I'm not going to move from the house I bought and paid for so I can get more options for ISPs. Maybe other people were willing to go that far (or maybe they were moving anyway, and decided they should factor in the number ISPs available in a given area), but I'm not.
This just seems like more nerd entitlement syndrome to me. It's Hollywood's content, not yours.
Entitlement? So, criticizing a company means you're entitled? You're holding a gun to their head and demanding they change their ways, or saying that you deserve everything? If not, then there is no entitlement; just criticism. If you think criticizing a company for its actions means you have "nerd entitlement syndrome," then you're a god damned idiot, and your definition of "entitlement" is completely worthless. I'm tired of people abusing these terms and using them to describe anyone who says anything they don't like about a company.
As for whether it's "Hollywood's content," I don't believe you can own content, although they certainly try. Problem is, it's not working out for them, and no matter how much people cry and scream, it will never work out. If Hulu is going to kick people off for using VPNs, many of those people will likely just find alternatives, 'legitimate' or not.
These license terms are not "reasonable," and nor is the enforcement; they're arbitrary and detrimental. It's usually scumbag copyright holders that force them to do this type of thing to begin with. One thing you can't do is call this stupid shit "reasonable."
There is no conspiracy
Almost every single time that's said about some giant company or government, it turns out to be wrong.
A better thing to do would be to not use Hulu; problem solved.
Re:And people will just bend over too.
on
Hulu Blocks VPN Users
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Right. I'll just drop Comcast and switch to the other ISP with decent speeds in my area: Comcast.
Well, the situation is most certainly not the same with Hulu. It's trivial to find another place to watch such videos, 'legitimate' or not.
Which president created the most expansive government intrusion into our personal life, aka Obamacare?
I would not consider that the most expansive, or even the most dangerous. Not even close. It has nothing on the TSA or the NSA, which are much more egregious violations of our fundamental liberties, and the latter even happens in broad daylight.
Which president continues to sign off on FBI, DHS and NSA intrusions into our personal lives?
All of them played a part.
Which president treats the Constitution and other federal law as suggestions?
That I can see? All of them.
Which president has repeatedly lied about his administration's transparency?
Plenty.
That's not to say that Obama isn't an evil scumbag, but all of them are. There's a bipartisan effort to strip us of our basic liberties and shred the constitution.
So then you're agreeing if I leave my door unlocked at night and someone comes in and steals something, it's my fault because the asshat thought it was okay to steal?
It is entirely possible that multiple parties could be at fault. Now, there are certain limitations, and that's when it isn't reasonable to expect someone to do something (as it would affect their life in a large way) or they couldn't possibly know how to counter whatever the Bad Thing is. The fact that you're taking this to the extreme without even attempting to understand the general idea of what other people are saying is rather annoying.
The problem with attitudes like yours is that they don't take into account reality. It seems you'd rather ignore reality and whine, cry, and scream about evil people exist, all the while knowingly choosing to be insecure.
Shall we take that twisted logic to the next phase and say if you get shot it's partly your fault because you weren't wearing a bullet-resistant vest?
Shall I take that twisted logic to mean that we should never have developed any sort of security whatsoever, and just whined when something we knew could be prevented happened?
You know what else is popular? Playing the "You're blaming the victim!" card, and doing it in a way that's utterly absurd. I know you can't fathom how it's possible that *multiple people* can be at fault for something, or that you could say that the victim should have taken reasonable measures to prevent the Bad Thing from happening (In situations where this is reasonable and possible, of course.) without saying that the attacker is blameless or deserves no punishment, but it is possible.
Funnily enough, he even said: "It's all good and well to blame the 'hackers' - and they should be".
Really? Looked to me like he was saying that it's partly the fault of people who choose to use something that they know is insecure. He did not say that the crackers are blameless or should not be punished; that was your own delusion, and is a mere straw man.
Victims can indeed share some of the blame, especially in situations like this. The false dilemmas are mind bogglingly stupid.
