Really? Will my credit card company or bank pay for a new one when the one I have stops working?
When the magnetic strip on my cards stops working, I just call up the company and they mail me a replacement that I receive in a couple of days.
If my bank card is acting up, I go to my bank, and they can issue me a new one immediately. Again...at no additional charge.
Somehow I suspect that the electronics in these mobile wallets is going to run somewhat higher than what could be considered disposable, and free to replace.
Whether or not it is the best business model is entirely irrelevant to the issue that the model is what some companies actually utilize... and there is no sign that this model is going to go away.
In particular, the website run by the network that runs all three of the TV shows that I happen to try to catch each week.
The network puts them up on their website 24 hours after airing. I can watch them at my own convenience. I have to sit through 60 seconds of commercials at each break, but I don't have to pay a cent. Not for cable, not for netflix. Only for my broadband internet costs that I would be paying anyways. And it's all entirely legal.
The network chose to put these shows behind a commercial driven flash viewer, and strange as it might sound to you, I am not ethically opposed to that. As these shows are things I try to watch each week, the website has something that I want. Your insinuation that I am nobody is, I'm afraid, slightly insulting.
Teenagers? Well... the point of the original was that they acted like teens, although I expect their chronological age could have been significantly different. What would alien teenagers act like? Would the audience even identify them as teenagers? If they behaved like earth teenagers, where did they pick up that behaviour pattern from, exactly?
Ninjas. Okay... that's one.
So instead of 'TMNT', they just are 'N'.
I'm not sure whether to be disgusted with Bay for being so mindbogglingly dense or just simply stunned at the sheer ludicrousness of the idea.
If I seem to have glossed over your point about how easy ads are to block, it is only because how easy those ads are to block was entirely irrelevant to the point I was talking about. I was suggesting only that javascript source is going to be, by definition, a lot easier to crack than a binary swf file. How easy it might be for a browser to block flash ads is beside the point. For what it's worth, how do those ad-blockers fare when dealing with flash video that has unskippable commercials in it?
Because my own personal grievances originate with video players on a tv network's website to watch my favorite TV shows that have already been aired. I'm not interested in paying for cable, or netflix, when the network is willing to show them on their website for free anyways. The networks insert commercials into these shows, and I have no problem with any of that. Regardless of any theoretical deficiencies in this business model, it is what they still choose to employ... and the entire thing what is keeping them from supporting mobile players like the iPad (at least not without a proprietary app) is the lack of any sort of equally secured method using html5, javascript, and h264.
You seem to have missed my point... like so many others have.
Giving source code to your video player gives a potential hacker *FAR* more resources to try to bypass it than they would have had with only an swf file.
As for myself, I see it as less about making money than I do simply being able to watch my favorite tv shows on my iPad, legally, and without paying money for Netflix, which I usually cannot do unless I am watching a Youtube video. I'm willing to put up with commercials on a TV network's web site when I watch my favorite shows on their website, but I don't even have the option on the iPad because it doesn't run flash, and these websites don't cater to non-flash devices because there isn't at least an equally viable DRM system using html5, javascript, and h264.
I don't love DRM... but I'm at least realistic enough to accept the premise that there are agencies that like to use it, and some of them happen to have services that I like using. Unless or until such DRM starts directly taking money from me for simply using their stuff, even when I have not elected to pay for anything, I have no real qualms with it.
I never suggested it was a flaw... merely a significant limitation.
A vast majority of users wouldn't bother trying to hack the javascript code, this is true... but it is still VASTLY easier to do this when you are given source code than it is to hack a flash video player, and try to figure out its underlying DRM.
I'm not a big fan of this sort of thing, personally, but I'd be nothing less than oblivious to how the world really works to think that there aren't a lot of companies that find this sort of thing very desirable.
The problem with javascript being that it's running on the client, and particularly since it is in source-code form, is subject to possible alteration.
... that you can get away with pure html5 and h264 for all video concerns.
What about, for example, wanting to show a video with certain mandatory commercial points during the main video, which the user cannot skip? Not that I'm a big fan of this, but at the same time I can respect that a company might still find this sort of thing desirable.
You can get a flash video player to do this easily, but to the best of my understanding, can't be done so easily with just html5 and a <video> tag.
Not that I'm so in love with Flash.... but I really wish there was a solution to this.
Unless you are already past retirement age, there's a pretty good chance that, barring accidental death, you're going to live to see that day in your country.
The idea is that you DON'T maintain two packages....
Instead, you give the single app away for free, and use in-app purchasing to unlock additional features, as well as disable the advertisements.
