No, streaming netflix often does NOT have the huge classic movies. It does have some really good stuff on it though, and stuff that changes, so you sometimes do find the big movies. It's got a lot of TV shows (HD quality often) very frequently, a lot of children's material, and also a lot of (for lack of a better word) eclectic stuff on it. I've watched a ton of Werner Herzog films (may not be your thing, but I enjoyed seeing them).
But no, if you're looking to rewatch only blockbusters on streaming, it's probably not for you.
..the problem is that ISPs have been selling us the "bandwidth" to do this kind of activity for years. Bandwidth is in quotes because "back in the day" if you actually used the bandwidth you were paying for, they suspended your account as the likely reason for a residential user to draw any serious transfer was piracy.
Just so we're clear, what you're doing is blatantly generalizing. I've been on the Internet in some form or the other since about 1990. I've used probably dozens of ISPs and in multiple states, and I have never once had my account shut down or limited due to bandwidth usage. In fact I don't even remember ever hearing about this as a problem!
Sure if you've got comcast I understand they're doing it. I would not use comcast for this reason. But to claim that the problem is more widespread than it is (or at least WAS more widespread than it was then) is wrong.
I don't see it that way at all. We have a system that has both proportional and at-large federal representation (though originally this was supposed to be direct representation and state government representation). We've got a large variety of types local representation from judges, to state legislatures, dog catchers, and so on. It's a system that has survived ~250 years in pretty much the same form.
If somebody wants to completely overhaul this system, I think there should be a pretty good reason why!
Ok, I can see where you're coming from, an I agree with some of what you say. I personally don't feel that any of these fancier more elaborate voting systems are a positive, so we differ on that.
If there was one thing I would change, I would try to change gerrymandering.
What many of us really want in our government is our personal opinion and political views represented more clearly and like our own.
Well of COURSE most people want their own opinions to be the only ones in power. I would love it if I had complete and total control and congress voted in lockstep with me. That's not going to happen. I personally find the moderating influence of two behemoth parties not to be that bad a thing. And since you haven't even attempted to argue that on any measurable scale hugely split systems are any more effective, any better, or even any more POPULAR, I don't see the point.
And its not like Germany, Israel, and many other of the prop rep governments go into political deadlocks all the time and have their government shutdown.
I would find that situation ideal.
As another poster said, look at the range of political ideas within one party. What does Ron Paul have in common with many Republicans or Heath Shuler with Pelosi? And so on. Look at the support being given to "3rd party" or write-in candidates in places like Colorado and Alaska. It's rare that a senator wins election via write-ins, but it happens!
For that matter look at how many states are red presidential, have blue governors, split house, split state chambers, etc. An awful lot of states all across the country! This just lends evidence to the fact that people don't vote parties, they vote individuals.
Once you get over partisanship, you realize it's the pot calling the kettle black! There may be some few differences between Democrat and Republican politicians/politicos, but how they act and whine ain't one of them.
I completely agree, and I definitely think there is collusion going on. I worked with a small independent book publisher that created some middle school science text books in the 1990s. The amount of outright corruption in the state adoption process (gifts to teachers, donations, etc) by the multinational corporations was horrifying (and to me, unexpected). I guess I was less cynical then.
I can definitely see the need for something that doesn't have Internet capabilities, I just think it's outrageous that a calculator costs $100+ today...
Hmmm.. that's an interesting case. Personally the thing I hate the most about TI calculators is they're so damn expensive. With Droids, iPhones, tablets, cellphones all so powerful now, it's CRAZY to spend $100+ on a calculator like that.
I think when I was in highschool we had to get a TI-82/83 or equivalent graphing calculator for some classes (which basically meant...TI-82/83). I don't really remember if it was mandated, but I do remember the school having loaner calculators for those who couldn't afford them.
