Woah there, buddy. Are you trying to say that because they don't offer you the film at a price you agree with, it's OK for you to watch it without paying anything at all? If you don't agree with their price, don't watch it.
Or do you claim I'm pirating the view? Do you think we are morally obliged to pay the owners of property near the highways because it's "morally wrong" for someone to get entertainment for free?
Hilariously bad analogy because the scenery is quite literally in the public domain. If you're entertained by that, by all means enjoy the view. But don't try to make the claim that watching a movie you got off a P2P network is somehow ethical because they want more money for it than you're willing to pay.
They're offering their work for their price, and you can either pay that price or go without. Anything else is morally wrong.
But let's be honest here, you don't care about ethics or morality. You're just greedy. Even if they were offering the films for a quarter of the current price, you'd find some way to convince yourself that it's still too much and you're therefore justified in taking it for free.
With "Live content", that movie you bought 5 years ago is showing trailers for upcoming movies. Long, unskippable trailers. For movies you're not interested in. That use up your bandwidth and make you go over your bandwidth cap.
Because, in all likelihood, their operations depend on a multiple of Excel macros, Word templates, Access databases, and maybe even a few web pages that require ActiveX to work.
Microsoft may still be getting the same amount of money from Maine, but "They don't want to install Vista even though they already paid for it" is the sort of PR that'll keep others from buying it.
Slashdot Mirror
Or do you claim I'm pirating the view? Do you think we are morally obliged to pay the owners of property near the highways because it's "morally wrong" for someone to get entertainment for free?
Hilariously bad analogy because the scenery is quite literally in the public domain. If you're entertained by that, by all means enjoy the view. But don't try to make the claim that watching a movie you got off a P2P network is somehow ethical because they want more money for it than you're willing to pay.
They're offering their work for their price, and you can either pay that price or go without. Anything else is morally wrong.
But let's be honest here, you don't care about ethics or morality. You're just greedy. Even if they were offering the films for a quarter of the current price, you'd find some way to convince yourself that it's still too much and you're therefore justified in taking it for free.
Don't you know? If you run Windows, Bill Gates sneaks into your house at night and reads your e-mail!
With "Live content", that movie you bought 5 years ago is showing trailers for upcoming movies. Long, unskippable trailers. For movies you're not interested in. That use up your bandwidth and make you go over your bandwidth cap.
Because, in all likelihood, their operations depend on a multiple of Excel macros, Word templates, Access databases, and maybe even a few web pages that require ActiveX to work.
Microsoft may still be getting the same amount of money from Maine, but "They don't want to install Vista even though they already paid for it" is the sort of PR that'll keep others from buying it.
linux with X/kde/gnome is developing features that windows has had for ages
Wait, didn't we just have a story about Microsoft releasing something to finally give Windows multiple desktops?
...and it apparently doesn't work very well, but that's getting off-topic.
but where the hell is my goddamn WPA support?
Keep trying. There has to be a car analogy in there somewhere.
Runbox.com works well for me, too. No downtime or other issues so far in the couple years I've used it.