Like I said, the browser locks up all of the time, after coming out of hibernate it loses its network connection, and the interface for the browser seems not so well adapted for a touch interface in that it can't tell the difference between scrolling and clicking some times.
My wife doesn't have a Blackberry, and neither do it. But she's had endless problems with it and occasionally gets quite frustrated with it.
There are days I fear she's going to smash the damned thing.;-)
I for one would definitely have bought a playbook at their initial price
My personal advise... don't.
I bought one for my wife for Christmas through a friend who could get me the $99 employee pricing. The browser crashes a lot, the interface she finds a little clunky in places, and there's really not all that much software for it.
Every time it locks up or otherwise pisses her off, I have to endure the withering glares from her.
Overall, she's somewhat underwhelmed with it. And, judging by their downward spiral of late, it could become abandon-ware.
Don't foist too much of the geeky stuff on them, have fun with it... drinking games!
Every time McCoy says "dammit", everybody drink. Every time Spock says "fascinating", drink. Every time Kirk gets his shirt off, drink. Every time an un-named red-shirt gets killed, drink. Every time Uhura says "scanning all frequencies", drink.
Of course, if you're watching next gen, any time Wesley saves the day, they mention tachyons or other particles with magic properties, or Deanna Troi wears the cheerleader outfit, or Warf drinks prune juice... drink.
But, in the end, maybe just let sleeping dogs lie... your friends may never really appreciate your beloved Trek, and in the end may decide it's not something they like. It isn't everybody's cup of tea.
What happens when google has enough of these flying to actually see you leave your house and know where you go?
And, since this is a company and not the government doing this (which would likely be illegal), what happens when the government decides to demand this data?
This would effectively outsource surveillance of everybody with no pesky laws to get in the way. Everybody wins!
This hurts WP7 users, but is great for developers.
Well, if you burn your goodwill with your users, there's not a hell of a lot of point in having developers -- because nobody will want it.
Anybody who bought one of these phones which is not going to get the upgrade is going to feel rather screwed over by this. Their next phone isn't as likely to be a gamble on Microsoft not pulling out the rug again and dropping those.
Basically it sounds like they're screwing their early adopters.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA) rewrote our surveillance laws, which had generally required a warrant or court order for surveillance of people in the US. Under the FAA, the government can get a year-long programmatic court order for general bulk collection of Americans' international communications without specifying who will be tapped. It is up to the administration to decide that on its own after the fact, without any judicial review. The major requirement is that no particular person in the US should be targeted.
So, it's the warrant-less wiretapping stuff for domestic stuff. FISA is for foreign intelligence.
So she expected you to answer 0.5 == 95% sure, even though it was clearly wrong?!?!?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying... as I said, I had to argue with her and eventually go over her head because I insisted that by applying the reasoning of " (1 - x) * 100 = % certain" I had the right answer, and that given the question saying "0.5", there was no way in hell to arrive at 95% certain.
She insisted that since we didn't cover that specific example in class, it was clearly a typo and I had it wrong. She still left all of the people who had answered by rote (and incorrectly) as having answered the question correctly.
I more or less told her that if that was how she was treating it, she wasn't qualified to teach critical reasoning.
Was this really a professor or a TA?
She was a professor, though I don't believe a tenured one -- she could have just been a 'lecturer'. Not sure where they got her from, but I don't think they brought her back the next year.
At the time, it was completely mind-boggling. I remember explaining my reasoning to her, and she just dug in her heels and said I was wrong. Having to argue reasoning with someone who is supposed to be teaching it is quite sad.
When I went to the department head, he just shook his head and informed her that she was required to change my mark.
Multiple choice, standardized tests don't promote reasoning, just memorization.
You're not kidding.
I took a first year logic/critical reasoning class later in university because I still needed a first year credit and that sounded interesting.
We were talking about confidence intervals... and confidence interval of 0.05 meant you were 95% sure. On the exam, the question asked about a confidence interval of 0.5, which I answered as 50% sure.
The professor marked it wrong, and said that since we'd only covered 0.05 in class, it was a typo -- nobody was expected to know about 0.5. I told her that since it was a class on critical reasoning, she was an idiot and demanded she mark my correct answer as correct. I had to go to the department head to get her to do it.
When the teachers can't follow reasoning, how the hell are they supposed to teach it? In this case, she was expecting blindly repeating the example from class, not doing any thinking (even though as written all of the people she marked right couldn't have been).
