It just puts a menu to make changing those settings easier.
wow you're a zealoty zealot, aren't you?
The Ease of Use you mentioned (if you're pooh-pooh'ing this, I'd better not hear you ever whinge about "Linux usability" because you're claiming that usability is irrelevant.). Saying NoScript (easy-to access menu, visual feedback) is just like IE's zones (manually entering/removing from a list and no feedback) is naiive in the extreme.
Temporary permissions
Automatic XSS detection and prevention
Allow/block temporarily/permanently individual applets/media within a page
There's a lot more beyond this extremely surface treatment, which covers salient and critically important details (e.g. iframe blocking). Read the page.
I don't think I'll convince you though. Your group-think is strong.
+USD30 or so per semester for fees to maintain the program.
Also, if you go on hiatus, you may no longer use the software. You may not keep it unless you apply for a permanent license within 2 weeks of graduation.
Personally, I'd go with the pay-once-and-keep-it-forever.
Dizzy and the Other Side claims to come with the source (bottom of the page) but all I can see are the data files. Perhaps if the source is available someone can port it (for learning purposes).
Only if the stopped using corny names like Hardy Heron... (sigh)
Are you running Windows Whistler? How about Longhorn?
The point is that internal names are not the same as official names. Calling the current release of Ubuntu "Hardy Heron" is like calling Vista "Longhorn" or XP "Whistler". It's more popular to call Ubuntu 8.04 "Hardy Heron" or just "Hardy" because it's easy to remember and Ubuntu/Canonical is a much more open system than Windows/Microsoft (and don't have massive advertising campaigns to make sure you remember the right name), but it's not the official name.
In short, if you want to avoid calling it by the internal name, use the official name, e.g. Ubuntu 8.04.
I gave you the numbers I used. You want to check the numbers, go ahead. You've got better numbers, go ahead. Or if you want to admit that you're basing your claims for compensation on no facts at all, that's fine too.
Your numbers are based off of your own experience, which I'm required to trust you on. Sorry that I don't trust the numbers of random people on the Internet. If you can provide corroborating links, I'm willing to listen.
Most other customers aren't using it. I don't have hard numbers here, but the low selection, the high system and network requirements for using it compared with just using DVDs, and the experience of my friends in trying to get people to watch movies on computers suggest that this is a minor, minor sideshow for now.
Bully for them that they're not taking advantage of the added value they're being given. I'm not being given that option. Other people not taking advantage of their value does not imply that it's fine if I'm not given the same value.
The vast majority of their customer base has much better video and audio on whatever they've hooked their DVD players to, and no good way to put their computers in the mix. Netflix has just told all of them to go pay $100 if they want the on-line option on their TV. And you know what? Nobody minds. They're excited about the step forward.
Again, their lack of complaining does not imply my lack of a right to complain, even yet again assuming you have solid facts to back up your assertions regarding percentages (i.e. "vast majority" and "Nobody").
Incidentally, "nobody" is demonstrably false, given the people posting to the Netflix Blog hoping Netflix will let them Instant Watch on their xbox, ps3, and/or wii.
Am I advocating that? No. I'm going to wait until a plausible business case for them even exists. Because right now, it doesn't.
Actually, you are.
Because you're actively advocating "waiting until a plausible business case for them even exists" (ignoring the points I was originally making which directly the existence of a business case). I rather think that "waiting" (i.e. continuing to pay instead of complaining and/or taking your business elsewhere) was "sucking it up and taking it"
Because you're actively telling me I should shut up, suck it up and take it as you argue that my position and I personally am "stupid".
I expect to receive the same value that others who pay the same amount get. I expect customer service, and if I don't get it, I take my business elsewhere. That's how capitalism works.
Not really.
Yes really.
Capitalism mainly works by people looking at what they pay and what they get and deciding if it's a good deal for them
Yes and no. You're right in that deciding if it is a good deal for "them" (i.e. me) is a critical part of capitalism. However, equally critical portions are
Communicating with the companies regarding what you want and what you don't want and what your perceptions are
Communicating with other customers and potential customers to organize action to help you in pushing for what you want and need (e.g. writing letters to the companies, organizing ad campaigns, proposing bills, organizing boycotts)
Buying or not buying the product, or adusting what you buy (e.g. buying fewer DVDs at a time)
You pitching a fit because a few Windows users are getting something extra is envy
"You pitching a fit," eh? I think your logic is being tainted by your biases and emotions.
Envy certainly plays a role, as it does in everyday life. It's only one portion of the picture, however, and painting it as the sole contributing fac
. I'm just saying that the maximum reasonable compensation is the amount extra they're allegedly charging you for a service you're not using. Which we can get at by imagining what would change if they shut it down entirely.
That makes sense.
I have friends who built one, so I know whereof I speak.
A random person (to me you are anyway) on the Internet says to trust their authority.
Regardless, I'd think about acceping 2 cents per month, provided it's logical. It's better than what I'm getting now.
Most other customers are getting the exact same value you are: none yet
No, they get extra value that I don't.
I was under the impression you thought your position made some sort of sense.
