Really, Hulu was doomed from the start. They are competing against their owners, never a situation which resolves with a happy ending.
Hulu is owned by FOX and NBC, it gets it's content from the big networks, the only reason any of them are willing to join this venture is because they see Hulu as the way to capture that last 'small' group of people who watch TV on their computer rather than at a 'TV'.
They don't want Hulu to be competing directly with themselves on a TV, because the ad revenue they can get from getting your ass in a couch and watching TV vs. you watching it via Hulu is orders of magnitude greater. And unfortunately, that's not a tech thing, that's a "sponsers aren't willing to pay" thing.
What these folk (though I think Hulu understands it perfectly) don't get is that the division line between TV and PC is growing fainter and dimmer every day and eventually, the distinction is going to be meaningless.
The networks, more than likely, are going to keep turning the screws on Hulu. They'll be trying to ensure it can only be watched 'from a computer' rather than 'from a TV'. And each time they do, the more successful they are, the more irrevelant Hulu will become.
Hulu can't escape from this, not while Hulu is owned and run by the networks, because there is no incentive for them to allow Hulu to be anything more and every incentive to keep it from being anything more.
If I were a Hulu employee, I might not be jumping ship, but I certainly would not be sitting back toasting myself over the nice secure job I had.
It was 'reasonable' for Hulu to ask Boxee to remove a feature that tied solely into Hulu.
It is not reasonable for Hulu to ask Boxee to remove a feature that ties into a number of services and just happens to work with a service that Hulu provides.
Expecting Boxee not to point out how to do it, given it hardly even an open secret at this point, is absurd.
If Hulu's partners don't want people watching their content from outside of the website, why do they provide an RSS feed? Either they are ignorant or they are playing games.
To be honest, given the situation, I don't know which. But it's definately one of the two.
Actually no, I don't accept that Steam is "opposed" to this. I simply think you are stuck in the world of pretending that having bought a game on CD is more secure than having the ability to download it whenever you want/need to.
Those six binders of games take up a full bookshelf in my computer room. The terabyte hard drive I could have stored them all on if they had been downloads, takes up less space than most of my hardbound books.
The hard drive is only necessary if I accept the premise that Steam is dead, as if Steam lives, then the hard drive is merely a convince factor for me when I don't want wait for Steam to download the game.
And if I accept your premise, then the only argument is whether my easily copied hard drive is a safer alternative to backing up my games than your vaunted "I know how to take care of my CDs" crap. Accidents happen, and hardware fails.
And, since my hard drive CAN be copied indefinitely, with multiple copies existing simultaneously, the answer to the question is: yes.
Yes. It's safer. Yes. It takes up far less space. Yes. It's easier.
But that's OK Mr. McGregor; I'll get off your lawn now. You stick to your tired old media, that's your choice. Just don't act like an ass and pretend that it's the only "right choice" for the rest of us out there.
We aren't all as hung up as you are, we don't all have the same priorities as you do. And as far as some of us are concerned, Steam is the preferable alternative.
Like the typical self-righteous ass, you fail when it comes to reading comprehension, critical thinking, or actual fact checking.
Every game I've purchased on Steam is backed up. To a single hard drive. And should, some day, Valve look as if it were in dire straits, I'll be able take advantage of the fact that my backups are stand alone files which can simply be copied to preserve.
How about you? How are your games backed up? Do you have back ups, since you had your nose turned up high enough to drown when it rains over the idea of cracks, I'm guessing no.
You would prefer to pretend that in a decade you'll still be able to load those scratched CDs, that the scratches won't set off the SecureRom (or whatever DRM your game came with) disk check. That should YOUR six binders of games get stolen, the police will quickly and efficiently find the villain and return your property unharmed.
And you look down on Steam users for being naïve?
PS. Cracks aren't illegal. Using them to violate copyright is. If I own the game and Steam is dead, I'm not violating anything using a crack.
