Since judges over here don't have to get reelected by idiots but rather have to defend their decisions against their peers (at least if they want to have any chance to ever come close to getting out of minimal claims court, i.e. have a career), you usually see some solid verdicts that not only the letter but the spirit of the law.
You really think it stays that way? We're already having some film makers and distributors insisting on creating their own streaming service, meaning that you have to get show A from stream provider B, or you will not watch show A, at least not via stream. I'd expect to see some "exclusive" content very soon, and you can rest assured that pretty much everything worth watching will be "exclusive" content.
First of all, realize that to even understand this, an above average IQ is required. Which means that 50% of the population are already against you. But that would be ok, so far you'd have 50% voting for "someone else" and the other 50% splitting between the two sides of the DEMREP party.
Sadly, of those 50% that do have an above room temperature IQ, about 20% benefit from the status quo, another 5-10% have already given up and simply don't vote anymore, another 5-10% simply don't care because they're too busy making money and/or finding out how to bail the sinking ship while they still can and another 10-20% are still locked in the "lost vote" narrative.
No, actually there are justice systems where your chance of getting out doesn't depend on having a lawyer that finds all sorts of loopholes. Over here, the judge has enough leeway to be more a deciding factor on whether you go free or to jail than your lawyer ever could be.
And so the pendulum swings. Half a century ago, that was firmly the tactics of the right. Didn't work that well back then either, as the success of the civil rights movement showed.
And so this will fail. It simply has to. I don't really think the right will be chicken when the left wasn't either. And back then it wasn't just about comfort, these people risked their fuckin' life!
Whenever I heard something like this, all I can think "Land of the free, home of the brave? Yeah, my ass. Land of the nannystated, home of the bubblewrapped is more like it, it's time to retext that anthem".
Can't really second that. US people are generally woefully uninformed for a people with a free press and free access to information, but they're also generally nice. I only found them a bit patronizing, at least the ones that don't really know there is a world outside of their country.
In other words, there is no tactful way to inform your host that he needn't explain how a light switch works...
I'm an old fart. I distinctly remember that there were some "premium" channels that had no ads since you paid for them. Then slowly they started to have "promos" for their upcoming programming, soon after you endured "promos" for various shows they showed on other channels, and eventually when they noticed that people did actually swallow this, it was only a small step to normal ads. But only after shows and films and not interrupting them. At first, at least. Then it was just one ad block cutting a film in half.
One slowly boiled frog later, we're now at cable being on par with OTA programming.
Thank you. Since I learned English in a school that focused on international trade rather than biology, that wasn't really a key element of my education. I hope it still got the point across sufficiently.
Streaming used to be seen as an alternative to cable, but let's face it: It's turning out to be the same. Yes, yes, you can now choose when to watch your show instead of having to wait for it to appear on X-day Y-time, but face it, the difference is nonexistent. Now, instead of watching it when it's aired you watch it when it is available for streaming, and if you want to watch it later, you basically save yourself the VCR programming, because that's basically what watching it later than release essentially is.
Well, maybe (soon) without the ability to skip ads.
No ads you say? There were no ads in cable either in the beginning. Give it time.
The rest is already the same as cable was. Again you get different streaming providers that offer different content, which isn't so different from the different cable packages. Again you get to pay for provider (package) A, even though you are only interested in 10% of its programming. You'd want to watch show B, but show B is only available from provider (package) C, so you either have to shell out another X bucks to get that provider (package) even though all you really want from it is that one show and you couldn't care less for the rest of what comes bundled with it.
Face it: Streaming is the new cable. You just let someone else rip you off.
Either way it's not what can be observed. To make it worthwhile, you would have to get an discount equal or greater than X% if there is an X% failure rate to make the system worth it.
Usually, all you get out of the crowdfunding is the product at the same price as everyone else. More often than not, you even pay more than the retail price would eventually be and get some "bonus" of questionable value.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why all US aircraft carriers are docked and all its soldiers at home with their wives.
Since judges over here don't have to get reelected by idiots but rather have to defend their decisions against their peers (at least if they want to have any chance to ever come close to getting out of minimal claims court, i.e. have a career), you usually see some solid verdicts that not only the letter but the spirit of the law.
I would rather believe that a ton of sysadmins had reason to off his wife and frame him...
For now.
You really think it stays that way? We're already having some film makers and distributors insisting on creating their own streaming service, meaning that you have to get show A from stream provider B, or you will not watch show A, at least not via stream. I'd expect to see some "exclusive" content very soon, and you can rest assured that pretty much everything worth watching will be "exclusive" content.