1) Why is your opinion so relevant to this discussion? Do you run Columbia Records? You haven't yet given us any reason to believe your opinion is more important than anybody else's.
Quite the opposite... I'm pointing out that when people say "better", it's largely their own damned opinion.
I don't expect anybody to give a flying fsck about what I like better. In the same way, when someone says it's "better", it's the same damned thing, an opinion in most cases. Same goes for your opinion, and everybody else's opinion.
Dude, seriously, get over it... you're welcome to read my opinion and agree with it or not. I'm not even slagging the Zune, I merely asked in which ways it was better since the poster I replied to suggested it was. I said up front I didn't know much about the Zune, and merely pointed at that most of what the poster said was 'better' was a purely subjective measure. As is my own experience with the iPod/iTunes combo. I just don't agree that the features pointed out make it better -- in fact, several of them are features I actively don't want.
So why the hell are you posting here? Or does the fact that you're all butt hurt and disagree with me make your opinion more important than mine? Do you run Columbia records or have anything other than your own opinion to offer?
I'm having a polite discussion about the relative merits of two different products because I'm curious... you're the one acting like a snotty teenage fanboi.
At the end of the day, if you're happy with your Zune, fine. But this is Slashdot, if you haven't figured out by now that people will have differing opinions than you, and that it is possible to talk about it and remain civil... well, then go fuck yourself. Otherwise, have a nice day.
Well, you've asserted a bunch of things without backing them up... how is it inefficient? What's wrong with the UI? What glitches? What formats is it missing support for? It happily pretty much any format I've ever needed to use with it.
You're welcome to your opinion, but don't assert it as fact.
You may be unable to appreciate this, but many of us like it, and don't find it to be as broken or horrible as you seem to be claiming.
Without something to back it up, you are making vague claims about a subjective assessment of it. By all means, provide some objective measure of what you're describing... maybe' you've just decided that Microsoft's "bad" is "normal" for you. At which point the discussion is about as meaningful as if you like blueberries or not -- there's no right or wrong, merely what you like more.
For me, streaming is the opposite of what I want. Between ISPs wanting apply bandwidth caps and additional costs, or being able to play music in my car or wherever I want it, I definitely prefer to own.
Granted, I'm not covered under the definition of "young" here, so it's probably a generational thing.
I still pretty much exclusively get my music on CD, and transfer it to MP3 so I can play it on whatever device I want to.
I have a 2nd Gen Zune device (80Gig), and it's pretty much better than an equivalent iPod Classic in every measurable way... better hardware, better sound, better quality ear-buds, better device UI
Subjective measures all of them, but I'll take your word for it. My iPod is one of the newer generation classics, so I can play movies on it if I want to -- which means all of those digital copies of movies I buy can be played where I want them (and, yes, I know you can do that with Windows as well). I also have the handy dandy cable that lets me play the movie through to a TV, works with my iPad as well.
not that besting iTunes on Windows takes much effort
Again, highly subjective... I've been using the iTunes software for over a decade, and I have no problems with it. In fact, the play counts and ability to create playlists from what are more or less database queries are some of my favorite features -- no idea if Zune has equivalent stuff, but I've got a bunch of playlists that read like "Punk which hasn't been played in less than six months" and make pretty extensive use of those. To me, iTunes is actually pretty nice, but I understand not everyone sees it that way.
Zunes did come with built in FM Tuner that iPods lacked, the "social", the sharing, and ZunePass
I have remarkably little interest in adding 'social' to how I listen to music, so it's not a feature set I care about. Then again, I think social media is highly overrated, and "social" as it applies to music for me means having the stereo on while hanging out with friends. I have no interest whatsoever in Microsoft giving me achievements for listening to music -- that seems kind of pointless, I don't need Microsoft to validate my music listening and I don't care. (iTunes has some social features, but I've turned them all off because I don't care -- I think it's called Ping)
I listen to the radio in the car, and in the shower to get the news and weather -- again, not a feature set I need. I certainly don't listen to music on the radio. I also still buy CDs quite often.
I think Apple went to great lengths to appease the music industry by not making sharing very easy when they were coming out with the original iTunes store. They didn't want there to be a perception it was being used to pirate music.
It gets a further bad rap for having failed in the marketpalce, even though it was a superior solution
Again, highly subjective... for people who didn't want or care about the features you describe, it's merely a different solution. Features I don't want don't make it better for me, but they might make it better for you.