PSS. I lied, I do reply to idiots who use ad hominem attacks. I just preferred to give you the chance to pull your head of your ass and realize that your attitude had no place in the discussion. Too bad you are too ignorant to actually clue into things like that.
Steam allows you to backup your games to a physical medium. And there are sufficient cracks out there for defeating Steam that should they go under, even if they failed to keep their original promise of releasing a patch to remove the requirement for authentication, I'd still be able to play the games I've bought through them.
Right now, I have six binders which hold ~200 CDs each sitting on the floor of my computer room these contain the CDs for every game and program I've bought since software was sold on CD.
I have four binders holding my DVD collection.
I have two binders holding my music collection.
I have two binders holding my console video game collection.
And I never, ever, plan on selling any of that to a used game company. Not because I have moral issues with it, but because for me, being able to go back and replay Dungeon Keeper 2 once every three years is worth the effort.
For me, Steam has no downside regarding the used game market. The upsides however, are immense. Every game I buy on Steam is that many less CDs and DVDs to store in those binders. It's one less item to OCD over trying to digitize because I'm worried that some day the original media will deteriorate and I won't be able to use it anymore.
IMO Steam is a perfect alternative to selling/buying your games on physical media. While Steam does work against the used market, it provides sufficent 'pluses' to make up for loss.
You gain the ability to download the game to any computer and play it, as long as no other computers are logged in as you. You gain the ability to redownload the game as many times as you need. You gain access to things like ingame messenging, even if the game itself didn't have such a system.
The real problem will be, and it will be a short lived one I promise you, when companies decide to kill the physical media while simultaneously attempting to roll their own digitial distribution system rather than use one of the currently established platforms like Steam. Those games are going to be abandoned by customers and publishers faster than you can say Rumplestilskin.
There are always going to be people of a relgious slant who believe they are the holy guardians and safekeepers of the one true message. These people will always consider those who present the message in a different manner to be heritics and thus just as unholy as those who reject the message straight out.
Regardless, those who don't see themselves in that light (over that particular message) will often group everyone with similar messages into the same label. Be it Christian, Muslim, Liberal, Conservative, or etc.
Google has always let you peruse the complete work when they believe (either by expiration of copyright or by consent of the rights holder) they are able to. The rest have always been contrained to just the search phrase and a 'random' selection of pages often chosen by the publisher.
Unless Maryland has a law indicating that you must keep logs, then nothing happens. But most sites do keep logs, not of who posted, but of what IP the post came from. They do so for various reasons, not excluding the ability to block an IP should they cross a line the site has drawn in the sand (i.e. abusivie, spammer, disagrees with the host, etc.)
You and an AC have equal credibility, thus my indirect point. The OP indicated that somehow an AC comment means less (i.e. has no weight) when in reality, hardly anyone ever takes into account who said something, just what was said.
The Maryland decision is a good one. It provides the courts the ability to weigh the comments themselves before deciding to revoke someone's anonymity. The 'warning' part doesn't really matter. The part that matters, to me, is the fact that before disclosure is required, the courts are actually looking at the claim rather than simply accepting on face value from the plaintiff that the statements are defamatory.
Scariest level I ever played, to this day, was the first time I played the opening level of Unreal. 100% scripted, and I don't think you even get a gun till the next level.
Scripting done well is scary, scripting done "well you've stepped on this obvious trigger, now something happens" isn't. The key issue is ensuring the player doesn't feel like they know what's going to happen next.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, Hulu was doomed from the start. They are competing against their owners, never a situation which resolves with a happy ending.
Hulu is owned by FOX and NBC, it gets it's content from the big networks, the only reason any of them are willing to join this venture is because they see Hulu as the way to capture that last 'small' group of people who watch TV on their computer rather than at a 'TV'.
They don't want Hulu to be competing directly with themselves on a TV, because the ad revenue they can get from getting your ass in a couch and watching TV vs. you watching it via Hulu is orders of magnitude greater. And unfortunately, that's not a tech thing, that's a "sponsers aren't willing to pay" thing.
