The problem with your analogy is that there isn't a "store" to begin with when it comes to streaming entertainment, it's literally just a bunch of vending machines that won't even sell you a single soda, only the entire content of the machine.
We're not complaining that purchasing individual shows will cost more, we know that. What we're complaining about is that you CANNOT GET just a single show (or ANY subset of content from a given provider) currently. I don't want everything on Disney, I just want Star Wars. I don't want everything on Netflix, just the Marvel series, etc, and I want to be able to purchase JUST those shows, from ONE location of my choosing.
Why don't they just give you the option of NOT upgrading to the newest version of the OS that was designed to run on *slightly* newer hardware, and NOT throttle your damn phone?!? Forced obsolescence is anti-consumer. Instead of installing completely new versions of the OS on older hardware that CLEARLY can't handle it, they should EOL the slightly older version and just do security updates for 3 years, like other OS manufacturers. Why people put up with this behavior is beyond me. YOU own your device, NOT THEM.
I don't normally respond to AC's, especially racist AC's, but you are wrong.
You don't have to use facebook for them to collect data on you, and THAT is the problem. They have their connect and like buttons on a VERY LARGE cross section of the internet, and in many third party products, like Spotify.
They know more about you than your mother does, and there are only a few ways to stop them, like blocking a list of about 1500 different domains, or you could just stop using the internet. I don't know about you, but as a web developer/designer, that last one isn't really an option.
Taxpayer money was used to build those satellites and gather that data. It ALREADY belongs to us.
Taxpayer money also pays for the servers required to host and distribute that data on the internet, too.
We citizens have already paid, but leave it to team trump to think they can charge twice.
I'm cool with them charging foreign entities and companies that don't pay their fair share of taxes, but I'm not cool with having to pay for that data as a private citizen. (Yes, I actually have used data from Landsat before and plan to use it in the future)
I'm assuming that when this change takes place, affected users will be presented with a new ToS to agree with. How does this affect those who do NOT agree with the new ToS?
I get that they will not be able to continue using the "service", but their old data must still be protected when the GDPR goes into effect, right?
Seems like this is the perfect opportunity for those in affected areas, who were on the fence about deleting their facebook account, to KEEP the protections that will be offered by the GDPR, and not allow their data to be exfiltrated to locations that DO NOT offer those protections. I mean, they can't move your data out of the EU jurisdiction if you don't agree with the new ToS, right?
While his "20-30 mins of commercials an hour" is a bit of an exaggeration, it's not THAT big of an exaggeration. When you consider all the promos they do, "partnering" with local businesses, self promotions and all the other crap, you end up with about 20 mins of music an hour. And Clear Channel owns a very large number of stations, usually owning multiple stations in large metro areas, so yeah, changing the station in those areas is likely to get you nothing but more commercials.
Personally, I stopped listening to the radio a long time ago, but still check it from time to time to see how bad it has gotten, and GP isn't far off from the truth, at least not here in Vegas.
Personally, I disagree strongly, but by all means, feel free to limit your exposure to these things you find offensive or distasteful. Just don't expect the rest of us to care.
No. What Redbox is doing is selling a slip of paper with a code on it. They own the piece of paper, it came with the DVD's and Blu-rays they purchased. It's arguably no different than reselling anything else that you don't plan on using, and is ACTUALLY protected by first sale doctrine.
What vidAngel was doing was editing movies to remove objectionable content, without the copyright holder's permission, and then streaming those edited videos. They were also circumventing copy protection (in violation of the DMCA) to obtain the streams in the first place. They even tried to use first sale doctrine to claim that they were legal to sell streams because they had actually purchased the DVDs.
This doesn't even begin to touch on the copyright holder's right to not have their artistic vision mucked about with by unqualified hacks. If they wanted their works to be viewed by kids and the overly sensitive, they would have produced G-rated versions on their own.
Aside from the fact that VidAngel tried to claim first sale doctrine protection, These two cases are not even remotely close and the actual difference is that VidAngel did something illegal and Redbox didn't.
