It's hit or miss, but I've found for the majority of current shows that netflix does not carry them which is why I use both netflix and Hulu. Netflix is much higher quality and I dont have to hook the pc up to the TV so I use that whenever I can, but Hulu seems to have more of the new network TV shows.
I didn't see anything that was explicitly stating that old shows whose content is currently available was getting moved into the paywalled section an would no longer be available at the lower res so we might be jumping the gun, but then again the only old ones I watched on hulu was Stargate and firefly. Those couple of shows they did mention, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, were all those episodes already available for free?
I know the new ones usually only had a few episodes up anyways so to me it seems like they are just adding extra content I don't feel the need to pay for anyways but again, I wasn't a heavy old content user, I was just using it as a replacement for cable.
Why would you stop using Hulu because they now offer extra content that you can pay extra for? It would be like refusing to play a video game because they released some DLC that doesn't effect your experience at all.
The new Hulu Plus just has higher quality (720 instead of 480) and episodes going back the entire season instead of just the last 3 or 5 trailing episodes. No reason to throw in the towel just cause you can now pay for a better service if you so choose.
GP was complaining that he couldn't read the EULA prior to buying (which I believe means he would simply have to go through the hassle of then returning it and getting reimbursed) so I was pointing out to him that he could in fact read it prior to buying.
Rather then address all the absurdities of your 'example' lets just suffice to say that my comment doesn't mean anything other than what it says: That the EULA is available for viewing before one purchases the product so that means said customer can make an informed decision without the hassle of returning the product if they disagree. It makes no claims as to the legality, morality, or sexuality of EULA's.
Funny thing, that EULA, you can only read it after you bought the device... I can only hope that one day shrink wrapped EULA and other such licenses will be banned. But that hope is very slim.
The link to the EULA on Nintendo's site that the GP provided worked for me and I haven't bought a Wii.
So all the illegal downloaders work for the movie studios and were wronged by them? Or is this more like a dude shoplifted from the local Macy's and even though Macy's is going to take him to court and defend themselves I feel justified in stealing things out of his car? I don't see very many people in the movie industry calling for everyone to download work illegally because they got shafted on some contracts.
That argument might hold water if illegal downloaders waited 14 years after a song, movie or game came out before downloading it (28 if the author was still alive) because they actually believed in the copyright act of 1790 and promoting the progress of science and useful arts. But as it stands it seems like nothing more than a convenient excuse to post-justify wanting it now, and wanting it free.
Maybe he figures anyone who isn't just going to dismiss his argument anyways and is interested in knowing probably also possesses the cognitive ability to type in the first thing they think of like "reuters edits bombing photos" into the google and get this back:
Contributing actual information and taking a position on the topic in question without all the citing for your lazy ass isn't "vomiting all over a thread". Complaining about it while contributing nothing is.
I used my xbox both wired, and wireless with the router 2 stories above the Xbox (in the basement of course! =P ). The only difference I noticed between the two has been dropped connections. Sometimes Wireless just likes to drop machines which is aggravating. But as far as lag while playing CoD 4 and MW2 I didn't notice a whole lot of difference. There might have been a slight decrease in me getting shot when I thought I was already around a corner, but that might have just been me slowly getting better too. No dramatic differences for sure.
The router was dual band both G and N, but I'm not sure the wireless adapter I had for the xbox handled N, my guess would be it did not.
Call me crazy but I'd say built in wireless N, smaller form, and quieter (claimed) cooling/running are new features especially when it's being sold at the same price even though you don't have to buy some wireless adapter for ~$60 (for MS's version?).
I also don't think it's positioned as a must buy for current owners so much as, if you're going to buy a new 360 to get into console gaming or replace and old one you'll want to get this one.
Crap, I'm retarded. After re-reading I think I'm understanding the problem wrong. I was thinking a better deal as in I'm gonna want a new car that's 4 times as efficient rather than twice as efficient rather then just being concerned with net fuel savings. But this is more looking at if you have a fleet of vehicles replacing which one is going to save you the most fuel assuming you own both original cars in the problem.