What these folk (though I think Hulu understands it perfectly) don't get is that the division line between TV and PC is growing fainter and dimmer every day and eventually, the distinction is going to be meaningless.
The networks, more than likely, are going to keep turning the screws on Hulu. They'll be trying to ensure it can only be watched 'from a computer' rather than 'from a TV'. And each time they do, the more successful they are, the more irrevelant Hulu will become.
Hulu can't escape from this, not while Hulu is owned and run by the networks, because there is no incentive for them to allow Hulu to be anything more and every incentive to keep it from being anything more.
If I were a Hulu employee, I might not be jumping ship, but I certainly would not be sitting back toasting myself over the nice secure job I had.
It was 'reasonable' for Hulu to ask Boxee to remove a feature that tied solely into Hulu.
It is not reasonable for Hulu to ask Boxee to remove a feature that ties into a number of services and just happens to work with a service that Hulu provides.
Expecting Boxee not to point out how to do it, given it hardly even an open secret at this point, is absurd.
If Hulu's partners don't want people watching their content from outside of the website, why do they provide an RSS feed? Either they are ignorant or they are playing games.
To be honest, given the situation, I don't know which. But it's definately one of the two.
They aren't adding it back so much as pointing out that their existing feature now supports Hulu without needing a dedicated plugin.
Thus, if Hulu's "partners" still have a problem with it, they need to kill RSS feeds rather than play games trying to block apps.
Obviously your troops are mocking your micromanagement and totalitarian attitude. See, the AI is human-like.
Actually no, I don't accept that Steam is "opposed" to this. I simply think you are stuck in the world of pretending that having bought a game on CD is more secure than having the ability to download it whenever you want/need to.
Those six binders of games take up a full bookshelf in my computer room. The terabyte hard drive I could have stored them all on if they had been downloads, takes up less space than most of my hardbound books.
The hard drive is only necessary if I accept the premise that Steam is dead, as if Steam lives, then the hard drive is merely a convince factor for me when I don't want wait for Steam to download the game.
And if I accept your premise, then the only argument is whether my easily copied hard drive is a safer alternative to backing up my games than your vaunted "I know how to take care of my CDs" crap. Accidents happen, and hardware fails.
And, since my hard drive CAN be copied indefinitely, with multiple copies existing simultaneously, the answer to the question is: yes.
Yes. It's safer.
Yes. It takes up far less space.
Yes. It's easier.
But that's OK Mr. McGregor; I'll get off your lawn now. You stick to your tired old media, that's your choice. Just don't act like an ass and pretend that it's the only "right choice" for the rest of us out there.
We aren't all as hung up as you are, we don't all have the same priorities as you do. And as far as some of us are concerned, Steam is the preferable alternative.
Like the typical self-righteous ass, you fail when it comes to reading comprehension, critical thinking, or actual fact checking.
Every game I've purchased on Steam is backed up. To a single hard drive. And should, some day, Valve look as if it were in dire straits, I'll be able take advantage of the fact that my backups are stand alone files which can simply be copied to preserve.
How about you? How are your games backed up? Do you have back ups, since you had your nose turned up high enough to drown when it rains over the idea of cracks, I'm guessing no.
You would prefer to pretend that in a decade you'll still be able to load those scratched CDs, that the scratches won't set off the SecureRom (or whatever DRM your game came with) disk check. That should YOUR six binders of games get stolen, the police will quickly and efficiently find the villain and return your property unharmed.
And you look down on Steam users for being naïve?
PS. Cracks aren't illegal. Using them to violate copyright is. If I own the game and Steam is dead, I'm not violating anything using a crack.
PSS. I lied, I do reply to idiots who use ad hominem attacks. I just preferred to give you the chance to pull your head of your ass and realize that your attitude had no place in the discussion. Too bad you are too ignorant to actually clue into things like that.
See here for my response. People who decide to toss ad hominem attacks into a conversation don't warrant the effort of an actual reply.
