and the name and address tied to that land line.
A lot of people are going cell phone only. One of the benefits being you have a private number without having to pay the phone company extortion money to keep your name, number and address out of their phone book.
Switch glasses. Idea fails.
If their faith prevents them from getting something as simple as a flu shot why are they even working in the field of medicine???
Which is basically free.