Mostly I remember it for the idiot who got the logo tattooed on his arm and subsequently decided the product was crap.:-P
As with anything, pick the criteria you want, and go with the product that fits. When I started using iPods and iTunes, Windows Media Player was a steaming heap I tried to avoid... and every time I've seen it since I've not been motivated to try it. Most of the things you describe as being better about Zune are features I'm not really interested in.
They didn't so much give up on the Zune, they just gave up on it as a standalone product. It's now a component of the Windows 7 phones, and is actually in a lot of ways superior to the equivalent iPod software.
Out of curiosity, what ways would that be? I've not seen it, so I'm curious to know what features it has the the iTunes/iPod software doesn't have. I'm not personally aware of any features I find to be missing, but that doesn't mean there aren't some interesting things in there. Some people like to do very specific things that I might not even think of.
That said I'm still yet to see any evidence that a market exists for these things when they're not made and marketed by Apple.
This seems to be targeting more the people who need to run office, and need to do a little more daily work on it than other tablets (hence the keyboard). If you truly need to be doing Powerpoint, Word, and other tasks like that, this seems to be a natural fit.
Of course, not everybody does need to be running Office and the like, so it may not be suited for everyone.
Yeah, the "theater experience" is sub par to a low end home theater at home
I mostly agree, but there's usually 1 or 2 movies each year I will see in the theatre. Everything else I get on Blu Ray.
But generally, I prefer to be able to drink a beer, pause the movie for bio breaks, and the other things that watching at home give me. My leather reclining sofa is much more comfortable than the movie theatre -- and I don't need to worry about late comers, idiots who talk or text during the film, and crying children.
If I *do* want to see something in the theatre, I wait until IMDB puts the weekend box office under $7-8 million, and then catch it that week since it's likely to drop off from there. By then the worst of the crush is over and you can usually get a partly empty cinema.
But exhibitors must pay the cost of the additional equipment, and some have wondered how much of a ticket premium they would charge to offset that cost
I sure as hell wouldn't be willing to pay a premium to see this in a higher frame rate. Movie tickets are expensive enough as it is.
I have no doubt that at least some of the movie-going public would do this, but I bet more wouldn't than would.
I'm sure Peter Jackson thinks this is going to make the movie experience oh-so-much better, but I bet most people wouldn't notice the difference, or care.
Despite the popularity of the phrase, it was only said once on the show. This was during episode 11 of season 3 "The Deadliest of the Species". The Robot gave warnings intermittently to Will and the other crew members of the Jupiter 2, in the form of the expressions "Warning!" and "Danger!"
The robot actually did say "warning", a whole lot more than he ever said that.
That makes no sense whatsoever... do you think anybody wanted baby formula with melamine in it? No, some greedy bastard decided to bump up his profit margins by putting what is essentially a toxic filler. (Or are you going to pretend that since it was a Chinese company it could never possibly happen here?)
If everyone had to find out that common goods were essentially toxic on their own, everybody would be dead. If there isn't an agency, namely a government, enforcing product standards and laws we'd all be eating toxic sludge, and driving Ford Pintos which burst into flames on impact, and living in houses that collapse under the first wind that comes along.
Oh, want drinking water... here, have some. Oh, well, sorry about the toluene and other stuff. You should have had it tested at 3 labs. Can't afford the clean stuff? Well, too bad for being poor... us rich folks are doing fine here behind the security fence.
See, the only reason companies are profitable in pure capitalism is because they provide things that people want in ways that they want them
And, pray tell, where is an example of this? An actual working, stable system in which there are no rules yet somehow the invisible hand (when it's not picking your pocket) comes up with optimal solutions to everything? You're talking about an equilibrium that could only be reached after a very long time -- but which has never happened, and which could never happen without someone to force it to happen. Contrary to what you think, it is not a natural outgrowth of anything and nobody actually wants to play by those rules.
What you call pure capitalism is an intellectual abstraction which has never happened. In reality, people will lie, cheat, steal, and otherwise take every opportunity to game the system and fuck everybody else over. And they'll try to do it in such a way as to become the only game in town -- so when your natural monopoly or oligarchy happens, they'll just go back to selling you substandard, dangerous goods to maximize profits.
There isn't, and never has been, a working example of the kind of Libertarian fantasy capitalism you describe. I will go so far as to say what you're describing can't exist, despite a whole lot of people apparently building what amounts to a religion around that very notion. Such a system would turn inwards on itself.
