And exactly that is illegal. Sure, a blackhat doesn't care, but a company that could (and, in this lawsuit-happy country, certainly WOULD) be sued does.
In that fucked up system someone who is not only stupid enough to buy such a crappy piece of junk but also stupid enough to not even WANT to know a thing about its function and dangers could actually sue someone trying to fix the problem AND get rewarded. Yes, this system rewards stupidity and punishes anyone trying to save it from the stupid. Wrap your mind around that.
The market is the only thing that could save us. Government is bad! BAD, I tell you! Trust the invisible hand to squash those problems! The market will sort it out!
Frankly, if I want to invite someone to a dark play for a date, I have a basement. I'm European, and I'm kinda traditional...
But seriously. Yes, movie theaters will probably eventually go the way of game arcades. Less the video rental places, but the arcades. Some arcades actually survived by offering non-standard games that you can't simply play at home on your XBox and PS4. Games with special controllers or display system. Games that required lots of room to play them, or games that are only fun if you can use them to show off. That allowed some arcades to survive. And I would say that movie theaters have the same chance. They, too, can survive if they specialize on gimmicks and experiences that cannot be simply created at home.
How? If I knew, I wouldn't write it here but instead sell an idea like that...
Careful with #4. If it carries a lower penalty to hit your granny over the head for her purse than to swindle her out of money, granny wakes up with a headache.
Fortunately, you just export the result of stupidity, the stupidity stays perfectly sealed within the country.
Thank $deity, I mean, who in their sane mind would import stupidity?
And yes, I'm European, and yes, I will shut up here, it's not necessary to point out the very obvious in a comment to this one, I know, and I'm very pissed that we actually do just that right now.
There are movies where the cinema can add to the experience. Mostly Michael Bay movies, where even the obnoxious assholes around you can only add to the experience... ok, snide comments aside, there are certain aspects and elements of the cinema experience that can augment the experience. Like going to a premiere of a long expected movie. Or a great comedy where you can experience the movie and its gags with other people, and where the reaction of other people is actually part of the experience. Or when you're in a group of people and the movie is only part of your evening plans.
Frankly, in all other cases, I fail to see the advantage of going to a cinema. Going to a cinema to just watch a movie is simply not really something that adds anything of value to the movie unless you have a secondary reason to go (like noted above).
What competition? If anything, Netflix IS the competition to the movie buggy whip business.
Time has passed you by, theaters. You may have a reason to continue existing as a niche product, but for watching "normal" movies, you're superfluous and, essentially, not competitive anymore.
Movie theaters had their reason to exist when they offered an added value over what you could have at home. That ceased to exist. Big screen? Have it. Dolby 7.1? Have it. 3D? Glad I don't have it. What else is there?
Hmm... and I can have all that an non-overpriced food at home, along with no parking fee and the movie actually pausing whenever I want to take a piss (at a toilet that's not smelling like a sewer and where I don't have to wait for 10 minutes for my turn)... so what exactly is the benefit?
It's very similar, actually, a contract with a minor is pretty much void if a parent shakes his head. It's actually a bit worse like this, the fact that the minor could get into a contract with you without his parents' consent is already something that could get you into hot water.
That's probably why Google was so eager to put a lid on it before someone took a closer look.
The point is, right now you will, even in poor neighborhoods, have a few people who will pay for internet, and hence providing the service is a viable business for ISPs. With FB muscling in, this ceases to be the case, so if you're poor, your only chance will be to get Facebooknet, because no other ISP will service your area.
Anyone who ever played any kind of Cyberpunk game has wondered why the hell decks and net access are so damn expensive. I mean, computers and internet are already dirt cheap in our world today, and they'd only get cheaper as time goes by.
The reason gets clearer every day, what makes decks and decker access expensive is that the access is not limited by what you may see and no DRM clogs your deck that limits what software may run...
I would certainly not mind if Zuckerberg wanted to give poor people free internet. Hell, I'd chip in, I think the idea is awesome! I can't stand that sleazebag and I would probably only hand him a glass of water if he was already drowning, but if he actually did that, I would actually say that at least something good came out of the total surveillance tool that Facebook is.
But that is not the case. He is exactly NOT offering free internet to the poor. What his "generous offer" is, is that these people will get access to Facebook. There is not a single altruistic fiber in this move. It's an attempt to corner the market, on the expense of people who already have nothing.
One could now argue "but hey, at least they get Facebook!" Yes, that would be an argument. Except that this also means that it is unfeasible for an ISP to even attempt getting a foot into a "poor" area where they might not get a lot of customers, but at least a few. But that way, they will not get enough, which also means that poor people who would make the sacrifice to pay for "real"internet access (to give their kids a chance to have access to more knowledge and research information) don't even get the chance to do so.
For the same reason this is going to hurt other ISPs.
If McD handed out "free" meals, other restaurants would have to shut down or find a way to lower their own prices, essentially having to do the same shit. In the end, you will be left with either only McD to go to or a load of restaurants that offer exactly the same crappy junk because there is simply not enough of a market for quality.
Slashdot Mirror
Duuuuuh, upnp... is that the new detergent?
Please realize what dimwits buy those crappy pieces of junk hardware. You honestly expect them to even know what they're doing?
And exactly that is illegal. Sure, a blackhat doesn't care, but a company that could (and, in this lawsuit-happy country, certainly WOULD) be sued does.
