Not everyone plays with geeks all day long, and those of us who don't sometimes have to remember to readjust our self-censors before switching between. Just because he forgot his audience in his rush to avoid unintentional offense doesn't mean you should be rude.
I got something for you. This asshole see, he promised my grandmother something and didn't make good. I'd like you to pay him a visit and discuss it real nice like. Explain to him how heartbroken my grammy is about losing her savings. See what sort of refunds he offers. Oh, take the boys with you, make it a night out on the town. Paint it red.
For the exact same reason, the site is crap and if they relied on "I'll pay to see it" users, it'd be a wash. Trust me, I'm on a network with access to it. It's about as authentic as the ol' "this way to the egress" line. You access it and the first thing you are greeted with is an auto-starting ad, situated front and center in the page, with an actual PLAY LIST of ads listed in a sidebar to the right. Some are masquerading as moive clips, but are less than 30 seconds long and rarely actually contain the full scene being referenced. On the left, UNDER another ad for their shows, is the portal to their pitiful list of games, the quality of which you'll find in any other FREE kids 'show' website, ala PBS Kids, Nick.com, or any number of other sites I don't happen to have knowledge of stored at the top of my head and for which you could easily find better and more professional on any 'flash games' site such as Newgrounds or Kongregate.
Disney just figured they'd try making money on what everyone else is giving away for free and realize that no one would actually PAY for it if they had the choice.
The only way ESPN360 will do this is if other large content sites see it and believe that it's model is far better than the existing "go after the users themselves for the money" model. Something I don't see happening. Users are far more willing to pay for content than ISP's are. Any company switching from a user model to an ISP model is going to have to expect to lose a good number of users, simply from the fact that most of these users aren't going to be able to convince their ISP to pay for the content, because the ISP's are going to be able to convince their other users that raising prices for everyone so some people can enjoy access to a site like ESPN360 is worth it.
In short, ESPN360 is only a viable model for a content provider that doesn't actually care about picking up many users (normally because the internet isn't their main distribution channel for their content and they haven't yet gotten 'into the game') and who realize their existing content is so crappy that they will only be able to break even if they talk ISPs into purchasing discounted bulk memberships vs actually attempting to reel in real users.
Yes but the sentence fragments displayed a rare wisdom I've only seen in Afterschool specials.
Beyond that, OP has more of a point than your attack. Just because you can do something, and just because you can claim 'it doesn't impact shit' or 'it's only as bad as something else someone can do' doesn't mean you should.
If they attempted to call it that, they'd have a revolt in less than 20 seconds. Every 'pay' site out there would be guilty of "net discrimination" then. The only difference between Hulu and them is that 'someone else' is paying for your membership to Hulu.
No, because that isn't a case of net neutrality but a case of copyright silliness.
Net Neutrality (proper net neutrality) means that Hulu should Hulu ever be 'allowed' to service Canada, you won't have to worry about still not being able to access it because Hulu chose not to pay grift to the five telcom/ISP companies between Hulu's hosting provider and you.
Yes, while I can hope that this is actually a bill with no hidden gotchas, given it's using a red hot item for it's ticket in, I would expect all sorts of nasty DMCA like shit hidden it's recesses.
If a work isn't licensed to be distributed in a specific manner, then it shouldn't be distributed in that manner. Period.
If the work is licensed, then the flowchart ends here, not five more steps down where it asks if you've shook down the distributor as well.
There is no legitimate reason to ever push the cost of licensing off onto the distributor. If the producers want (and dare) to raise the cost of the product to accommodate the license (and they have already) then they should do so.
Seriously, bigger picture? Here's the bigger picture, if I sell someone a used DVD, according to you I'm liable for a license fee because the DVD had an ASCAP represented soundtrack on it. Absurd!
Are you having fun attempting to miss the point? You stated it yourself. The movie theaters pay ASCAP
indirectly as part of their payment to the movie studio
If you strained more at comprehension and less at attempting to backhand someone because you think you have a better grasp of the topic then they, you'd have come out of that realizing that was exactly my point. You don't go after the distributor for your pound of flesh. If you think you aren't getting your 'fair share' of the profits here, you go after the people you actually have (or should have) a licensing agreement with: The producers.