Living within your means is different from not having anything that pleases you. It seems many people have been brainwashed into believing they need to buy every shiny new gadget, toy, and car in order to be happy.
say the geeks who are always buying computer and electronic parts
Who says that you have to buy brand new equipment (or even used equipment) every few years? Buying a usable computer can be cheap. The real problem is people living beyond their means, wasting all their money, and then whining about not having money.
The thing is you seem very insistent that I accept and understand your position on god, but clearly don't seem very willing to accept an alternate belief.
Because I believe the alternate belief is bullshit (in the sense that it's irrational to believe something you have no reason to believe in), just like you believe that 1 + 1 most definitely does not equal 3. There is nothing contradictory or startling here.
Let me put that a tad less politely; while I was trying honestly to engage in a discussion and was willing to attempt to understand your beliefs, you are kind of a dick.
The truth is far more interesting, I believe in, and our country recognizes, your right to be anti-religous, But you must understand that your belief that there is no god is itself an act of faith, is it not?
Do you understand that your believe that there is no Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, are all acts of faith? Or do you simply lack a belief in those things?
Lacking a belief in something because there is no evidence that it exists is not faith. I simply acknowledge that science has a good track record (unlike your useless "faith") of getting us closest to the truth, and if there is no scientific evidence that something exists, I simply lack a reason to believe in it. If that is "faith" to you, then your definition of "faith" is indeed worthless.
That's pretty reasonable don't you think?
That depends on what you think qualifies as a "right." And the magical bullshit makes it unreasonable to me.
And you will note that at no point do I refer to you as a nutter. You're welcome.
I will, however, refer to you as an ignorant nutter. You don't understand atheists or faith. You're welcome.
No, it isn't, because freedom is more important than safety. Whether the safety is real or not is irrelevant; anyone who would sacrifice such fundamental liberties for safety is a coward who is making their country worse.
thankfully the privacy advocates are also questioned in the inquiry and they recommend the other extreme, in the end we end up with something in the middle.
"the middle" is not always right. When it comes to privacy, it isn't. Annoying how people are so readily willing to sacrifice individual liberties in the name of 'compromise.'
I suppose the answer to that depends on how idealistic you are, but the real world tends not to be boolean.
Nor does it have to be, as that depends on individual preferences. If you want to never change a damn thing, then don't do anything about bad cops. It's a good way to ensure that they'll forever be able to do as they please.
Nor did she leak information the government considered confidential. What's with all the pro-government retards bashing Snowden? Just because Snowden isn't suicidal or masochistic doesn't mean he did anything wrong. We now have all the information we need, and we need to act on it.
I'm talking about people who knowingly vote for 'the lesser of two evils.'
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call them evil.
Meh. Anyone who furthers the violation of our constitution and individual liberties is evil in my book. Other disagreeable policies are okay, but not that.
Besides, most people don't even know what a strategy is. They think shallow things like "Third parties can't win or make a difference!" or "Republicans/Democrats are bad!" and then vote based on that shallow thinking. It's not as if they have some sort of intelligent plan.
If he refuses to use everything he doesn't like, he won't play very many games at all.
Well, that's what I do. I still play Doom (with source ports) and other old games (many sold on GOG), and I have no problems.
Steam has added family accounts, and now family library sharing features. These don't solve the problem yet, but they are baby steps forwards towards solving some the biggest complaints most people have about steam's drm.
My complaint is that Valve itself supports DRM at all. If it were just a problem of the developers, it wouldn't be Valve's problem at all.
It's only when compared to activation limits, mandatory connection for single player and other aberrations that is shines in a benign light.
If your only argument in favor of something is "It's better than other bad things.", you may have a problem on your hands. Well, you said you don't actively like Steam DRM, but continuing to use Steam only ensures that it'll never change.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to move from the house I bought and paid for so I can get more options for ISPs. Maybe other people were willing to go that far (or maybe they were moving anyway, and decided they should factor in the number ISPs available in a given area), but I'm not.
Missed this bit of garbage:
This just seems like more nerd entitlement syndrome to me. It's Hollywood's content, not yours.