I think we basically agree, we just have some differences in semantics. I don't have a problem if the government wants to access the computer or other private records of a citizen, provided they get a proper warrant. I do not actually consider that spying. It means a judge agrees with the investigating body that said access is likely to provide information related to whatever case they are investigating, and provides an audit trail.
I also agree that the government has had at least some success in thwarting terrorist attacks, however, I am not convinced that spying on it's own citizens can be said to contribute to that success in any meaningful way, without them providing some verifiable proof.
I get where you are coming from, and I acknowledge that terrorist attacks DO happen, however, the chance that you or I will get killed in one are statistically insignificant, and I don't think the government needs to spy on it's own citizens to combat it, even if it could guarantee ZERO terrorist related deaths (Which it can't).
It's my belief that this warrantless spying has pretty close to no effect on terrorist activities, and even if it did, we cannot see that data because it's deemed sensitive to national security.
So what are we left with? The loss of a fundamental right to privacy in exchange for the questionable effectiveness of the government's spying on it's own people in the pursuit of anti-terrorist actions.
Mind you, I'm not even saying that this spying isn't actually effective. We simply don't know, and I'd rather not give up my right to privacy for that.
If by "bias" you mean I don't want the government snooping my shit to "protect" me from an almost non-existent threat, then yeah, I guess I'm biased.
I also don't think it is out of context either, The original quote was in response to the Pennsylvania General Assembly trying to tax the Penn family to pay for defense. The Penns didn't believe the GA had the authority to tax them, and instead, offered a lump sum in exchange for the GA acknowledging that they didn't have taxation authority. Franklin's quote was meant to sway the assembly to NOT accept that offer and give up their ability to tax just to get a chunk of change to pay for some defense.
If you think of "We the People" as the General Assembly and the Federal Government as the Penns, you will see how it DOES fit in this context. The government is asking us to acknowledge that they need to snoop our private data to provide defense against a statistically non-existent threat, and in that aspect, this context is right on the money.
The longer we allow them to extend this absolute violation of our rights, the harder it is going to be to remove it down the line.
The problem with this is that it renews a bill that legalizes many of those previously illegal gathering methods, and since this was done under the guise of "national security", those methods are not transparent. If they're not transparent, we have no recourse but to accept the government's word that they are necessary and work.
I mean, more people were killed by toddlers in the US in 2015 than by terrorists, yet there are no new laws coming out to "protect" Americans from toddlers. But god damn, we need to snoop all your shit because "Oh no! teh terrorists!"
I know people here have seen this enough, but it still rings true in my opinion: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
When I purchased my Pixel 2 XL, I was given a free Google Home Mini. Are these free Home Mini's counted in these figures? How many were free as opposed to actually sold?
This is LITERALLY the single most stupid comment I have seen on slashdot.
Let me get this straight: You think that these IoT devices, that have problems with their own security, are going to hack your router and "fog" your log files? Then you go all internet-tough-guy and threaten to "smash-face" someone because he actually explained how you can monitor and see how much traffic your IoT devices are actually sending back.
I was signed up to Change.org's mailing list at one point. They would send out email alerts with links to petitions, sometimes from other progressive orgs. When you signed those petitions, you were automatically added to those other org's mailing lists.
After about a week of this, something like 30% of my email was petition requests.
I understand that getting the message out and making people aware of certain issues is important, but that just completely turned me off and I am no longer subscribed to ANY of those orgs.
I also realize that these particular emails are not *technically* spam, since they do notify you in the fine print at the bottom of the petition, but my point is that these types of emails have become the new "spam" for me. Gmail filters the "normal" spam for me. I never see it, but these chain-mailing-list progressive orgs have got to stop. "Hey, thanks for signing that petition! As a reward, here's another progressive mailing list subscription for a cause you don't really care that much abut!" The one GOOD thing about these is at least they obey unsub requests.
Slashdot Mirror
WOW. Can't believe I brain-farted that bad. I must need more coffee
What do you think Safari is based on?
The problem with your analogy is that there isn't a "store" to begin with when it comes to streaming entertainment, it's literally just a bunch of vending machines that won't even sell you a single soda, only the entire content of the machine.
