This is an example of why corporations should not 'own' technology. They should use.
But, dont forget it is their network, paid for by them. So while their PROTOCOL should be mandated to be open, their servers do not have to be. ( Except to me of course )
Yes, just like the RIAA suit where you got what, 15 bucks for a lifetime of getting screwed?
And wasnt it a coupon so you could only redeem it while you buy yet another overpriced CD? ( notice the prices didnt go down after the judgement, so business really didnt change )
Come on, be serious. a DVD is not the same as a download.
I paid for the content, which is *already* digital. I already paid for bandwidth to get it to me. They already store it digitally, on hardware my bill/commercial watching paid for.
I did not pay for the shiny disk or pretty packaging. Nor am i asking for something so ludicrous as 'a free DVD'. Get real, and think out side your little pathetic box before you speak.
Just as a side note, besides that rational reason above, *i* have a right to do what ever the hell i want. Just so happens that in this case others should the right too. Because its 'right', and being screwed twice for the *same thing* is wrong.
Last i heard, the cable companies must also pay for the 'right' to broadcast.
Guess where part f that money comes from? Why, gee, its my cable bill.
Agreed, a large part of my bill goes to the transmission hardware/support, but not all. Some goes to actually pay for content.
Commercials are ADDITIONAL payment.
Or were you not around when cable was commercial free and was the major selling point? Until they got people on board of course, then out came the commercials for even more revenue.
Ether way, i paid for the content, they should not be sticking it to me twice like this. And 'bandwidth cost' isnt an answer to that. They already have the bandwidth, which is f-ing paid for already ( by me ).
Excuse me, but why do i have to pay to watch something that i already paid to have broadcast to my house? ( and had a right to record for timeshifting purposes )
I also had to sit thru those damned commercials, so really i paid even more then just the cable bill.
Its not like they had to do something special to digitize it.
Sort of like a 'greatest hits' CD.. just a scam to suck more cash out of you for what you ALREADY PAID FOR.
Reporters have an obligation to be impartial, report the facts only, etc.
Journalists have no such obligation. ( Though they should be honest when they are winging it, and let you know ). They get to inteject their own agenda into the 'facts'.
But they still should be protected, even when they are annoying, or just plain wrong.
Now you see the real driving force, the 'insurance industry'.
They are about as bad as the 'media industry', except they have already bought the laws that GUARANTEE business. ( the AAs have only managed to buy tax laws to guarantee revenue ).
The insurance industry is also behind the push to make 'IT' a 'licensed trade'. That way you will have to be bonded and have insurance just to reformat some bozo's harddrive.
And the point? They are one of the richest/corrupt organizations out there today and donate ( payoff ) millions upon millions of dollars to washington each year. The fact they are small in number is totally irrelevant.
They do it because they can use it to squeeze more $ out of you. And as long as people accept it, it will continue.
This is one reason 'per cycle' charges have almost dissapeared. Once the minis arrived on the scene, most people rebelled against that sort of license fee.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an example of why corporations should not 'own' technology. They should use.
But, dont forget it is their network, paid for by them. So while their PROTOCOL should be mandated to be open, their servers do not have to be. ( Except to me of course )
What is this "Europe" you speak of? Never seen it, sorry.
Thats how you get funding in todays society..
Are still cool, like in this case.
So seeing it again in 07 for the newcomers isnt all that bad.
Was it my standard or theirs?
How in the world can you patent a bodily function?
This is just insane.
Sure, patent products that use these genes, but to patent what is naturally occuring in nature ( for millions of years even.. )?
What is next, the old joke about patenting "breathing".
That you are a f-ing useless blob of human debris.
Whoops, ill be modded down for telling the truth..
Yes, just like the RIAA suit where you got what, 15 bucks for a lifetime of getting screwed?
And wasnt it a coupon so you could only redeem it while you buy yet another overpriced CD? ( notice the prices didnt go down after the judgement, so business really didnt change )
Come on, be serious. a DVD is not the same as a download.
I paid for the content, which is *already* digital. I already paid for bandwidth to get it to me. They already store it digitally, on hardware my bill/commercial watching paid for.