There is not a single thing (outside of government) that I buy that does not improve my standard of living. If they didn't, I wouldn't buy them
You're either lying, self deluded, or so completely unrepresentative of the rest of the populace as to be a cloistered monk living in a cave. People make imperfect choices, for irrational reasons, based on incomplete data.
Ever bought gum? Soda? Alcohol? Cheezits? A t-shirt which says something cool? A second pair of pants? These are things which people like, and enjoy, but which don't actually improve the standard of living. They give you some form of pleasure or perceived status. Take an inventory of your stuff, and ask yourself if every item truly improves your standard of living. I think you might come to realize that it's not quite so cut and dry as you think it is.
You're describing a form of anarcho capitalism which will eventually turn into the strong preying on the weak, and corporations/criminal organizations (same thing really) running the show with extortion rackets. It would be like Mad Max... want to try it out? Go to Mogadishu where there is nobody to look out for the rules and attempt to keep people safe.
I sincerely hope you don't find yourself harmed or injured by a product that was built shoddy or downright dangerously. But if it ever happens, remember, the logical conclusion of w
They're fighting against having to spend the time to do this all the time and the associated costs.
Undoubtedly, they get fairly constant levels of requests for this information, which they need to expend a lot of resources getting the information.
I would be skeptical about them doing it for customers... but it might just be convenient to use that as a legal argument to get them off the hook for paying the costs of policing the internet for the rights holders; all of whom believe it should be the ISPs footing the cost of this.
Not sure about the current stuff, but I remember way back in the early days of Linux, if you set up your X config incorrectly you could actually fry video cards by feeding them values they couldn't happen.
It is conceivable, though how likely I have no idea, that the Linux drivers caused the damage. Unfortunately, they might hide behind that and say "you can't prove you didn't break it".
I was trying to avoid sounding like "ZOMG, teh Micro$oft is teh evil"
But, yes, generally partnering with them means they milk you for all the subject knowledge they can get, and then build a competing product after a few years.
I worked for a company who was a strategic partner with Microsoft. They suck you dry and leave and then you now have them as a competitor... Which, depending on the product can take a while to catch up, but they keep grinding at it.
This leaves Microsoft partners where Microsoft partners have always been... Useful right up until Microsoft decides to steal your lunch, and go it alone.
They have done this numerous times and will continue to do so. Partnering with them has always been a two edged sword.
But not me... I usually use a prominent "You need to install Flash" as a cue to hit the back button.
I have no doubt that there are sites that loads of people use that are heavy on Flash. I'm aware of the technology, and I'm not saying that others don't use it or that they shouldn't be allowed to.
I'm saying I, personally, do not install it on any machine I control, and generally think it's a nuisance. If I hit a site which requires Flash, I leave. I've yet to find a compelling enough reason to make me want to install Flash, but I've found plenty of compelling reasons to uninstall it or block flash on web pages.
It's also something I've treated as a giant security hole for the last decade. The fact that they're sandboxing it tells me nothing has changed.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, wonder why you are having better luck.
Like I said, the browser locks up all of the time, after coming out of hibernate it loses its network connection, and the interface for the browser seems not so well adapted for a touch interface in that it can't tell the difference between scrolling and clicking some times.
My wife doesn't have a Blackberry, and neither do it. But she's had endless problems with it and occasionally gets quite frustrated with it.
There are days I fear she's going to smash the damned thing. ;-)
My personal advise ... don't.
I bought one for my wife for Christmas through a friend who could get me the $99 employee pricing. The browser crashes a lot, the interface she finds a little clunky in places, and there's really not all that much software for it.
Every time it locks up or otherwise pisses her off, I have to endure the withering glares from her.
Overall, she's somewhat underwhelmed with it. And, judging by their downward spiral of late, it could become abandon-ware.
Don't foist too much of the geeky stuff on them, have fun with it ... drinking games!
Every time McCoy says "dammit", everybody drink. Every time Spock says "fascinating", drink. Every time Kirk gets his shirt off, drink. Every time an un-named red-shirt gets killed, drink. Every time Uhura says "scanning all frequencies", drink.
Of course, if you're watching next gen, any time Wesley saves the day, they mention tachyons or other particles with magic properties, or Deanna Troi wears the cheerleader outfit, or Warf drinks prune juice ... drink.