I'm personally not a big fan of this sort of paradigm... I much prefer to buy software outright than spend money incrementally to get more functionality, but as a professional software developer who's been witness to these trends, it's hard to argue with the fact that this sort of software business model seems to really work.
The problem is that the app store business model has generated a type of user that won't generally pay anything over even $.99 for any app, regardless of how useful it might seem to be. The only way to generate revenue from this extremely HUGE section of the market is to have advertisements in the application that can produce a continuous revenue stream from these people, with, of course, an option to make an in-app purchase that disables the ads, and perhaps unlocks additional features.
So, why don't you go and hypocrite someone else? M'kay? Thx. Bye.
Why would what I said above make me a hypocrite?
Which one did you put on your second? You never *ever* had any copies of things you haven't had bought (at that time), or lent out to someone without getting them back?
When I got my second (and current) iPod, I wiped my first one and gave it to somebody who wanted one. So... no.
Original point still stands... I fail to see how iTunes only exists because of piracy.
Then it seems that given that there are more votes than people, that the vote should still be declared void, unless the winning vote won by an amount that exceeds the extra votes.
If they don't do that, then they defeat the entire point of bothering to vote at all.
Health care is no silver bullet in this regard. I live in Canada, which enjoys universal health care, but working more than 40 hours a week is just a regular part of doing business in certain fields.
I don't mind it too much generally speaking... but I find if I end up working more than roughly 10 or 11 hours in a given day, I will start getting crabby.
Stuff that I took from CD's that I legitimately owned. Private copies of audio works are not infringing on copyright, having an explicit exemption in Canada, which is where I am from. In the USA, I'm pretty sure that's covered under "fair use".
I read it as "Sexually Rejected Files Turn To Booze". I was completely confounded for a moment until I expanded the summary, and saw the words "male fruit fly", which I read correctly.
Bizarre.... I don't typically have dyslexic moments.
There is a whole lot of difference between having the ability to detect it, and *ALWAYS* being able to detect it.
Basically, you'd be rolling the dice, and hoping you don't get caught if you are going to break the law in this way. All this means is that your chances of getting caught may be slightly higher... but by no means certain.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Will my credit card company or bank pay for a new one when the one I have stops working?
When the magnetic strip on my cards stops working, I just call up the company and they mail me a replacement that I receive in a couple of days.
If my bank card is acting up, I go to my bank, and they can issue me a new one immediately. Again...at no additional charge.
Somehow I suspect that the electronics in these mobile wallets is going to run somewhat higher than what could be considered disposable, and free to replace.
Whether or not it is the best business model is entirely irrelevant to the issue that the model is what some companies actually utilize... and there is no sign that this model is going to go away.
In particular, the website run by the network that runs all three of the TV shows that I happen to try to catch each week.
The network puts them up on their website 24 hours after airing. I can watch them at my own convenience. I have to sit through 60 seconds of commercials at each break, but I don't have to pay a cent. Not for cable, not for netflix. Only for my broadband internet costs that I would be paying anyways. And it's all entirely legal.
The network chose to put these shows behind a commercial driven flash viewer, and strange as it might sound to you, I am not ethically opposed to that. As these shows are things I try to watch each week, the website has something that I want. Your insinuation that I am nobody is, I'm afraid, slightly insulting.
They might be mutated... but how would we know?
Teenagers? Well... the point of the original was that they acted like teens, although I expect their chronological age could have been significantly different. What would alien teenagers act like? Would the audience even identify them as teenagers? If they behaved like earth teenagers, where did they pick up that behaviour pattern from, exactly?
Ninjas. Okay... that's one.
So instead of 'TMNT', they just are 'N'.
I'm not sure whether to be disgusted with Bay for being so mindbogglingly dense or just simply stunned at the sheer ludicrousness of the idea.
There is more than an enormous chasm of difference between the way things "should" be, and how they actually are.
I prefer answers that deal with the real world as it actually exists... not some theoretical ideal.
Because my own personal grievances originate with video players on a tv network's website to watch my favorite TV shows that have already been aired. I'm not interested in paying for cable, or netflix, when the network is willing to show them on their website for free anyways. The networks insert commercials into these shows, and I have no problem with any of that. Regardless of any theoretical deficiencies in this business model, it is what they still choose to employ... and the entire thing what is keeping them from supporting mobile players like the iPad (at least not without a proprietary app) is the lack of any sort of equally secured method using html5, javascript, and h264.
You seem to have missed my point... like so many others have.
Giving source code to your video player gives a potential hacker *FAR* more resources to try to bypass it than they would have had with only an swf file.