Sorry, but no. There is no choice.
First of all, realize that to even understand this, an above average IQ is required. Which means that 50% of the population are already against you. But that would be ok, so far you'd have 50% voting for "someone else" and the other 50% splitting between the two sides of the DEMREP party.
Sadly, of those 50% that do have an above room temperature IQ, about 20% benefit from the status quo, another 5-10% have already given up and simply don't vote anymore, another 5-10% simply don't care because they're too busy making money and/or finding out how to bail the sinking ship while they still can and another 10-20% are still locked in the "lost vote" narrative.
But you can feel good. For once, YOU are the 1%!
What does one have to do with the other?
If you can somehow point out how any government actor would have an incentive to see Reiser behind bars, we'll continue talking.
No, actually there are justice systems where your chance of getting out doesn't depend on having a lawyer that finds all sorts of loopholes. Over here, the judge has enough leeway to be more a deciding factor on whether you go free or to jail than your lawyer ever could be.
Translation: I upped my DDoS resilience and am humbly requesting a stress test.
10 minutes later he started to sob when he noticed that nobody is.
Maybe, but what matters is how you wear it.
You're free to do whatever ... we tell you.
Guess what, in Europe we have both kinds of free!
Don't know why you think it has to be either-or.
We're just 8% maybe, but we have more than 80% of the weapons, power and money.
And knowing that I can sleep easy.
And so the pendulum swings. Half a century ago, that was firmly the tactics of the right. Didn't work that well back then either, as the success of the civil rights movement showed.
And so this will fail. It simply has to. I don't really think the right will be chicken when the left wasn't either. And back then it wasn't just about comfort, these people risked their fuckin' life!
It's already bad enough that they use our oil and eat our corn!
Really?
Fuck, gotta find gramps' old SS uniform, don't wanna be late for the latest fad again!
Whenever I heard something like this, all I can think "Land of the free, home of the brave? Yeah, my ass. Land of the nannystated, home of the bubblewrapped is more like it, it's time to retext that anthem".
Can't really second that. US people are generally woefully uninformed for a people with a free press and free access to information, but they're also generally nice. I only found them a bit patronizing, at least the ones that don't really know there is a world outside of their country.
In other words, there is no tactful way to inform your host that he needn't explain how a light switch works...
I'm an old fart. I distinctly remember that there were some "premium" channels that had no ads since you paid for them. Then slowly they started to have "promos" for their upcoming programming, soon after you endured "promos" for various shows they showed on other channels, and eventually when they noticed that people did actually swallow this, it was only a small step to normal ads. But only after shows and films and not interrupting them. At first, at least. Then it was just one ad block cutting a film in half.
One slowly boiled frog later, we're now at cable being on par with OTA programming.
Well, it does make them the butt of many jokes in the support department, does that count?
Well, then why not build a test course that's, say, 50 miles long?
Probably because it would take about a year to evacuate between tests...
No. But neither can humans if they wish to remain humans.
Thank you. Since I learned English in a school that focused on international trade rather than biology, that wasn't really a key element of my education. I hope it still got the point across sufficiently.
Streaming used to be seen as an alternative to cable, but let's face it: It's turning out to be the same. Yes, yes, you can now choose when to watch your show instead of having to wait for it to appear on X-day Y-time, but face it, the difference is nonexistent. Now, instead of watching it when it's aired you watch it when it is available for streaming, and if you want to watch it later, you basically save yourself the VCR programming, because that's basically what watching it later than release essentially is.
Well, maybe (soon) without the ability to skip ads.
No ads you say? There were no ads in cable either in the beginning. Give it time.
The rest is already the same as cable was. Again you get different streaming providers that offer different content, which isn't so different from the different cable packages. Again you get to pay for provider (package) A, even though you are only interested in 10% of its programming. You'd want to watch show B, but show B is only available from provider (package) C, so you either have to shell out another X bucks to get that provider (package) even though all you really want from it is that one show and you couldn't care less for the rest of what comes bundled with it.
Face it: Streaming is the new cable. You just let someone else rip you off.
Either way it's not what can be observed. To make it worthwhile, you would have to get an discount equal or greater than X% if there is an X% failure rate to make the system worth it.
Usually, all you get out of the crowdfunding is the product at the same price as everyone else. More often than not, you even pay more than the retail price would eventually be and get some "bonus" of questionable value.