2 out of 3 people don't own a fleet of vehicles where they are trying to simultaneously decide which of 2 vehicles to replace and each of those vehicles can only be replaced with specific and different types so this problem isn't going to make a lot of sense to them.
If the point of the story is people don't understand division then how does this fix the problem? If you then ask them if you save more fuel by switching from the 23L/100km to 11.76L/100km or from 4.7L/100km to a new magic car of 1.0L/100km the 23 to 11 will now look like the bigger savings to them. You're just moving the misconception to the other end of the scale.
passive aggressive devices;) Their presence will change driver behavior causing drivers that would normally pass through the intersection on yellow because they weren't completely comfortable with the amount of space they had to brake to instead brake violently because of fear of the camera.
I see it daily on my commute home, everyone knows one light has a camera and since the lights are timed people will pass blithely through the first non camera light but slam on their breaks for the second. People from out of town or not aware of the camera one car back might be taken by surprise b/c of the quick braking. Sure, one of the drivers can still be blamed, but that doesn't mean the situation wasn't contributed to by the presence of the camera.
Clearly there is no way possible for any sort of investigative reporter or concerned citizen to independently test a speed camera and see if they receive a ticket to check out claims of rigging. Why they'd have to pony up the money for some sort of wheeled vehicle installed with some sort of magical speed measuring device. Maybe in the future such technology will be available.
Presented with the option of leaping to the courts and costing the family money to defend themselves and the option of having the kid stay home from school a couple days to learn their lesson on what's acceptable and what's not I'd say they made the right choice.
She's not just attacking the principal as a person, she's attacking him and his ability to do his job, and disrupting the ability of other kid's in that school to learn. Telling everyone a school is run by a pedophile has far reaching implications and is generally disruptive to the learning environment. Just like a kid cussing at a teacher during class, the school seems to me well within their rights to tell her to stay home for a couple days till she's ready to act responsibly. In fact, that seems like a much lighter sentence then the legal avenue.
The end of the article mentions districts writing into law that recording on duty policemen is specifically legal as backlash against the courts interpretation of the existing laws. Fixing the laws is our check against the courts faulty interpretation and the police's enforcement. So we can whine on slashdot about the public being apathetic while some people are clearly trying to fix the problem or we can try to get similar laws passed in our states and districts.
I think your probably just trolling but I'll bite. No, I'm saying it's OK because if the company truly doesn't have the evidence to win the cases then they are taking the risk of being actually taken to court, losing and being countered sued for court costs and filing frivolous lawsuits the punishments for which could range from monetary payments to disbarment.
I am also making the claim that I personally believe most people, or so far the IP Addresses, in this case probably did in fact commit the act they are being accused of and that is why we likely won't see this happen.
Well, the main kink is that the defendants know they can't take them to court, win, and then sue them to recover court costs because the defendants (whether you agree with copyright law or not)know they committed an illegal act.
So it's really more a problem of whether the law should be the way it is then lawyers extorting people. If it's OK to get big companies to settle by threatening to take them to court when they've done something wrong it makes sense that it should work the other way around. The only reason people see this as extortion right now is that they don't agree with the law itself.
Wouldn't what you describe be the majority? The other option if that passage in Genesis is not a parable or metaphor to get the main point across is that it literally was 7 days (young earth) and I thought that people who believed in that were in the decided minority? The Catholic church doesn't support a literal interpretation of days there does it?
OK, either you're purposefully being dense here or you just don't get it. What was stopping the Times Square Bomber from using two-way radios to communicate with someone coordinating from a nearby hotel?
Walkie talkies instead of cell phones for cross continent terrorist organizations? You're really going to suggest that after calling me dense? Ok, I'll bite. Besides long distance operatives will likely have to call non terror related regular folk using regular phones. The issue is once someone calls to say, buy a vehicle that they want to use in a strike, that call can later be traced to find whoever setup the purchase and then move up the chain.
What was stopping him from using Skype to talk to a man on the moon?