But, in the end, maybe just let sleeping dogs lie ... your friends may never really appreciate your beloved Trek, and in the end may decide it's not something they like. It isn't everybody's cup of tea.
And, since this is a company and not the government doing this (which would likely be illegal), what happens when the government decides to demand this data?
This would effectively outsource surveillance of everybody with no pesky laws to get in the way. Everybody wins!
Well, if you burn your goodwill with your users, there's not a hell of a lot of point in having developers -- because nobody will want it.
Anybody who bought one of these phones which is not going to get the upgrade is going to feel rather screwed over by this. Their next phone isn't as likely to be a gamble on Microsoft not pulling out the rug again and dropping those.
Basically it sounds like they're screwing their early adopters.
Nope, it's FISA Amendments Act.
So, it's the warrant-less wiretapping stuff for domestic stuff. FISA is for foreign intelligence.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying ... as I said, I had to argue with her and eventually go over her head because I insisted that by applying the reasoning of " (1 - x) * 100 = % certain" I had the right answer, and that given the question saying "0.5", there was no way in hell to arrive at 95% certain.
She insisted that since we didn't cover that specific example in class, it was clearly a typo and I had it wrong. She still left all of the people who had answered by rote (and incorrectly) as having answered the question correctly.
I more or less told her that if that was how she was treating it, she wasn't qualified to teach critical reasoning.
She was a professor, though I don't believe a tenured one -- she could have just been a 'lecturer'. Not sure where they got her from, but I don't think they brought her back the next year.
At the time, it was completely mind-boggling. I remember explaining my reasoning to her, and she just dug in her heels and said I was wrong. Having to argue reasoning with someone who is supposed to be teaching it is quite sad.
When I went to the department head, he just shook his head and informed her that she was required to change my mark.
You're not kidding.
I took a first year logic/critical reasoning class later in university because I still needed a first year credit and that sounded interesting.
We were talking about confidence intervals ... and confidence interval of 0.05 meant you were 95% sure. On the exam, the question asked about a confidence interval of 0.5, which I answered as 50% sure.
The professor marked it wrong, and said that since we'd only covered 0.05 in class, it was a typo -- nobody was expected to know about 0.5. I told her that since it was a class on critical reasoning, she was an idiot and demanded she mark my correct answer as correct. I had to go to the department head to get her to do it.
When the teachers can't follow reasoning, how the hell are they supposed to teach it? In this case, she was expecting blindly repeating the example from class, not doing any thinking (even though as written all of the people she marked right couldn't have been).
Are you this much of an asshole in real life, or just on Slashdot?
Quite the opposite ... I'm pointing out that when people say "better", it's largely their own damned opinion.
I don't expect anybody to give a flying fsck about what I like better. In the same way, when someone says it's "better", it's the same damned thing, an opinion in most cases. Same goes for your opinion, and everybody else's opinion.
Dude, seriously, get over it ... you're welcome to read my opinion and agree with it or not. I'm not even slagging the Zune, I merely asked in which ways it was better since the poster I replied to suggested it was. I said up front I didn't know much about the Zune, and merely pointed at that most of what the poster said was 'better' was a purely subjective measure. As is my own experience with the iPod/iTunes combo. I just don't agree that the features pointed out make it better -- in fact, several of them are features I actively don't want.
So why the hell are you posting here? Or does the fact that you're all butt hurt and disagree with me make your opinion more important than mine? Do you run Columbia records or have anything other than your own opinion to offer?
I'm having a polite discussion about the relative merits of two different products because I'm curious ... you're the one acting like a snotty teenage fanboi.
At the end of the day, if you're happy with your Zune, fine. But this is Slashdot, if you haven't figured out by now that people will have differing opinions than you, and that it is possible to talk about it and remain civil ... well, then go fuck yourself. Otherwise, have a nice day.
Well, you've asserted a bunch of things without backing them up ... how is it inefficient? What's wrong with the UI? What glitches? What formats is it missing support for? It happily pretty much any format I've ever needed to use with it.
You're welcome to your opinion, but don't assert it as fact.
You may be unable to appreciate this, but many of us like it, and don't find it to be as broken or horrible as you seem to be claiming.
Without something to back it up, you are making vague claims about a subjective assessment of it. By all means, provide some objective measure of what you're describing ... maybe' you've just decided that Microsoft's "bad" is "normal" for you. At which point the discussion is about as meaningful as if you like blueberries or not -- there's no right or wrong, merely what you like more.