That clearly falls on the distributor, and Best Buy would clearly be responsible
I don't think so. The important language as I see it is "or can get the source code." I don't believe that means that you have to be able to "get the source code" FROM a specific party. As long as it's available... Also I think the clause (I think it was (b) ?) that said a program can come with a message about how to get the source code satisfies the requirement...
once the user has purchased it they must be able to freely copy and distribute it as they wish under the guidelines of the GPL. DRM prevents that by design, and is therefore incompatible with the GPL
What's unclear to me about the rest of your argument hinges on this point, and clause 6. GPLv3 very clear states that DRM/app store types situations are a no-go. I assumed they added this to fix what they saw as a deficiency in GPLv2. Clause 6 in GPLv2 -- is that satisfied by the complete availability of source code? (and presumably, build scripts, project files, etc -- enough to create the same binary being distributed). I think you could make the argument that clause 6 *is* satisfied by (for instance) the release of the complete Xcode project (source code, resources, etc) of an iOS app. It does seem that FSF takes the opposite position...
It's unclear to me if clause 6 (what you're referring to, I assume?) kicks in here. If the source code is fully open, does that satisfy the requirements?
I don't think that's true. If a work is GPLed, what's stopping me from selling a binary that I say can't be shared? Anything? I absolutely DO have to share the source...
Having read a good bit more since I first posted, I'm even more convinced now that your point of view is completely wrong. See for example this VLC developer: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850340 (as cited elsewhere in this article discussion)
Why your points are wrong:
1) APPLE is the distributor; THEY have to offer the source
So by this standard, if Best Buy sells any GPLed software, they are the ones responsible for providing the source code? Don't forget that the GPL explicitly says that source and binary do not have to be packaged, distributed, or sold together! I think this is clearly wrong, not in the spirit of the GPL, and further, demonstrably wrong.
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software... [and] that you receive source code or can get it if you want it...
For exactly why you're wrong, check out section 3 (you could even CHARGE for mailing someone the source code, and that would be ok!). That's why Apple and Best Buy don't have the obligation you thought they did. Additionally, from a purely practical standpoint, think how impossible it would be for Apple and all other distributors to comply with every random license in such a way...
2) And impose no further restrictions.
With regards to the GPLv2 (the license that applies to vlc) what are you talking about specifically? I'm not sure, but I'm willing to concede this might be an issue if you can tell me what clause is the problem?
I vote because I get some personal enjoyment out of it, but really, when has an individual vote ever mattered? Almost never. You could vote your entire life or never vote your entire life and chances are, nothing would be the slightest bit different.
A friend once cited a study or some such to me that showed you were more likely to be hit by a car on the way to your polling place than to have your vote make a difference.
Voluntary until schools start handing out iPads and mandating that students use them. I doubt that there will be an exception to the restrictions for students who are required to use iPads.
Yes, and that's STILL voluntary because nobody is forcing the schools to use iPads, nor forcing students to go to those schools that do, nor forcing students to only use iPads.
If one day schools are mandated to use iPads and students are forced to buy them, yeah, I would fight that, but I don't see that happening. Then again I guess some schools already mandate that you own a Windows laptop... (or at least, have mandated this in the past) ~shrug~
Something like that. You can buy an App and use it on multiple of YOUR devices (ie, iPod, iPhone, and iPad -- not sure the number, but they have to be "authorized" to your account), however since Apple doesn't allow binary distribution except through the app store, you cannot distribute it to anybody else.
It's just like how in iTunes Apple used to limit your aac files to being used on 3 computers, then on 5 computers, then any number.
I would like to believe a similar trajectory would happen here, but I'm not betting on it. Hopefully DRM free is at least an option one day...
FSF isn't keeping VLC out of the mainstream - Apple makes a point of not being "main-stream." Many of the people who buy Apple would shrivel up in horror if they ever thought their i{$WHATEVER} was mainstream.
You really think so?
You must not have been to an Apple store or college campus lately...
It seems to me that that would operate in parallel to the GPL though?
Apple does not grant you the right to modify / distribute the VLC binary. Is that a problem in gplv2?