This is a semi reasonable alternative but it's not as easy to use from the field and still has a probability of being traced. In addition it requires the operative to be more intelligent, as in, you can't just hand them a couple burn phones and tell them to use them and lose them.
What does detonating a bomb have to do with talking on the phone really?
What does a seaborne terrorist attack launched from another country where cellphone investigations never came into play have to do with disproving the usefulness of a law about burn phones?
For that matter, if you're a fucking suicide bomber what do you care if you have to show ID or not?
If you're planning to blow yourself up in the cell phone store I suspect you don't. But that's AT&T's fault for lying to Apple fanatics about tethering being 'on the way', and no law we pass can protect them.
In all seriousness though, if they are using the phones to communicate with their cell leader who is on the radar then you can trace that phone to the suicide bomber and possibly catch them beforehand. Or, if like the Times Square Bomber the dude ain't interested in blowing himself up, you can track him down faster once the investigation starts.
Again, the proposed law is about cutting off a line of anonymous communication to make things harder on terrorists and criminals and give law enforcement an easier time to catch them. My argument was that it isn't being heralded as the end of terrorism, so it doesn't make sense to point out a single crime or single terrorist act and say the law is pointless because it doesn't prevent it. It's like saying a law about locking the cockpit doors is pointless because it wouldn't stop a scuba diver attack.
What people should be doing is discussing whether losing that line of anonymous communication is worth the reward of making it harder for criminals and terrorists to communicate without detection.
The reason they give is that terrorists and criminals are using them to make untraceable calls. They don't claim it will stop all terrorism everywhere, and that's why it's off topic.
The fact that India has this law and it didn't stop a scuba assault has as much bearing on this law as it would on adding a law that required cockpit doors be locked post takeoff. Does a scuba assault with nothing about airplanes invalidate the reasons behind wanting to lock the cockpit doors?
Slashdot Mirror
It's hit or miss, but I've found for the majority of current shows that netflix does not carry them which is why I use both netflix and Hulu. Netflix is much higher quality and I dont have to hook the pc up to the TV so I use that whenever I can, but Hulu seems to have more of the new network TV shows.
I didn't see anything that was explicitly stating that old shows whose content is currently available was getting moved into the paywalled section an would no longer be available at the lower res so we might be jumping the gun, but then again the only old ones I watched on hulu was Stargate and firefly. Those couple of shows they did mention, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, were all those episodes already available for free?
I know the new ones usually only had a few episodes up anyways so to me it seems like they are just adding extra content I don't feel the need to pay for anyways but again, I wasn't a heavy old content user, I was just using it as a replacement for cable.
Why would you stop using Hulu because they now offer extra content that you can pay extra for? It would be like refusing to play a video game because they released some DLC that doesn't effect your experience at all.
The new Hulu Plus just has higher quality (720 instead of 480) and episodes going back the entire season instead of just the last 3 or 5 trailing episodes. No reason to throw in the towel just cause you can now pay for a better service if you so choose.
GP was complaining that he couldn't read the EULA prior to buying (which I believe means he would simply have to go through the hassle of then returning it and getting reimbursed) so I was pointing out to him that he could in fact read it prior to buying.
Rather then address all the absurdities of your 'example' lets just suffice to say that my comment doesn't mean anything other than what it says: That the EULA is available for viewing before one purchases the product so that means said customer can make an informed decision without the hassle of returning the product if they disagree. It makes no claims as to the legality, morality, or sexuality of EULA's.
Funny thing, that EULA, you can only read it after you bought the device... I can only hope that one day shrink wrapped EULA and other such licenses will be banned. But that hope is very slim.
The link to the EULA on Nintendo's site that the GP provided worked for me and I haven't bought a Wii.
Ah, then we're in agreement then. Everyone's a problem! ;)
So all the illegal downloaders work for the movie studios and were wronged by them? Or is this more like a dude shoplifted from the local Macy's and even though Macy's is going to take him to court and defend themselves I feel justified in stealing things out of his car? I don't see very many people in the movie industry calling for everyone to download work illegally because they got shafted on some contracts.