Do you honestly think that every Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, and other misc. store out there that sells DVDs should be purchasing an ASCAP license to be able to sell those? You are ridiculous and more than stupid greedy if so. And if not, WTF is the magic behind the idea of Apple having to for the same privilege?
And more importantly WTF is ASCAP's angle on this given they are supposed to be collectors for public performances, not mechanical copies.
This is double dipping, and on top of it, it's the sort of double dipping ASCAP has been slapped across the face by the government more than once for trying to pull.
Here's a reality check for if someone isn't getting paid for their song being used in a film or show, the person they should be going after for money are the film/show makers. Not the third party distributor.
If you sit around in theaters after the movie ends much, you'll notice the songs used end up in the credits, that's because the producer licensed the music for the movie. I.E. they've paid the pound of flesh already. If they haven't, that's on them, not anyone else.
Distributing it over the 'magic internet' doesn't change that fact.
For the purposes of captcha, typing one word correct suffices. As long as you get the right word (the known 'good' word) correct.
For the purposes of distributed OCR, the "how do you know if the unknown word was ID'ed correctly" issue is simply solved by having the word ID'ed several times. Given you don't know which word is the 'test' word and which is the one actually needing IDing, there shouldn't be a problem with people guessing "Penis!" or "Boobies!" all the time.
So as long as a majority of the people ID the word the same way, you have can have a high level of confidence that it's being ID'ed correctly.
Yes, but if I body alkalinize, that throws off the aura the magnetic ferrous beads I wear around my neck produce, thus opening me to other diseases such as Ballybran crystalization.
I perfer a more holastic approach, if you regularly injest the (cooked, of course) flesh of a chupacabra each full moon, you not only protect yourself from cancer but also most forms of therianthropy.
Sadly, it's hard to find a good supplier of chupacbra, as they are a non-native species.
If you are lucky, you shouldn't need to sneak the glasses. Every 3D movie I've gone to in my area they hand out sturdy 'recyclable' glasses that they never bother to collect back.
Now, what someone needs to come up with, is a method to shield oneself from a taser 'attack'. Maybe something analogous to body armor for bullets...something you can wear, that will prevent the taser from shocking you. Is such a thing possible?
I'd think there would be some $$ to be made with that one.....
Appearently not enough to warrant a website that doesn't look like it was made by a hopped up Frontpage addict.
The better indicator; 4 or 5 guys in our corp will go out in Tech 1 Frigates and Cruisers (all T1 fit) and have routinely taken down Battleships and Heavy Assault Cruisers. Our key to victory is a cohesive strategy and teamwork.
Context my friend, context. There were certainly more than a few mitigating factors involved then. Not the least of which was the return home, all over most the civilized world, of sizable groups of people who had been living in poor conditions for an extended period of time, in environments their systems weren't used.
No the flu is not a picnic in the park, but today's American population, by and large, are living in far better conditions and with much better and greater access to the necessary health care to prevent such things.
Our facility is in great shape for defensibility and in the hands of a group of enthusiastic, highly experienced and absolutely devoted fire fighters. I want to acknowledge my predecessor Bob Jastrow for initiating a brush clearing program that we have continued, and I thank folks like the W. M. Keck Foundation for helping us a few years ago with funding for that activity. Chief Powers assured me that there is never a need to fully evacuate our site and it is essential that we leave knowledgeable personnel on site to assist them and ensure that our fire fighting and support infrastructure is functional. "They are as essential to your protection as smoke alarms," Chief Powers said. That makes me feel so much better about letting Dave, Larry and John go back on site.
Unless you plan on glassing the whole area to ensure nothing grows back, sometimes you can't just 'remove the fuel'.
You are right, any nutso can get a sniper rifle, case full of ammo, and take out half a campus from the church tower. It's the really dangerous folk, like the ones who haven't had access to your network in the past year (which you somehow haven't secured on your own because you are too fucking stupid) that are the real danger to society at large.