Entitlement? So, criticizing a company means you're entitled? You're holding a gun to their head and demanding they change their ways, or saying that you deserve everything? If not, then there is no entitlement; just criticism. If you think criticizing a company for its actions means you have "nerd entitlement syndrome," then you're a god damned idiot, and your definition of "entitlement" is completely worthless. I'm tired of people abusing these terms and using them to describe anyone who says anything they don't like about a company.
As for whether it's "Hollywood's content," I don't believe you can own content, although they certainly try. Problem is, it's not working out for them, and no matter how much people cry and scream, it will never work out. If Hulu is going to kick people off for using VPNs, many of those people will likely just find alternatives, 'legitimate' or not.
These license terms are not "reasonable," and nor is the enforcement; they're arbitrary and detrimental. It's usually scumbag copyright holders that force them to do this type of thing to begin with. One thing you can't do is call this stupid shit "reasonable."
There is no conspiracy
Almost every single time that's said about some giant company or government, it turns out to be wrong.
A better thing to do would be to not use Hulu; problem solved.
Right. I'll just drop Comcast and switch to the other ISP with decent speeds in my area: Comcast.
Well, the situation is most certainly not the same with Hulu. It's trivial to find another place to watch such videos, 'legitimate' or not.
If they already have all that information, then why do they need to block VPNs? It seems like they could figure it out another way.
But is this just about the paid service?
Which president signed the DMCA.
Both parties allowed it to get to the president.
Which president created the most expansive government intrusion into our personal life, aka Obamacare?
I would not consider that the most expansive, or even the most dangerous. Not even close. It has nothing on the TSA or the NSA, which are much more egregious violations of our fundamental liberties, and the latter even happens in broad daylight.
Which president continues to sign off on FBI, DHS and NSA intrusions into our personal lives?
All of them played a part.
Which president treats the Constitution and other federal law as suggestions?
That I can see? All of them.
Which president has repeatedly lied about his administration's transparency?
Plenty.
That's not to say that Obama isn't an evil scumbag, but all of them are. There's a bipartisan effort to strip us of our basic liberties and shred the constitution.
So then you're agreeing if I leave my door unlocked at night and someone comes in and steals something, it's my fault because the asshat thought it was okay to steal?
It is entirely possible that multiple parties could be at fault. Now, there are certain limitations, and that's when it isn't reasonable to expect someone to do something (as it would affect their life in a large way) or they couldn't possibly know how to counter whatever the Bad Thing is. The fact that you're taking this to the extreme without even attempting to understand the general idea of what other people are saying is rather annoying.
The problem with attitudes like yours is that they don't take into account reality. It seems you'd rather ignore reality and whine, cry, and scream about evil people exist, all the while knowingly choosing to be insecure.
Shall we take that twisted logic to the next phase and say if you get shot it's partly your fault because you weren't wearing a bullet-resistant vest?
Shall I take that twisted logic to mean that we should never have developed any sort of security whatsoever, and just whined when something we knew could be prevented happened?
Blame the victim is popular on Slashdot.
You know what else is popular? Playing the "You're blaming the victim!" card, and doing it in a way that's utterly absurd. I know you can't fathom how it's possible that *multiple people* can be at fault for something, or that you could say that the victim should have taken reasonable measures to prevent the Bad Thing from happening (In situations where this is reasonable and possible, of course.) without saying that the attacker is blameless or deserves no punishment, but it is possible.
Funnily enough, he even said: "It's all good and well to blame the 'hackers' - and they should be".
Really? Looked to me like he was saying that it's partly the fault of people who choose to use something that they know is insecure. He did not say that the crackers are blameless or should not be punished; that was your own delusion, and is a mere straw man.
Victims can indeed share some of the blame, especially in situations like this. The false dilemmas are mind bogglingly stupid.
Living within your means is different from not having anything that pleases you. It seems many people have been brainwashed into believing they need to buy every shiny new gadget, toy, and car in order to be happy.
say the geeks who are always buying computer and electronic parts
Who says that you have to buy brand new equipment (or even used equipment) every few years? Buying a usable computer can be cheap. The real problem is people living beyond their means, wasting all their money, and then whining about not having money.