As for myself, I see it as less about making money than I do simply being able to watch my favorite tv shows on my iPad, legally, and without paying money for Netflix, which I usually cannot do unless I am watching a Youtube video. I'm willing to put up with commercials on a TV network's web site when I watch my favorite shows on their website, but I don't even have the option on the iPad because it doesn't run flash, and these websites don't cater to non-flash devices because there isn't at least an equally viable DRM system using html5, javascript, and h264.
I don't love DRM... but I'm at least realistic enough to accept the premise that there are agencies that like to use it, and some of them happen to have services that I like using. Unless or until such DRM starts directly taking money from me for simply using their stuff, even when I have not elected to pay for anything, I have no real qualms with it.
I never suggested it was a flaw... merely a significant limitation.
A vast majority of users wouldn't bother trying to hack the javascript code, this is true... but it is still VASTLY easier to do this when you are given source code than it is to hack a flash video player, and try to figure out its underlying DRM.
I'm not a big fan of this sort of thing, personally, but I'd be nothing less than oblivious to how the world really works to think that there aren't a lot of companies that find this sort of thing very desirable.
The problem with javascript being that it's running on the client, and particularly since it is in source-code form, is subject to possible alteration.
What about, for example, wanting to show a video with certain mandatory commercial points during the main video, which the user cannot skip? Not that I'm a big fan of this, but at the same time I can respect that a company might still find this sort of thing desirable.
You can get a flash video player to do this easily, but to the best of my understanding, can't be done so easily with just html5 and a <video> tag. Not that I'm so in love with Flash.... but I really wish there was a solution to this.
Unless you are already past retirement age, there's a pretty good chance that, barring accidental death, you're going to live to see that day in your country.
Fight it all you want... it won't help.
The idea is that you DON'T maintain two packages....
Instead, you give the single app away for free, and use in-app purchasing to unlock additional features, as well as disable the advertisements.
I'm personally not a big fan of this sort of paradigm... I much prefer to buy software outright than spend money incrementally to get more functionality, but as a professional software developer who's been witness to these trends, it's hard to argue with the fact that this sort of software business model seems to really work.
The problem is that the app store business model has generated a type of user that won't generally pay anything over even $.99 for any app, regardless of how useful it might seem to be. The only way to generate revenue from this extremely HUGE section of the market is to have advertisements in the application that can produce a continuous revenue stream from these people, with, of course, an option to make an in-app purchase that disables the ads, and perhaps unlocks additional features.
Why would what I said above make me a hypocrite?
When I got my second (and current) iPod, I wiped my first one and gave it to somebody who wanted one. So... no.
Original point still stands... I fail to see how iTunes only exists because of piracy.
ISP's don't have the resources to catch all copyright infringers either.
Easier, possibly... but only if you had a jail big enough to contain them all.
And even then only if you had enough money to maintain the jail.
It was my understanding that it was *NOT* illegal within the premise of the movie.
It's interesting to note that laws prohibiting that type of discrimination only came out *after* that movie was in theaters.
Then it seems that given that there are more votes than people, that the vote should still be declared void, unless the winning vote won by an amount that exceeds the extra votes.
If they don't do that, then they defeat the entire point of bothering to vote at all.
Health care is no silver bullet in this regard. I live in Canada, which enjoys universal health care, but working more than 40 hours a week is just a regular part of doing business in certain fields.
I don't mind it too much generally speaking... but I find if I end up working more than roughly 10 or 11 hours in a given day, I will start getting crabby.
And the police have the ability to arrest people who drive drunk.
Doesn't mean they always catch them. Can you sue the police for incompetence if a drunk driver kills your spouse?
Stuff that I took from CD's that I legitimately owned. Private copies of audio works are not infringing on copyright, having an explicit exemption in Canada, which is where I am from. In the USA, I'm pretty sure that's covered under "fair use".
So the US president wouldn't qualify? Interesting
Not that it matters... since he has his own private aircraft anyways, but I'm just sayin'.
FTA:
I hate it when people thoughtlessly mention large numbers in conversation when they clearly have no concept whatsoever of scale.
There are approximately 7 billion people in the world... so by the above gentleman's assessment, there would be only 7 terrorists, worldwide.
Seriously?
Sorry... pet peeve of mine.
I read it as "Sexually Rejected Files Turn To Booze". I was completely confounded for a moment until I expanded the summary, and saw the words "male fruit fly", which I read correctly.
Bizarre.... I don't typically have dyslexic moments.
Citation, please.
There is a whole lot of difference between having the ability to detect it, and *ALWAYS* being able to detect it.
Basically, you'd be rolling the dice, and hoping you don't get caught if you are going to break the law in this way. All this means is that your chances of getting caught may be slightly higher... but by no means certain.