It makes sense to me. Give me the same value as everyone else, or give me some sort of reduction in price.
Wanting them to give you compensation is like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and demanding a discount because you keep kosher and won't eat the shrimp.
No, it's more like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and being required to pay an additional $300 because I am wearing the wrong kind of shoes to walk around.
I run only Linux, so I can't get the downloads either. I look forward to when I can
I'll again assume that a random person on the internet is telling the whole truth. You'll keep waiting because they won't do it unless you provide a business case for them. Sucking it up and taking whatever they dish out will not do jack.
But I don't want them thinking all Linux users act like they're entitled to everything, regardless of how possible it is or what the real costs are.
I'm not entitled to anything. I pay with my time and sweat to get money and I pay with that money to get value, and I expect to receive the same value that others who pay the same amount get. I expect customer service, and if I don't get it, I take my business elsewhere. That's how capitalism works.
And if that happened, McDonald's still wouldn't give you anything.
Probably not, but I'd definitely take my business elsewhere unless they did.
They are taking what would be profit and putting it back into R&D, so that in five years when the online movie business actually matters, they have a solid offering. Which is exactly what their investors want them to be doing.
If the marketshare is small enough to afford to piss off, then it's small enough not to impact their R&D.
If Netflix closed down their video service tomorrow, they wouldn't drop their prices.
Of course not, prices almost never go down. Only pressure from their customers makes it go down. If Netflix could, they'd take the money directly out of your paycheck every month, whether or not you use their service. What businesses want to do and what their customers should let them do are two entirely different things.
killing the video downloads probably wouldn't get you much.
I don't want them to kill the video downloads. Where did you get that absurd idea? I want to be able to use the features they gave me with the operating system I use or else give me a couple of bucks back each month because they refuse to.
I could put together a similar offering for under couple million a year in operating expenses, (including staff time but excluding the studio revenue share)
when you have done so, or have concrete data to back up your position here, this is entirely unbacked specuation.
The position remains: to keep me a happy customer, I should get the same value as the other customers or get some compensation back. I really don't see why you're fighting me on this.
Yes! I don't have a car, and so can't use drive-through windows. That's unfair! I demand that McDonald's charge me less for my in-store orders. Or give me a car.
Hmm. Interesting. I'd argue that it's more akin to only letting you use the drive-thru if you own a Ford car instead of your Prius, because Pepsi requires it.
Seriously, all of the people using the movie downloads are people with relatively modern home computers, broadband connections, up-to-date copies of Windows, decent screens, and a comfortable setup for watching movies on their computer. My guess is that less than 5% of Netflix users have ever watched a full movie on line, and circa 1% watch more movies on line than they do via DVD.
So they should be perfectly happy to give us $2/mo back. It won't hurt their bottom line as much as those using the Profiles feature, which was brought back Due To Popular Demand.
Or you could treat it like it is: an experiment that is so early on that they don't even know how to charge for it properly, so they're just giving it to some customers for free to see how the market develops.
It may be an experiment, and I'm doing my part in it.
you might consider being content with getting exactly the service you signed up at the price you were happy to pay before. If you get upset every time you see a Windows user getting something that you don't as a Mac or Linux user, you're going to have a stroke long before Netflix talks the studios around on this.
So be it. My money costs my time and my life, so I like to get some value for it. That's what I'm saying.
I'm a Linux user. This is no consolation, even assuming that Mac Silverlight will have DRM.
I'd be perfectly happy if they just gave me $2/mo back because I can't use that feature, but somehow that option's never given to me.
Loss if all profiles users told Netflix to shove it:
8.2 million customers *0.02 (percent) *$15 (assuming 2-at-a-time) *12 (over a single year) = $29.52 million per year
Loss if all mac and linux users told Netflix to shove it:
8.2 million customers *0.1 (percent) *$15 (assuming 2-at-a-time) *12 (over a single year) = $147.6 million per year
Loss if they gave mac and linux users $2/mo back because they can't use Instant Watching:
8.2 million customers *0.1 (percent) *$2 (assuming 2-at-a-time) *12 (over a single year) = $19.68 million per year
Slashdot Mirror
wow you're a zealoty zealot, aren't you?
There's a lot more beyond this extremely surface treatment, which covers salient and critically important details (e.g. iframe blocking). Read the page.
I don't think I'll convince you though. Your group-think is strong.
Epic fail. Read and learn your folly.
No. No, not by a long shot.
It costs $30/semester in licensing fees as well. People never seem to know that they're paying those, tho.
http://www.alfresco.com/ http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/ I'm sure there are more.
If it's cheap enough, it's an affordable Cell processor to play^H^H^h^Hprototype with. :)
+USD30 or so per semester for fees to maintain the program. Also, if you go on hiatus, you may no longer use the software. You may not keep it unless you apply for a permanent license within 2 weeks of graduation. Personally, I'd go with the pay-once-and-keep-it-forever.
That says it all.
Dizzy and the Other Side claims to come with the source (bottom of the page) but all I can see are the data files. Perhaps if the source is available someone can port it (for learning purposes).