Steam allows you to backup your games to a physical medium. And there are sufficient cracks out there for defeating Steam that should they go under, even if they failed to keep their original promise of releasing a patch to remove the requirement for authentication, I'd still be able to play the games I've bought through them.
Or see here.
Right now, I have six binders which hold ~200 CDs each sitting on the floor of my computer room these contain the CDs for every game and program I've bought since software was sold on CD.
I have four binders holding my DVD collection.
I have two binders holding my music collection.
I have two binders holding my console video game collection.
And I never, ever, plan on selling any of that to a used game company. Not because I have moral issues with it, but because for me, being able to go back and replay Dungeon Keeper 2 once every three years is worth the effort.
For me, Steam has no downside regarding the used game market. The upsides however, are immense. Every game I buy on Steam is that many less CDs and DVDs to store in those binders. It's one less item to OCD over trying to digitize because I'm worried that some day the original media will deteriorate and I won't be able to use it anymore.
And the problem here is what exactly?
IMO Steam is a perfect alternative to selling/buying your games on physical media. While Steam does work against the used market, it provides sufficent 'pluses' to make up for loss.
You gain the ability to download the game to any computer and play it, as long as no other computers are logged in as you. You gain the ability to redownload the game as many times as you need. You gain access to things like ingame messenging, even if the game itself didn't have such a system.
The real problem will be, and it will be a short lived one I promise you, when companies decide to kill the physical media while simultaneously attempting to roll their own digitial distribution system rather than use one of the currently established platforms like Steam. Those games are going to be abandoned by customers and publishers faster than you can say Rumplestilskin.
And how fast do you think those copies are moving?
There are always going to be people of a relgious slant who believe they are the holy guardians and safekeepers of the one true message. These people will always consider those who present the message in a different manner to be heritics and thus just as unholy as those who reject the message straight out.
Regardless, those who don't see themselves in that light (over that particular message) will often group everyone with similar messages into the same label. Be it Christian, Muslim, Liberal, Conservative, or etc.
Soon. Wait, can something that occured in past be considered soon?
Quandry....
Google has always let you peruse the complete work when they believe (either by expiration of copyright or by consent of the rights holder) they are able to. The rest have always been contrained to just the search phrase and a 'random' selection of pages often chosen by the publisher.
I'd be on board for a Coraline 2 - Bedlam Strikes Back.
In Korea, only old people use YouTube.
Luckily Jack was to Business as Joseph Bonaparte was to War. Completely ineffective.
Yes, I'm a bitter owner of two Atari ST's.
Depends on how many times you can 'restore' the equipment before the chemicals used damage the plastic.
Unless Maryland has a law indicating that you must keep logs, then nothing happens. But most sites do keep logs, not of who posted, but of what IP the post came from. They do so for various reasons, not excluding the ability to block an IP should they cross a line the site has drawn in the sand (i.e. abusivie, spammer, disagrees with the host, etc.)
You and an AC have equal credibility, thus my indirect point. The OP indicated that somehow an AC comment means less (i.e. has no weight) when in reality, hardly anyone ever takes into account who said something, just what was said.
The Maryland decision is a good one. It provides the courts the ability to weigh the comments themselves before deciding to revoke someone's anonymity. The 'warning' part doesn't really matter. The part that matters, to me, is the fact that before disclosure is required, the courts are actually looking at the claim rather than simply accepting on face value from the plaintiff that the statements are defamatory.
It doesn't matter; bridges traditionally aren't built with doors. Having a troll living under them makes them inherently secure.
As inane as it is, you have to admit that when you have Senators and Representatives in DC , it's worth money.
Furby's were inane too.
I'd agree with you, but well, you posted as an AC and thus have no weight in this discussion. Too bad.
Scariest level I ever played, to this day, was the first time I played the opening level of Unreal. 100% scripted, and I don't think you even get a gun till the next level.
Scripting done well is scary, scripting done "well you've stepped on this obvious trigger, now something happens" isn't. The key issue is ensuring the player doesn't feel like they know what's going to happen next.