Here's a tip for the Judge, if there is still something out there on SF's network that Childs actually could manipulate with greater access or affect than a normal citizen, then the folk who should be in jail are the ones who cleaned up the mess.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everyone plays with geeks all day long, and those of us who don't sometimes have to remember to readjust our self-censors before switching between. Just because he forgot his audience in his rush to avoid unintentional offense doesn't mean you should be rude.
Jimmy, com'ere'amoment.
I got something for you. This asshole see, he promised my grandmother something and didn't make good. I'd like you to pay him a visit and discuss it real nice like. Explain to him how heartbroken my grammy is about losing her savings. See what sort of refunds he offers. Oh, take the boys with you, make it a night out on the town. Paint it red.
What would we have to get you when that was hacked? An AS/400?
For the exact same reason, the site is crap and if they relied on "I'll pay to see it" users, it'd be a wash. Trust me, I'm on a network with access to it. It's about as authentic as the ol' "this way to the egress" line. You access it and the first thing you are greeted with is an auto-starting ad, situated front and center in the page, with an actual PLAY LIST of ads listed in a sidebar to the right. Some are masquerading as moive clips, but are less than 30 seconds long and rarely actually contain the full scene being referenced. On the left, UNDER another ad for their shows, is the portal to their pitiful list of games, the quality of which you'll find in any other FREE kids 'show' website, ala PBS Kids, Nick.com, or any number of other sites I don't happen to have knowledge of stored at the top of my head and for which you could easily find better and more professional on any 'flash games' site such as Newgrounds or Kongregate.
Disney just figured they'd try making money on what everyone else is giving away for free and realize that no one would actually PAY for it if they had the choice.
The only way ESPN360 will do this is if other large content sites see it and believe that it's model is far better than the existing "go after the users themselves for the money" model. Something I don't see happening. Users are far more willing to pay for content than ISP's are. Any company switching from a user model to an ISP model is going to have to expect to lose a good number of users, simply from the fact that most of these users aren't going to be able to convince their ISP to pay for the content, because the ISP's are going to be able to convince their other users that raising prices for everyone so some people can enjoy access to a site like ESPN360 is worth it.
In short, ESPN360 is only a viable model for a content provider that doesn't actually care about picking up many users (normally because the internet isn't their main distribution channel for their content and they haven't yet gotten 'into the game') and who realize their existing content is so crappy that they will only be able to break even if they talk ISPs into purchasing discounted bulk memberships vs actually attempting to reel in real users.
This is a non-threat. It's a laughable threat.
Yes but the sentence fragments displayed a rare wisdom I've only seen in Afterschool specials.
Beyond that, OP has more of a point than your attack. Just because you can do something, and just because you can claim 'it doesn't impact shit' or 'it's only as bad as something else someone can do' doesn't mean you should.
If they attempted to call it that, they'd have a revolt in less than 20 seconds. Every 'pay' site out there would be guilty of "net discrimination" then. The only difference between Hulu and them is that 'someone else' is paying for your membership to Hulu.
No, because that isn't a case of net neutrality but a case of copyright silliness.
Net Neutrality (proper net neutrality) means that Hulu should Hulu ever be 'allowed' to service Canada, you won't have to worry about still not being able to access it because Hulu chose not to pay grift to the five telcom/ISP companies between Hulu's hosting provider and you.
Yes, while I can hope that this is actually a bill with no hidden gotchas, given it's using a red hot item for it's ticket in, I would expect all sorts of nasty DMCA like shit hidden it's recesses.
If a work isn't licensed to be distributed in a specific manner, then it shouldn't be distributed in that manner. Period.
If the work is licensed, then the flowchart ends here, not five more steps down where it asks if you've shook down the distributor as well.
There is no legitimate reason to ever push the cost of licensing off onto the distributor. If the producers want (and dare) to raise the cost of the product to accommodate the license (and they have already) then they should do so.