In that fucked up system someone who is not only stupid enough to buy such a crappy piece of junk but also stupid enough to not even WANT to know a thing about its function and dangers could actually sue someone trying to fix the problem AND get rewarded. Yes, this system rewards stupidity and punishes anyone trying to save it from the stupid. Wrap your mind around that.
Markets solve all problems for themselves. Not anyone else.
The market is the only thing that could save us. Government is bad! BAD, I tell you! Trust the invisible hand to squash those problems! The market will sort it out!
Great, so there are then two idiots that have the potential to kill me.
Frankly, if I want to invite someone to a dark play for a date, I have a basement. I'm European, and I'm kinda traditional...
But seriously. Yes, movie theaters will probably eventually go the way of game arcades. Less the video rental places, but the arcades. Some arcades actually survived by offering non-standard games that you can't simply play at home on your XBox and PS4. Games with special controllers or display system. Games that required lots of room to play them, or games that are only fun if you can use them to show off. That allowed some arcades to survive. And I would say that movie theaters have the same chance. They, too, can survive if they specialize on gimmicks and experiences that cannot be simply created at home.
How? If I knew, I wouldn't write it here but instead sell an idea like that...
This is pretty much the topic of this whole thread.
Careful with #4. If it carries a lower penalty to hit your granny over the head for her purse than to swindle her out of money, granny wakes up with a headache.
Fortunately, you just export the result of stupidity, the stupidity stays perfectly sealed within the country.
Thank $deity, I mean, who in their sane mind would import stupidity?
And yes, I'm European, and yes, I will shut up here, it's not necessary to point out the very obvious in a comment to this one, I know, and I'm very pissed that we actually do just that right now.
There are movies where the cinema can add to the experience. Mostly Michael Bay movies, where even the obnoxious assholes around you can only add to the experience... ok, snide comments aside, there are certain aspects and elements of the cinema experience that can augment the experience. Like going to a premiere of a long expected movie. Or a great comedy where you can experience the movie and its gags with other people, and where the reaction of other people is actually part of the experience. Or when you're in a group of people and the movie is only part of your evening plans.
Frankly, in all other cases, I fail to see the advantage of going to a cinema. Going to a cinema to just watch a movie is simply not really something that adds anything of value to the movie unless you have a secondary reason to go (like noted above).
What competition? If anything, Netflix IS the competition to the movie buggy whip business.
Time has passed you by, theaters. You may have a reason to continue existing as a niche product, but for watching "normal" movies, you're superfluous and, essentially, not competitive anymore.
I can get rid of that at home. Easily. Pause the movie, yell "get the fuck out of here if you want to talk", wait for them to leave, resume playing.
Movie theaters had their reason to exist when they offered an added value over what you could have at home. That ceased to exist. Big screen? Have it. Dolby 7.1? Have it. 3D? Glad I don't have it. What else is there?
Hmm... and I can have all that an non-overpriced food at home, along with no parking fee and the movie actually pausing whenever I want to take a piss (at a toilet that's not smelling like a sewer and where I don't have to wait for 10 minutes for my turn)... so what exactly is the benefit?
Yes. Yes. And your computer has virus, too!
No idea. Ask Satya Nadella. He might know.
It's very similar, actually, a contract with a minor is pretty much void if a parent shakes his head. It's actually a bit worse like this, the fact that the minor could get into a contract with you without his parents' consent is already something that could get you into hot water.
That's probably why Google was so eager to put a lid on it before someone took a closer look.
The point is, right now you will, even in poor neighborhoods, have a few people who will pay for internet, and hence providing the service is a viable business for ISPs. With FB muscling in, this ceases to be the case, so if you're poor, your only chance will be to get Facebooknet, because no other ISP will service your area.
Some of us also learned English. And that entails learning proper pronunciation.
I wouldn't go as far as pretending I know better when to use what past tense than a native speaker, but with some people I would actually dare to...
Making it phonetic would actually make it closer to "could af", where does the "o" come from?
Anyone who ever played any kind of Cyberpunk game has wondered why the hell decks and net access are so damn expensive. I mean, computers and internet are already dirt cheap in our world today, and they'd only get cheaper as time goes by.
The reason gets clearer every day, what makes decks and decker access expensive is that the access is not limited by what you may see and no DRM clogs your deck that limits what software may run...
I would certainly not mind if Zuckerberg wanted to give poor people free internet. Hell, I'd chip in, I think the idea is awesome! I can't stand that sleazebag and I would probably only hand him a glass of water if he was already drowning, but if he actually did that, I would actually say that at least something good came out of the total surveillance tool that Facebook is.
But that is not the case. He is exactly NOT offering free internet to the poor. What his "generous offer" is, is that these people will get access to Facebook. There is not a single altruistic fiber in this move. It's an attempt to corner the market, on the expense of people who already have nothing.
One could now argue "but hey, at least they get Facebook!" Yes, that would be an argument. Except that this also means that it is unfeasible for an ISP to even attempt getting a foot into a "poor" area where they might not get a lot of customers, but at least a few. But that way, they will not get enough, which also means that poor people who would make the sacrifice to pay for "real"internet access (to give their kids a chance to have access to more knowledge and research information) don't even get the chance to do so.
So it's critical to the survival of cancer. Something else?
So listening to two different lies is a-ok? If I wanted that, I'd still have a TV and watch Fox and MSNBC news.
For the same reason this is going to hurt other ISPs.
If McD handed out "free" meals, other restaurants would have to shut down or find a way to lower their own prices, essentially having to do the same shit. In the end, you will be left with either only McD to go to or a load of restaurants that offer exactly the same crappy junk because there is simply not enough of a market for quality.