However, nothing is stopping (AFAIK) vlc from providing the exact iOS vlc source code and distributing that--in fact it should be required? Anybody can modify that source code, and distribute that source code. Anybody can NOT compile it and run it on their iPhone. That requires either jailbreak or $100/year. Is that a GPLv2 problem? I didn't think it was, but I'm definitely not sure.
Today, a formal notification of copyright infringement was sent to Apple Inc. regarding distribution of the VLC media player for iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch. VLC media player is free software licensed solely under the terms of the open source GNU General Public License (a.k.a. GPL). Those terms are contradicted by the products usage rules of the AppStore through which Apple delivers applications to users of its mobile devices.
What exactly is the problem, ie, how exactly is Apple infringing?
I read both the VLC article and the linked to post about GNU Go and I'm unclear how exactly this works. I believe the complaint being made is that Apple does not guarantee that any/all software will be made available (FSF: http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance) on the App store.
I'm by no means a GPL expert, but I thought that the "distribution" terms (at least in v2) were about the source code, and I don't believe this is contradicted by App store terms? Can't the VLC developers post the source code to their iOS app, thus satisfying the distribution requirement? Does the dist requirement apply to binaries (and the ability of other non-developer / non-jailbreak users to actually RUN the binaries)? Anybody with more gpl knowledge care to chime in?
Anyway, given that developers have to know and agree to the App store terms before submitting apps, wouldn't it be the developers who caused the infringement (FSF seems to say this)? Though I guess copyright is strict liability...
Slashdot Mirror
No, streaming netflix often does NOT have the huge classic movies. It does have some really good stuff on it though, and stuff that changes, so you sometimes do find the big movies. It's got a lot of TV shows (HD quality often) very frequently, a lot of children's material, and also a lot of (for lack of a better word) eclectic stuff on it. I've watched a ton of Werner Herzog films (may not be your thing, but I enjoyed seeing them).
But no, if you're looking to rewatch only blockbusters on streaming, it's probably not for you.
..the problem is that ISPs have been selling us the "bandwidth" to do this kind of activity for years. Bandwidth is in quotes because "back in the day" if you actually used the bandwidth you were paying for, they suspended your account as the likely reason for a residential user to draw any serious transfer was piracy.
Just so we're clear, what you're doing is blatantly generalizing. I've been on the Internet in some form or the other since about 1990. I've used probably dozens of ISPs and in multiple states, and I have never once had my account shut down or limited due to bandwidth usage. In fact I don't even remember ever hearing about this as a problem!
Sure if you've got comcast I understand they're doing it. I would not use comcast for this reason. But to claim that the problem is more widespread than it is (or at least WAS more widespread than it was then) is wrong.
I don't see it that way at all. We have a system that has both proportional and at-large federal representation (though originally this was supposed to be direct representation and state government representation). We've got a large variety of types local representation from judges, to state legislatures, dog catchers, and so on. It's a system that has survived ~250 years in pretty much the same form.
If somebody wants to completely overhaul this system, I think there should be a pretty good reason why!
I'm really curious though, about what kind of things you're thinking of? Don't have to get too specific or anything, just rough thoughts?
Ok, I can see where you're coming from, an I agree with some of what you say. I personally don't feel that any of these fancier more elaborate voting systems are a positive, so we differ on that.
If there was one thing I would change, I would try to change gerrymandering.
What kind of controls would you suggest?
What many of us really want in our government is our personal opinion and political views represented more clearly and like our own.
Well of COURSE most people want their own opinions to be the only ones in power. I would love it if I had complete and total control and congress voted in lockstep with me. That's not going to happen. I personally find the moderating influence of two behemoth parties not to be that bad a thing. And since you haven't even attempted to argue that on any measurable scale hugely split systems are any more effective, any better, or even any more POPULAR, I don't see the point.
And its not like Germany, Israel, and many other of the prop rep governments go into political deadlocks all the time and have their government shutdown.
I would find that situation ideal.
As another poster said, look at the range of political ideas within one party. What does Ron Paul have in common with many Republicans or Heath Shuler with Pelosi? And so on. Look at the support being given to "3rd party" or write-in candidates in places like Colorado and Alaska. It's rare that a senator wins election via write-ins, but it happens!