For me, streaming is the opposite of what I want. Between ISPs wanting apply bandwidth caps and additional costs, or being able to play music in my car or wherever I want it, I definitely prefer to own.
Granted, I'm not covered under the definition of "young" here, so it's probably a generational thing.
I still pretty much exclusively get my music on CD, and transfer it to MP3 so I can play it on whatever device I want to.
I'm definitely in the "own not rent" camp.
Subjective measures all of them, but I'll take your word for it. My iPod is one of the newer generation classics, so I can play movies on it if I want to -- which means all of those digital copies of movies I buy can be played where I want them (and, yes, I know you can do that with Windows as well). I also have the handy dandy cable that lets me play the movie through to a TV, works with my iPad as well.
Again, highly subjective ... I've been using the iTunes software for over a decade, and I have no problems with it. In fact, the play counts and ability to create playlists from what are more or less database queries are some of my favorite features -- no idea if Zune has equivalent stuff, but I've got a bunch of playlists that read like "Punk which hasn't been played in less than six months" and make pretty extensive use of those. To me, iTunes is actually pretty nice, but I understand not everyone sees it that way.
I have remarkably little interest in adding 'social' to how I listen to music, so it's not a feature set I care about. Then again, I think social media is highly overrated, and "social" as it applies to music for me means having the stereo on while hanging out with friends. I have no interest whatsoever in Microsoft giving me achievements for listening to music -- that seems kind of pointless, I don't need Microsoft to validate my music listening and I don't care. (iTunes has some social features, but I've turned them all off because I don't care -- I think it's called Ping)
I listen to the radio in the car, and in the shower to get the news and weather -- again, not a feature set I need. I certainly don't listen to music on the radio. I also still buy CDs quite often.
I think Apple went to great lengths to appease the music industry by not making sharing very easy when they were coming out with the original iTunes store. They didn't want there to be a perception it was being used to pirate music.
Again, highly subjective ... for people who didn't want or care about the features you describe, it's merely a different solution. Features I don't want don't make it better for me, but they might make it better for you.
Mostly I remember it for the idiot who got the logo tattooed on his arm and subsequently decided the product was crap. :-P
As with anything, pick the criteria you want, and go with the product that fits. When I started using iPods and iTunes, Windows Media Player was a steaming heap I tried to avoid ... and every time I've seen it since I've not been motivated to try it. Most of the things you describe as being better about Zune are features I'm not really interested in.
Out of curiosity, what ways would that be? I've not seen it, so I'm curious to know what features it has the the iTunes/iPod software doesn't have. I'm not personally aware of any features I find to be missing, but that doesn't mean there aren't some interesting things in there. Some people like to do very specific things that I might not even think of.
This seems to be targeting more the people who need to run office, and need to do a little more daily work on it than other tablets (hence the keyboard). If you truly need to be doing Powerpoint, Word, and other tasks like that, this seems to be a natural fit.
Of course, not everybody does need to be running Office and the like, so it may not be suited for everyone.
I mostly agree, but there's usually 1 or 2 movies each year I will see in the theatre. Everything else I get on Blu Ray.
But generally, I prefer to be able to drink a beer, pause the movie for bio breaks, and the other things that watching at home give me. My leather reclining sofa is much more comfortable than the movie theatre -- and I don't need to worry about late comers, idiots who talk or text during the film, and crying children.
If I *do* want to see something in the theatre, I wait until IMDB puts the weekend box office under $7-8 million, and then catch it that week since it's likely to drop off from there. By then the worst of the crush is over and you can usually get a partly empty cinema.
I sure as hell wouldn't be willing to pay a premium to see this in a higher frame rate. Movie tickets are expensive enough as it is.
I have no doubt that at least some of the movie-going public would do this, but I bet more wouldn't than would.
I'm sure Peter Jackson thinks this is going to make the movie experience oh-so-much better, but I bet most people wouldn't notice the difference, or care.
Or not ..., according to wiki
The robot actually did say "warning", a whole lot more than he ever said that.
That makes no sense whatsoever ... do you think anybody wanted baby formula with melamine in it? No, some greedy bastard decided to bump up his profit margins by putting what is essentially a toxic filler. (Or are you going to pretend that since it was a Chinese company it could never possibly happen here?)