We're not complaining that purchasing individual shows will cost more, we know that. What we're complaining about is that you CANNOT GET just a single show (or ANY subset of content from a given provider) currently. I don't want everything on Disney, I just want Star Wars. I don't want everything on Netflix, just the Marvel series, etc, and I want to be able to purchase JUST those shows, from ONE location of my choosing.
1. It's a sig.
2. It works just fine in either order.
Why don't they just give you the option of NOT upgrading to the newest version of the OS that was designed to run on *slightly* newer hardware, and NOT throttle your damn phone?!? Forced obsolescence is anti-consumer. Instead of installing completely new versions of the OS on older hardware that CLEARLY can't handle it, they should EOL the slightly older version and just do security updates for 3 years, like other OS manufacturers. Why people put up with this behavior is beyond me. YOU own your device, NOT THEM.
Actually, I found it quite informative. You don't speak for anyone, AC. You aren't even speaking for yourself.
Yeah, this law existed BEFORE the modern internet. No excuses.
The just couldn't keep up the facade for very long, eh? Someone offers them enough cash and they'll change their rules. Fuck the users.
Anyone else still have questions on what facebook is all about?
It's ISCA.
I don't normally respond to AC's, especially racist AC's, but you are wrong.
You don't have to use facebook for them to collect data on you, and THAT is the problem. They have their connect and like buttons on a VERY LARGE cross section of the internet, and in many third party products, like Spotify.
They know more about you than your mother does, and there are only a few ways to stop them, like blocking a list of about 1500 different domains, or you could just stop using the internet. I don't know about you, but as a web developer/designer, that last one isn't really an option.
This shit needs to be well regulated.
Taxpayer money was used to build those satellites and gather that data. It ALREADY belongs to us.
Taxpayer money also pays for the servers required to host and distribute that data on the internet, too.
We citizens have already paid, but leave it to team trump to think they can charge twice.
I'm cool with them charging foreign entities and companies that don't pay their fair share of taxes, but I'm not cool with having to pay for that data as a private citizen. (Yes, I actually have used data from Landsat before and plan to use it in the future)
I'm assuming that when this change takes place, affected users will be presented with a new ToS to agree with. How does this affect those who do NOT agree with the new ToS?
I get that they will not be able to continue using the "service", but their old data must still be protected when the GDPR goes into effect, right?
Seems like this is the perfect opportunity for those in affected areas, who were on the fence about deleting their facebook account, to KEEP the protections that will be offered by the GDPR, and not allow their data to be exfiltrated to locations that DO NOT offer those protections. I mean, they can't move your data out of the EU jurisdiction if you don't agree with the new ToS, right?
While his "20-30 mins of commercials an hour" is a bit of an exaggeration, it's not THAT big of an exaggeration. When you consider all the promos they do, "partnering" with local businesses, self promotions and all the other crap, you end up with about 20 mins of music an hour. And Clear Channel owns a very large number of stations, usually owning multiple stations in large metro areas, so yeah, changing the station in those areas is likely to get you nothing but more commercials.
Personally, I stopped listening to the radio a long time ago, but still check it from time to time to see how bad it has gotten, and GP isn't far off from the truth, at least not here in Vegas.
I'll bet Mar-a-Lago didn't lose any.
And you're a coward who wants to dictate decency. Fuck off.
Personally, I disagree strongly, but by all means, feel free to limit your exposure to these things you find offensive or distasteful. Just don't expect the rest of us to care.
No. What Redbox is doing is selling a slip of paper with a code on it. They own the piece of paper, it came with the DVD's and Blu-rays they purchased. It's arguably no different than reselling anything else that you don't plan on using, and is ACTUALLY protected by first sale doctrine.
What vidAngel was doing was editing movies to remove objectionable content, without the copyright holder's permission, and then streaming those edited videos. They were also circumventing copy protection (in violation of the DMCA) to obtain the streams in the first place. They even tried to use first sale doctrine to claim that they were legal to sell streams because they had actually purchased the DVDs.
This doesn't even begin to touch on the copyright holder's right to not have their artistic vision mucked about with by unqualified hacks. If they wanted their works to be viewed by kids and the overly sensitive, they would have produced G-rated versions on their own.