For that matter look at how many states are red presidential, have blue governors, split house, split state chambers, etc. An awful lot of states all across the country! This just lends evidence to the fact that people don't vote parties, they vote individuals.
No, you've just shown that in some countries, 3rd (or 4th, 5th, etc) parties can get into government. Absolutely this is true.
But the question is, does this make the quality of government better?
Which sounds so familiar from 2004?
Once you get over partisanship, you realize it's the pot calling the kettle black! There may be some few differences between Democrat and Republican politicians/politicos, but how they act and whine ain't one of them.
I guess the question in--is there any evidence that any of these voting schemes create better results? Is the quality of governance any better?
It's like almost everybody says "get out the vote!" -- "it's important for EVERYONE to vote," and so on.
Well, is it really? Are there better electoral outcomes if everybody votes?
Personally, I'm all for systems of government that tend to be narrowly divided and can switch back and forth frequently. Less shit gets done.
I completely agree, and I definitely think there is collusion going on. I worked with a small independent book publisher that created some middle school science text books in the 1990s. The amount of outright corruption in the state adoption process (gifts to teachers, donations, etc) by the multinational corporations was horrifying (and to me, unexpected). I guess I was less cynical then.
I can definitely see the need for something that doesn't have Internet capabilities, I just think it's outrageous that a calculator costs $100+ today...
KOffice and WordPerfect seem to work just fine for me
It would be really nice if WordPerfect could support unicode... Last time I checked it STILL didn't.
Hmmm.. that's an interesting case. Personally the thing I hate the most about TI calculators is they're so damn expensive. With Droids, iPhones, tablets, cellphones all so powerful now, it's CRAZY to spend $100+ on a calculator like that.
I think when I was in highschool we had to get a TI-82/83 or equivalent graphing calculator for some classes (which basically meant...TI-82/83). I don't really remember if it was mandated, but I do remember the school having loaner calculators for those who couldn't afford them.
That is very annoying.
If a public school adopts Apple iProducts, then state compulsory education laws require students to use the devices.
So what's an example of a public school that forces students to buy iPads / whatever?
I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying I don't know about them?
That clearly falls on the distributor, and Best Buy would clearly be responsible
I don't think so. The important language as I see it is "or can get the source code." I don't believe that means that you have to be able to "get the source code" FROM a specific party. As long as it's available... Also I think the clause (I think it was (b) ?) that said a program can come with a message about how to get the source code satisfies the requirement...
once the user has purchased it they must be able to freely copy and distribute it as they wish under the guidelines of the GPL. DRM prevents that by design, and is therefore incompatible with the GPL
What's unclear to me about the rest of your argument hinges on this point, and clause 6. GPLv3 very clear states that DRM/app store types situations are a no-go. I assumed they added this to fix what they saw as a deficiency in GPLv2. Clause 6 in GPLv2 -- is that satisfied by the complete availability of source code? (and presumably, build scripts, project files, etc -- enough to create the same binary being distributed). I think you could make the argument that clause 6 *is* satisfied by (for instance) the release of the complete Xcode project (source code, resources, etc) of an iOS app. It does seem that FSF takes the opposite position...
It's unclear to me if clause 6 (what you're referring to, I assume?) kicks in here. If the source code is fully open, does that satisfy the requirements?
I don't think that's true. If a work is GPLed, what's stopping me from selling a binary that I say can't be shared? Anything? I absolutely DO have to share the source...
Having read a good bit more since I first posted, I'm even more convinced now that your point of view is completely wrong. See for example this VLC developer: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1850340 (as cited elsewhere in this article discussion)
Why your points are wrong:
1) APPLE is the distributor; THEY have to offer the source
So by this standard, if Best Buy sells any GPLed software, they are the ones responsible for providing the source code? Don't forget that the GPL explicitly says that source and binary do not have to be packaged, distributed, or sold together! I think this is clearly wrong, not in the spirit of the GPL, and further, demonstrably wrong.