If everyone had to find out that common goods were essentially toxic on their own, everybody would be dead. If there isn't an agency, namely a government, enforcing product standards and laws we'd all be eating toxic sludge, and driving Ford Pintos which burst into flames on impact, and living in houses that collapse under the first wind that comes along.
Oh, want drinking water ... here, have some. Oh, well, sorry about the toluene and other stuff. You should have had it tested at 3 labs. Can't afford the clean stuff? Well, too bad for being poor ... us rich folks are doing fine here behind the security fence.
And, pray tell, where is an example of this? An actual working, stable system in which there are no rules yet somehow the invisible hand (when it's not picking your pocket) comes up with optimal solutions to everything? You're talking about an equilibrium that could only be reached after a very long time -- but which has never happened, and which could never happen without someone to force it to happen. Contrary to what you think, it is not a natural outgrowth of anything and nobody actually wants to play by those rules.
What you call pure capitalism is an intellectual abstraction which has never happened. In reality, people will lie, cheat, steal, and otherwise take every opportunity to game the system and fuck everybody else over. And they'll try to do it in such a way as to become the only game in town -- so when your natural monopoly or oligarchy happens, they'll just go back to selling you substandard, dangerous goods to maximize profits.
There isn't, and never has been, a working example of the kind of Libertarian fantasy capitalism you describe. I will go so far as to say what you're describing can't exist, despite a whole lot of people apparently building what amounts to a religion around that very notion. Such a system would turn inwards on itself.
You're either lying, self deluded, or so completely unrepresentative of the rest of the populace as to be a cloistered monk living in a cave. People make imperfect choices, for irrational reasons, based on incomplete data.
Ever bought gum? Soda? Alcohol? Cheezits? A t-shirt which says something cool? A second pair of pants? These are things which people like, and enjoy, but which don't actually improve the standard of living. They give you some form of pleasure or perceived status. Take an inventory of your stuff, and ask yourself if every item truly improves your standard of living. I think you might come to realize that it's not quite so cut and dry as you think it is.
You're describing a form of anarcho capitalism which will eventually turn into the strong preying on the weak, and corporations/criminal organizations (same thing really) running the show with extortion rackets. It would be like Mad Max ... want to try it out? Go to Mogadishu where there is nobody to look out for the rules and attempt to keep people safe.
I sincerely hope you don't find yourself harmed or injured by a product that was built shoddy or downright dangerously. But if it ever happens, remember, the logical conclusion of w
They're fighting against having to spend the time to do this all the time and the associated costs.
Undoubtedly, they get fairly constant levels of requests for this information, which they need to expend a lot of resources getting the information.
I would be skeptical about them doing it for customers ... but it might just be convenient to use that as a legal argument to get them off the hook for paying the costs of policing the internet for the rights holders; all of whom believe it should be the ISPs footing the cost of this.
I would guess porn.
Or do you want to know the titles in case you're missing something good?
Not sure about the current stuff, but I remember way back in the early days of Linux, if you set up your X config incorrectly you could actually fry video cards by feeding them values they couldn't happen.
It is conceivable, though how likely I have no idea, that the Linux drivers caused the damage. Unfortunately, they might hide behind that and say "you can't prove you didn't break it".
I was trying to avoid sounding like "ZOMG, teh Micro$oft is teh evil"
But, yes, generally partnering with them means they milk you for all the subject knowledge they can get, and then build a competing product after a few years.
I worked for a company who was a strategic partner with Microsoft. They suck you dry and leave and then you now have them as a competitor ... Which, depending on the product can take a while to catch up, but they keep grinding at it.
Sadly I bet there's quite a few examples of this.
This leaves Microsoft partners where Microsoft partners have always been ... Useful right up until Microsoft decides to steal your lunch, and go it alone.
They have done this numerous times and will continue to do so. Partnering with them has always been a two edged sword.
But not me ... I usually use a prominent "You need to install Flash" as a cue to hit the back button.
I have no doubt that there are sites that loads of people use that are heavy on Flash. I'm aware of the technology, and I'm not saying that others don't use it or that they shouldn't be allowed to.
I'm saying I, personally, do not install it on any machine I control, and generally think it's a nuisance. If I hit a site which requires Flash, I leave. I've yet to find a compelling enough reason to make me want to install Flash, but I've found plenty of compelling reasons to uninstall it or block flash on web pages.
It's also something I've treated as a giant security hole for the last decade. The fact that they're sandboxing it tells me nothing has changed.
Vada A Bordo, Cazzo!