Cheap and DRM free is not going to happen if that small city is going to eat and dress their children
I'm not sure I want to be paying them if they plan on using it to eat their children!! ;)
That argument might hold water if illegal downloaders waited 14 years after a song, movie or game came out before downloading it (28 if the author was still alive) because they actually believed in the copyright act of 1790 and promoting the progress of science and useful arts. But as it stands it seems like nothing more than a convenient excuse to post-justify wanting it now, and wanting it free.
To be fair don't legit studios, you know.....make movies from time to time?
Maybe he figures anyone who isn't just going to dismiss his argument anyways and is interested in knowing probably also possesses the cognitive ability to type in the first thing they think of like "reuters edits bombing photos" into the google and get this back:
Reuter Photographer Controversy
Contributing actual information and taking a position on the topic in question without all the citing for your lazy ass isn't "vomiting all over a thread". Complaining about it while contributing nothing is.
I used my xbox both wired, and wireless with the router 2 stories above the Xbox (in the basement of course! =P ). The only difference I noticed between the two has been dropped connections. Sometimes Wireless just likes to drop machines which is aggravating. But as far as lag while playing CoD 4 and MW2 I didn't notice a whole lot of difference. There might have been a slight decrease in me getting shot when I thought I was already around a corner, but that might have just been me slowly getting better too. No dramatic differences for sure.
The router was dual band both G and N, but I'm not sure the wireless adapter I had for the xbox handled N, my guess would be it did not.
Call me crazy but I'd say built in wireless N, smaller form, and quieter (claimed) cooling/running are new features especially when it's being sold at the same price even though you don't have to buy some wireless adapter for ~$60 (for MS's version?).
I also don't think it's positioned as a must buy for current owners so much as, if you're going to buy a new 360 to get into console gaming or replace and old one you'll want to get this one.
Clearly the electronic versions have zero value. Have you ever tried to wipe your ass with a .pdf?
Crap, I'm retarded. After re-reading I think I'm understanding the problem wrong. I was thinking a better deal as in I'm gonna want a new car that's 4 times as efficient rather than twice as efficient rather then just being concerned with net fuel savings. But this is more looking at if you have a fleet of vehicles replacing which one is going to save you the most fuel assuming you own both original cars in the problem.
2 out of 3 people don't own a fleet of vehicles where they are trying to simultaneously decide which of 2 vehicles to replace and each of those vehicles can only be replaced with specific and different types so this problem isn't going to make a lot of sense to them.
If the point of the story is people don't understand division then how does this fix the problem? If you then ask them if you save more fuel by switching from the 23L/100km to 11.76L/100km or from 4.7L/100km to a new magic car of 1.0L/100km the 23 to 11 will now look like the bigger savings to them. You're just moving the misconception to the other end of the scale.
passive aggressive devices ;) Their presence will change driver behavior causing drivers that would normally pass through the intersection on yellow because they weren't completely comfortable with the amount of space they had to brake to instead brake violently because of fear of the camera.
I see it daily on my commute home, everyone knows one light has a camera and since the lights are timed people will pass blithely through the first non camera light but slam on their breaks for the second. People from out of town or not aware of the camera one car back might be taken by surprise b/c of the quick braking. Sure, one of the drivers can still be blamed, but that doesn't mean the situation wasn't contributed to by the presence of the camera.
Clearly there is no way possible for any sort of investigative reporter or concerned citizen to independently test a speed camera and see if they receive a ticket to check out claims of rigging. Why they'd have to pony up the money for some sort of wheeled vehicle installed with some sort of magical speed measuring device. Maybe in the future such technology will be available.
Presented with the option of leaping to the courts and costing the family money to defend themselves and the option of having the kid stay home from school a couple days to learn their lesson on what's acceptable and what's not I'd say they made the right choice.
She's not just attacking the principal as a person, she's attacking him and his ability to do his job, and disrupting the ability of other kid's in that school to learn. Telling everyone a school is run by a pedophile has far reaching implications and is generally disruptive to the learning environment. Just like a kid cussing at a teacher during class, the school seems to me well within their rights to tell her to stay home for a couple days till she's ready to act responsibly. In fact, that seems like a much lighter sentence then the legal avenue.