It's definitely a step above from the typical Facebook retard (a grand majority of the people on Facebook), anyway.
The thing is you seem very insistent that I accept and understand your position on god, but clearly don't seem very willing to accept an alternate belief.
Because I believe the alternate belief is bullshit (in the sense that it's irrational to believe something you have no reason to believe in), just like you believe that 1 + 1 most definitely does not equal 3. There is nothing contradictory or startling here.
Let me put that a tad less politely; while I was trying honestly to engage in a discussion and was willing to attempt to understand your beliefs, you are kind of a dick.
It's nice that you think so.
The truth is far more interesting, I believe in, and our country recognizes, your right to be anti-religous, But you must understand that your belief that there is no god is itself an act of faith, is it not?
Do you understand that your believe that there is no Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, are all acts of faith? Or do you simply lack a belief in those things?
Lacking a belief in something because there is no evidence that it exists is not faith. I simply acknowledge that science has a good track record (unlike your useless "faith") of getting us closest to the truth, and if there is no scientific evidence that something exists, I simply lack a reason to believe in it. If that is "faith" to you, then your definition of "faith" is indeed worthless.
That's pretty reasonable don't you think?
That depends on what you think qualifies as a "right." And the magical bullshit makes it unreasonable to me.
And you will note that at no point do I refer to you as a nutter. You're welcome.
I will, however, refer to you as an ignorant nutter. You don't understand atheists or faith. You're welcome.
Wow! A religious nutter. What a surprise.
No, it isn't, because freedom is more important than safety. Whether the safety is real or not is irrelevant; anyone who would sacrifice such fundamental liberties for safety is a coward who is making their country worse.
thankfully the privacy advocates are also questioned in the inquiry and they recommend the other extreme, in the end we end up with something in the middle.
"the middle" is not always right. When it comes to privacy, it isn't. Annoying how people are so readily willing to sacrifice individual liberties in the name of 'compromise.'
I suppose the answer to that depends on how idealistic you are, but the real world tends not to be boolean.
Nor does it have to be, as that depends on individual preferences. If you want to never change a damn thing, then don't do anything about bad cops. It's a good way to ensure that they'll forever be able to do as they please.
Nor did she leak information the government considered confidential. What's with all the pro-government retards bashing Snowden? Just because Snowden isn't suicidal or masochistic doesn't mean he did anything wrong. We now have all the information we need, and we need to act on it.
You are projecting your idea of evil.
I'm talking about people who knowingly vote for 'the lesser of two evils.'
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call them evil.
Meh. Anyone who furthers the violation of our constitution and individual liberties is evil in my book. Other disagreeable policies are okay, but not that.
Besides, most people don't even know what a strategy is. They think shallow things like "Third parties can't win or make a difference!" or "Republicans/Democrats are bad!" and then vote based on that shallow thinking. It's not as if they have some sort of intelligent plan.
So lacking principles and voting for known evils is 'strategic'? Interesting.
Well, that's what I do. I still play Doom (with source ports) and other old games (many sold on GOG), and I have no problems.
Of course, people who have to play all the latest games might not like this. But it's not like DRM-free games don't exist; there are many.
If he refuses to use everything he doesn't like, he won't play very many games at all.
Well, that's what I do. I still play Doom (with source ports) and other old games (many sold on GOG), and I have no problems.
Steam has added family accounts, and now family library sharing features. These don't solve the problem yet, but they are baby steps forwards towards solving some the biggest complaints most people have about steam's drm.
My complaint is that Valve itself supports DRM at all. If it were just a problem of the developers, it wouldn't be Valve's problem at all.
It's only when compared to activation limits, mandatory connection for single player and other aberrations that is shines in a benign light.
If your only argument in favor of something is "It's better than other bad things.", you may have a problem on your hands. Well, you said you don't actively like Steam DRM, but continuing to use Steam only ensures that it'll never change.