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/intrepid/+source/gnome-utils/2.24.0-0ubuntu1 the day before yesterday.
that's nothin'. I'm running Linux Kernel version 9.32.31337. Just ask my header files.
You installed the wrong OS on the second install. ;)
See my reply to the other dude, O Anonymous Coward
. <----- point, at high velocity
o
\|/
/ \ <---- you
where are the files? I'm highly curious to get a peek into the secret goings-on of a major Microsoft OEM.
Is this where I point out the DR-DOS thing? Yes, I think so.
XP is as easy to get (pre-installed or retail) as Linux, and Vista has worse app and hardware support than Linux.
Interesting times indeed.
Are you running Windows Whistler? How about Longhorn?
The point is that internal names are not the same as official names. Calling the current release of Ubuntu "Hardy Heron" is like calling Vista "Longhorn" or XP "Whistler". It's more popular to call Ubuntu 8.04 "Hardy Heron" or just "Hardy" because it's easy to remember and Ubuntu/Canonical is a much more open system than Windows/Microsoft (and don't have massive advertising campaigns to make sure you remember the right name), but it's not the official name.
In short, if you want to avoid calling it by the internal name, use the official name, e.g. Ubuntu 8.04.
Your numbers are based off of your own experience, which I'm required to trust you on. Sorry that I don't trust the numbers of random people on the Internet. If you can provide corroborating links, I'm willing to listen.
Bully for them that they're not taking advantage of the added value they're being given. I'm not being given that option. Other people not taking advantage of their value does not imply that it's fine if I'm not given the same value.
Again, their lack of complaining does not imply my lack of a right to complain, even yet again assuming you have solid facts to back up your assertions regarding percentages (i.e. "vast majority" and "Nobody").
Incidentally, "nobody" is demonstrably false, given the people posting to the Netflix Blog hoping Netflix will let them Instant Watch on their xbox, ps3, and/or wii.
Actually, you are.
Yes really.
Yes and no. You're right in that deciding if it is a good deal for "them" (i.e. me) is a critical part of capitalism. However, equally critical portions are
"You pitching a fit," eh? I think your logic is being tainted by your biases and emotions.
Envy certainly plays a role, as it does in everyday life. It's only one portion of the picture, however, and painting it as the sole contributing fac
That makes sense.
A random person (to me you are anyway) on the Internet says to trust their authority.
Regardless, I'd think about acceping 2 cents per month, provided it's logical. It's better than what I'm getting now.
No, they get extra value that I don't.
It makes sense to me. Give me the same value as everyone else, or give me some sort of reduction in price.
No, it's more like going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and being required to pay an additional $300 because I am wearing the wrong kind of shoes to walk around.
I'll again assume that a random person on the internet is telling the whole truth. You'll keep waiting because they won't do it unless you provide a business case for them. Sucking it up and taking whatever they dish out will not do jack.
I'm not entitled to anything. I pay with my time and sweat to get money and I pay with that money to get value, and I expect to receive the same value that others who pay the same amount get. I expect customer service, and if I don't get it, I take my business elsewhere. That's how capitalism works.
s/when/Until/;
Probably not, but I'd definitely take my business elsewhere unless they did.
If the marketshare is small enough to afford to piss off, then it's small enough not to impact their R&D.
Of course not, prices almost never go down. Only pressure from their customers makes it go down. If Netflix could, they'd take the money directly out of your paycheck every month, whether or not you use their service. What businesses want to do and what their customers should let them do are two entirely different things.
I don't want them to kill the video downloads. Where did you get that absurd idea? I want to be able to use the features they gave me with the operating system I use or else give me a couple of bucks back each month because they refuse to.
when you have done so, or have concrete data to back up your position here, this is entirely unbacked specuation.
The position remains: to keep me a happy customer, I should get the same value as the other customers or get some compensation back. I really don't see why you're fighting me on this.
Hmm. Interesting. I'd argue that it's more akin to only letting you use the drive-thru if you own a Ford car instead of your Prius, because Pepsi requires it.
So they should be perfectly happy to give us $2/mo back. It won't hurt their bottom line as much as those using the Profiles feature, which was brought back Due To Popular Demand.
It may be an experiment, and I'm doing my part in it.
So be it. My money costs my time and my life, so I like to get some value for it. That's what I'm saying.
I'm a Linux user. This is no consolation, even assuming that Mac Silverlight will have DRM. I'd be perfectly happy if they just gave me $2/mo back because I can't use that feature, but somehow that option's never given to me.
Loss if all profiles users told Netflix to shove it: 8.2 million customers *0.02 (percent) *$15 (assuming 2-at-a-time) *12 (over a single year) = $29.52 million per year Loss if all mac and linux users told Netflix to shove it: 8.2 million customers *0.1 (percent) *$15 (assuming 2-at-a-time) *12 (over a single year) = $147.6 million per year Loss if they gave mac and linux users $2/mo back because they can't use Instant Watching: 8.2 million customers *0.1 (percent) *$2 (assuming 2-at-a-time) *12 (over a single year) = $19.68 million per year