The end of the article mentions districts writing into law that recording on duty policemen is specifically legal as backlash against the courts interpretation of the existing laws. Fixing the laws is our check against the courts faulty interpretation and the police's enforcement. So we can whine on slashdot about the public being apathetic while some people are clearly trying to fix the problem or we can try to get similar laws passed in our states and districts.
I think your probably just trolling but I'll bite. No, I'm saying it's OK because if the company truly doesn't have the evidence to win the cases then they are taking the risk of being actually taken to court, losing and being countered sued for court costs and filing frivolous lawsuits the punishments for which could range from monetary payments to disbarment.
I am also making the claim that I personally believe most people, or so far the IP Addresses, in this case probably did in fact commit the act they are being accused of and that is why we likely won't see this happen.
Well, the main kink is that the defendants know they can't take them to court, win, and then sue them to recover court costs because the defendants (whether you agree with copyright law or not)know they committed an illegal act.
So it's really more a problem of whether the law should be the way it is then lawyers extorting people. If it's OK to get big companies to settle by threatening to take them to court when they've done something wrong it makes sense that it should work the other way around. The only reason people see this as extortion right now is that they don't agree with the law itself.
Wouldn't what you describe be the majority? The other option if that passage in Genesis is not a parable or metaphor to get the main point across is that it literally was 7 days (young earth) and I thought that people who believed in that were in the decided minority? The Catholic church doesn't support a literal interpretation of days there does it?
OK, either you're purposefully being dense here or you just don't get it. What was stopping the Times Square Bomber from using two-way radios to communicate with someone coordinating from a nearby hotel?
Walkie talkies instead of cell phones for cross continent terrorist organizations? You're really going to suggest that after calling me dense? Ok, I'll bite. Besides long distance operatives will likely have to call non terror related regular folk using regular phones. The issue is once someone calls to say, buy a vehicle that they want to use in a strike, that call can later be traced to find whoever setup the purchase and then move up the chain.
What was stopping him from using Skype to talk to a man on the moon?
This is a semi reasonable alternative but it's not as easy to use from the field and still has a probability of being traced. In addition it requires the operative to be more intelligent, as in, you can't just hand them a couple burn phones and tell them to use them and lose them.
What does detonating a bomb have to do with talking on the phone really?
What does a seaborne terrorist attack launched from another country where cellphone investigations never came into play have to do with disproving the usefulness of a law about burn phones?
For that matter, if you're a fucking suicide bomber what do you care if you have to show ID or not?
If you're planning to blow yourself up in the cell phone store I suspect you don't. But that's AT&T's fault for lying to Apple fanatics about tethering being 'on the way', and no law we pass can protect them.
In all seriousness though, if they are using the phones to communicate with their cell leader who is on the radar then you can trace that phone to the suicide bomber and possibly catch them beforehand. Or, if like the Times Square Bomber the dude ain't interested in blowing himself up, you can track him down faster once the investigation starts.
Again, the proposed law is about cutting off a line of anonymous communication to make things harder on terrorists and criminals and give law enforcement an easier time to catch them. My argument was that it isn't being heralded as the end of terrorism, so it doesn't make sense to point out a single crime or single terrorist act and say the law is pointless because it doesn't prevent it. It's like saying a law about locking the cockpit doors is pointless because it wouldn't stop a scuba diver attack.
What people should be doing is discussing whether losing that line of anonymous communication is worth the reward of making it harder for criminals and terrorists to communicate without detection.
The reason they give is that terrorists and criminals are using them to make untraceable calls. They don't claim it will stop all terrorism everywhere, and that's why it's off topic.
The fact that India has this law and it didn't stop a scuba assault has as much bearing on this law as it would on adding a law that required cockpit doors be locked post takeoff. Does a scuba assault with nothing about airplanes invalidate the reasons behind wanting to lock the cockpit doors?