Aside from the fact that VidAngel tried to claim first sale doctrine protection, These two cases are not even remotely close and the actual difference is that VidAngel did something illegal and Redbox didn't.
I think we basically agree, we just have some differences in semantics. I don't have a problem if the government wants to access the computer or other private records of a citizen, provided they get a proper warrant. I do not actually consider that spying. It means a judge agrees with the investigating body that said access is likely to provide information related to whatever case they are investigating, and provides an audit trail.
I also agree that the government has had at least some success in thwarting terrorist attacks, however, I am not convinced that spying on it's own citizens can be said to contribute to that success in any meaningful way, without them providing some verifiable proof.
I get where you are coming from, and I acknowledge that terrorist attacks DO happen, however, the chance that you or I will get killed in one are statistically insignificant, and I don't think the government needs to spy on it's own citizens to combat it, even if it could guarantee ZERO terrorist related deaths (Which it can't).
It's my belief that this warrantless spying has pretty close to no effect on terrorist activities, and even if it did, we cannot see that data because it's deemed sensitive to national security.
So what are we left with? The loss of a fundamental right to privacy in exchange for the questionable effectiveness of the government's spying on it's own people in the pursuit of anti-terrorist actions.
Mind you, I'm not even saying that this spying isn't actually effective. We simply don't know, and I'd rather not give up my right to privacy for that.
If by "bias" you mean I don't want the government snooping my shit to "protect" me from an almost non-existent threat, then yeah, I guess I'm biased.
I also don't think it is out of context either, The original quote was in response to the Pennsylvania General Assembly trying to tax the Penn family to pay for defense. The Penns didn't believe the GA had the authority to tax them, and instead, offered a lump sum in exchange for the GA acknowledging that they didn't have taxation authority. Franklin's quote was meant to sway the assembly to NOT accept that offer and give up their ability to tax just to get a chunk of change to pay for some defense.
If you think of "We the People" as the General Assembly and the Federal Government as the Penns, you will see how it DOES fit in this context. The government is asking us to acknowledge that they need to snoop our private data to provide defense against a statistically non-existent threat, and in that aspect, this context is right on the money.
The longer we allow them to extend this absolute violation of our rights, the harder it is going to be to remove it down the line.
The problem with this is that it renews a bill that legalizes many of those previously illegal gathering methods, and since this was done under the guise of "national security", those methods are not transparent. If they're not transparent, we have no recourse but to accept the government's word that they are necessary and work.
I mean, more people were killed by toddlers in the US in 2015 than by terrorists, yet there are no new laws coming out to "protect" Americans from toddlers. But god damn, we need to snoop all your shit because "Oh no! teh terrorists!"
I know people here have seen this enough, but it still rings true in my opinion: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
When I purchased my Pixel 2 XL, I was given a free Google Home Mini. Are these free Home Mini's counted in these figures? How many were free as opposed to actually sold?
I think your threshold is probably set too high to see the comment I was actually referring to.
This is LITERALLY the single most stupid comment I have seen on slashdot.
Let me get this straight: You think that these IoT devices, that have problems with their own security, are going to hack your router and "fog" your log files? Then you go all internet-tough-guy and threaten to "smash-face" someone because he actually explained how you can monitor and see how much traffic your IoT devices are actually sending back.
Worst. Troll. Ever. 0/10
I was signed up to Change.org's mailing list at one point. They would send out email alerts with links to petitions, sometimes from other progressive orgs. When you signed those petitions, you were automatically added to those other org's mailing lists.
After about a week of this, something like 30% of my email was petition requests.
I understand that getting the message out and making people aware of certain issues is important, but that just completely turned me off and I am no longer subscribed to ANY of those orgs.
I also realize that these particular emails are not *technically* spam, since they do notify you in the fine print at the bottom of the petition, but my point is that these types of emails have become the new "spam" for me. Gmail filters the "normal" spam for me. I never see it, but these chain-mailing-list progressive orgs have got to stop. "Hey, thanks for signing that petition! As a reward, here's another progressive mailing list subscription for a cause you don't really care that much abut!" The one GOOD thing about these is at least they obey unsub requests.