Seriously, bigger picture? Here's the bigger picture, if I sell someone a used DVD, according to you I'm liable for a license fee because the DVD had an ASCAP represented soundtrack on it. Absurd!
Are you having fun attempting to miss the point? You stated it yourself. The movie theaters pay ASCAP
If you strained more at comprehension and less at attempting to backhand someone because you think you have a better grasp of the topic then they, you'd have come out of that realizing that was exactly my point. You don't go after the distributor for your pound of flesh. If you think you aren't getting your 'fair share' of the profits here, you go after the people you actually have (or should have) a licensing agreement with: The producers.
Do you honestly think that every Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, and other misc. store out there that sells DVDs should be purchasing an ASCAP license to be able to sell those? You are ridiculous and more than stupid greedy if so. And if not, WTF is the magic behind the idea of Apple having to for the same privilege?
And more importantly WTF is ASCAP's angle on this given they are supposed to be collectors for public performances, not mechanical copies.
This is double dipping, and on top of it, it's the sort of double dipping ASCAP has been slapped across the face by the government more than once for trying to pull.
And that's tied into the licensing agreement with the .... PUBLISHER. Not the distributor.
Here's a reality check for if someone isn't getting paid for their song being used in a film or show, the person they should be going after for money are the film/show makers. Not the third party distributor.
If you sit around in theaters after the movie ends much, you'll notice the songs used end up in the credits, that's because the producer licensed the music for the movie. I.E. they've paid the pound of flesh already. If they haven't, that's on them, not anyone else.
Distributing it over the 'magic internet' doesn't change that fact.
A. TFS was being sarcastic.
B. How many MUDs 'killed' you when you ran out of mana or endurance?
You don't assume.
For the purposes of captcha, typing one word correct suffices. As long as you get the right word (the known 'good' word) correct.
For the purposes of distributed OCR, the "how do you know if the unknown word was ID'ed correctly" issue is simply solved by having the word ID'ed several times. Given you don't know which word is the 'test' word and which is the one actually needing IDing, there shouldn't be a problem with people guessing "Penis!" or "Boobies!" all the time.
So as long as a majority of the people ID the word the same way, you have can have a high level of confidence that it's being ID'ed correctly.
Yes, but if I body alkalinize, that throws off the aura the magnetic ferrous beads I wear around my neck produce, thus opening me to other diseases such as Ballybran crystalization.
I perfer a more holastic approach, if you regularly injest the (cooked, of course) flesh of a chupacabra each full moon, you not only protect yourself from cancer but also most forms of therianthropy.
Sadly, it's hard to find a good supplier of chupacbra, as they are a non-native species.
I don't know, I'm still trying to figure out how boats float....
If you are lucky, you shouldn't need to sneak the glasses. Every 3D movie I've gone to in my area they hand out sturdy 'recyclable' glasses that they never bother to collect back.
The number of cases AI have enough documented proof to feel safe in making the claim on != the actual number of people who have died.
Appearently not enough to warrant a website that doesn't look like it was made by a hopped up Frontpage addict.
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope?
I think the Chinese Needle Snakes can take care of that problem for you.
Context my friend, context. There were certainly more than a few mitigating factors involved then. Not the least of which was the return home, all over most the civilized world, of sizable groups of people who had been living in poor conditions for an extended period of time, in environments their systems weren't used.
No the flu is not a picnic in the park, but today's American population, by and large, are living in far better conditions and with much better and greater access to the necessary health care to prevent such things.
Unless you plan on glassing the whole area to ensure nothing grows back, sometimes you can't just 'remove the fuel'.
You are right, any nutso can get a sniper rifle, case full of ammo, and take out half a campus from the church tower. It's the really dangerous folk, like the ones who haven't had access to your network in the past year (which you somehow haven't secured on your own because you are too fucking stupid) that are the real danger to society at large.
Here's a tip for the Judge, if there is still something out there on SF's network that Childs actually could manipulate with greater access or affect than a normal citizen, then the folk who should be in jail are the ones who cleaned up the mess.