I did not pay for the shiny disk or pretty packaging. Nor am i asking for something so ludicrous as 'a free DVD'. Get real, and think out side your little pathetic box before you speak.
Just as a side note, besides that rational reason above, *i* have a right to do what ever the hell i want. Just so happens that in this case others should the right too. Because its 'right', and being screwed twice for the *same thing* is wrong.
Last i heard, the cable companies must also pay for the 'right' to broadcast.
Guess where part f that money comes from? Why, gee, its my cable bill.
Agreed, a large part of my bill goes to the transmission hardware/support, but not all. Some goes to actually pay for content.
Commercials are ADDITIONAL payment.
Or were you not around when cable was commercial free and was the major selling point? Until they got people on board of course, then out came the commercials for even more revenue.
Ether way, i paid for the content, they should not be sticking it to me twice like this. And 'bandwidth cost' isnt an answer to that. They already have the bandwidth, which is f-ing paid for already ( by me ).
No, you need to think, your examples are not at all related to what I'm saying.
And if you think they are related, then you are an idiot.
And furthermore, they are obligated to give ME any service i want.
Excuse me, but why do i have to pay to watch something that i already paid to have broadcast to my house? ( and had a right to record for timeshifting purposes )
I also had to sit thru those damned commercials, so really i paid even more then just the cable bill.
Its not like they had to do something special to digitize it.
Sort of like a 'greatest hits' CD.. just a scam to suck more cash out of you for what you ALREADY PAID FOR.
That was meant to be the sarcastic excuse they might use, not the reality of them sticking us customers with the bill to pay back the fine.
IT wasnt designed to help you, dear consumer. You have been screwed, and you must learn to accept that.
The government gets the extra cash, and of course the lawyers.
We the consumers, almost never get a break after its proven we overpaid.
I bet prices wont even drop after this, 'due to inflation'.
Let it burn.. Let it burn. Its brought more harm then good to the world.
Too bad its just a bunch of FUD to scare people into supporing the EU's wishes.
I think you have the 2 confused.
Reporters have an obligation to be impartial, report the facts only, etc.
Journalists have no such obligation. ( Though they should be honest when they are winging it, and let you know ). They get to inteject their own agenda into the 'facts'.
But they still should be protected, even when they are annoying, or just plain wrong.
Cant have those pesky citizens running around speaking their mind. Nope cant have that.
But we can allow the 'journalists' that have been bought and paid for by the parties. Yep, its ok to let them talk.
What another f-ing scam.
There are several 'multi-network' chat clients available.
Gaim and Kopete, off the top of my head for generic unix.
Both are pretty easy to use, and lets you 'take them with you' if you migrate to *nix.
On the OSX side, 'fire' works well.
Now you see the real driving force, the 'insurance industry'.
They are about as bad as the 'media industry', except they have already bought the laws that GUARANTEE business. ( the AAs have only managed to buy tax laws to guarantee revenue ).
The insurance industry is also behind the push to make 'IT' a 'licensed trade'. That way you will have to be bonded and have insurance just to reformat some bozo's harddrive.
If its link, sure that might be ok.
If its merge, this will be the beginning of the end of yahoo. Next will be yahoomail/hotmail.. then more an more until they are absorbed by microsoft.
Is google really hurting yahoo that much to want to sell out to the antichrist?
Though its just a 'fear tactic', please.. let the web melt.. the entire internet collapse in on itself.
its degenerated into a cesspool after it was 'commercialized'. Letting it out into the hands of the 'public' was a mistake in the first place.
And the point? They are one of the richest/corrupt organizations out there today and donate ( payoff ) millions upon millions of dollars to washington each year. The fact they are small in number is totally irrelevant.
In this case Microsoft is a declared monopoly, the rules change. One of those rules should include not screwing people ( any longer ).
They do it because they can use it to squeeze more $ out of you. And as long as people accept it, it will continue.
This is one reason 'per cycle' charges have almost dissapeared. Once the minis arrived on the scene, most people rebelled against that sort of license fee.
Except in this case you get both.. ( even the summary stated this ).
But, its once again a trade off.. Man or Animal.
War isnt always fair.