Check out GPLv2: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html The preamble explicitly states:
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software ... [and] that you receive source code or can get it if you want it...
For exactly why you're wrong, check out section 3 (you could even CHARGE for mailing someone the source code, and that would be ok!). That's why Apple and Best Buy don't have the obligation you thought they did.
Additionally, from a purely practical standpoint, think how impossible it would be for Apple and all other distributors to comply with every random license in such a way...
2) And impose no further restrictions.
With regards to the GPLv2 (the license that applies to vlc) what are you talking about specifically? I'm not sure, but I'm willing to concede this might be an issue if you can tell me what clause is the problem?
So I take it you're not going to vote any more ...
I vote because I get some personal enjoyment out of it, but really, when has an individual vote ever mattered? Almost never. You could vote your entire life or never vote your entire life and chances are, nothing would be the slightest bit different.
A friend once cited a study or some such to me that showed you were more likely to be hit by a car on the way to your polling place than to have your vote make a difference.
Voluntary until schools start handing out iPads and mandating that students use them. I doubt that there will be an exception to the restrictions for students who are required to use iPads.
Yes, and that's STILL voluntary because nobody is forcing the schools to use iPads, nor forcing students to go to those schools that do, nor forcing students to only use iPads.
If one day schools are mandated to use iPads and students are forced to buy them, yeah, I would fight that, but I don't see that happening. Then again I guess some schools already mandate that you own a Windows laptop... (or at least, have mandated this in the past) ~shrug~
Something like that. You can buy an App and use it on multiple of YOUR devices (ie, iPod, iPhone, and iPad -- not sure the number, but they have to be "authorized" to your account), however since Apple doesn't allow binary distribution except through the app store, you cannot distribute it to anybody else.
It's just like how in iTunes Apple used to limit your aac files to being used on 3 computers, then on 5 computers, then any number.
I would like to believe a similar trajectory would happen here, but I'm not betting on it. Hopefully DRM free is at least an option one day...
FSF isn't keeping VLC out of the mainstream - Apple makes a point of not being "main-stream." Many of the people who buy Apple would shrivel up in horror if they ever thought their i{$WHATEVER} was mainstream.
You really think so?
You must not have been to an Apple store or college campus lately...
But that preamble is from GPLv3, and vlc is under GPLv2. I don't think there's a similar statement in GPLv2.
http://www.videolan.org/support/faq.html
It seems to me that that would operate in parallel to the GPL though?
Apple does not grant you the right to modify / distribute the VLC binary. Is that a problem in gplv2?
However, nothing is stopping (AFAIK) vlc from providing the exact iOS vlc source code and distributing that--in fact it should be required? Anybody can modify that source code, and distribute that source code. Anybody can NOT compile it and run it on their iPhone. That requires either jailbreak or $100/year. Is that a GPLv2 problem? I didn't think it was, but I'm definitely not sure.
Today, a formal notification of copyright infringement
was sent to Apple Inc. regarding distribution of the VLC media player for
iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch. VLC media player is free software licensed
solely under the terms of the open source GNU General Public License
(a.k.a. GPL). Those terms are contradicted by the products usage rules of
the AppStore through which Apple delivers applications to users of its
mobile devices.
What exactly is the problem, ie, how exactly is Apple infringing?
I read both the VLC article and the linked to post about GNU Go and I'm unclear how exactly this works. I believe the complaint being made is that Apple does not guarantee that any/all software will be made available (FSF: http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance) on the App store.
I'm by no means a GPL expert, but I thought that the "distribution" terms (at least in v2) were about the source code, and I don't believe this is contradicted by App store terms? Can't the VLC developers post the source code to their iOS app, thus satisfying the distribution requirement? Does the dist requirement apply to binaries (and the ability of other non-developer / non-jailbreak users to actually RUN the binaries)? Anybody with more gpl knowledge care to chime in?
Anyway, given that developers have to know and agree to the App store terms before submitting apps, wouldn't it be the developers who caused the infringement (FSF seems to say this)? Though I guess copyright is strict liability...