Even at the time I didn’t understand why Microsoft got punished about setting a default browser. It was their operating system; of course they should be able to set something as default.
That‘s too bad—you are missing out on the use of quite a valuable tool. I have been saved a lot of money and time by using RottenTomatoes because my preferences almost always align with those of the movie critics. (Batman V Superman was one such avoided disaster.)
I see. I'll have to take your word for it, because it would seem that even the lighthearted comedies have enough movement in them that it would be disturbing. However, I don't have your affliction with movement, so I can't defintively ascertain your threshold. Also, perhaps the commercials in your area are different than those that air in mine. I'm sorry for jumping on you like that. I should have waited for a response from you. There are many people here who are opposed to televisions and make grand statements about it instead of stating simple facts, and I assumed you were one of the same. I'm still not entirely sold on your condition, but I'm more willing to accept that, even if the problem really doesn't exist, you're at least consistent, heh.
Wait a second. Ads make you dizzy, sick, and physically uncomfortable, but somehow downloaded TV shows cause none of those symptoms? I've seen people say it before here; that television is physically draining and distracting, and it always smacks not of truth, but lies and elitism. It's okay to admit you don't like advertisements. But I don't buy your story of having mental troubles watching ads whatsoever. It's just typical Slashdot fluff.
As for myself, I block as many ads as I can, Google Adwords included. I don't trust Internet advertisements. I trust television advertisements more: businesses on the television can be found and prosecuted, while an Internet company could be based in a far-off country in the basement of a warehouse. I don't think I have ever purchased an item from a site via an advertisement click-through.
I know it's difficult to get money on the Internet, and that advertisements are one viable source of maintaining a steady income. But I really feel betrayed when a site that becomes popular decides to put ads up on their site to cut costs. I understand it's either that or the site is slower to update or dead entirely, but I really don't like having to wade through ads. I'll donate or buy products, but I don't want to have to click on ads and purchase from the companies supplying the ads to keep a favored website afloat.
A link to these episodes was posted months ago on a forum I visit (old news, Slashdot!) and I had a lot of fun watching them. My little siblings enjoyed them, too.
Why is it considered acceptable for companies to charge the user/fan base for contributing content to the company? Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I would think my continued support and contributions to an online community would nullify my requirement to pay for a service I'm helping to maintain! I've seen this attitude on many sites: contribute data to us to make our site better - but pay to do so! Why should enriching a company's database of information cost ME money? I'm contributing to the system, yet I still have to contribute MORE to said system before things are considered even for both parties? What then - if the company emails me, should I be allowed to charge them for me reading the email? They contributed to MY database - thanks, here's the bill!
Now, I understand that on the Internet, there are bandwidth bills to pay. I'm not saying that asking for money on the Internet is necessarily wrong. However, I still don't think it follows common sense that a site built around a community charges the community to stick around. That's counter-productive, isn't it?
A major news site apologizing for being wrong doesn't surprise you?
I'm not surprised that the BBC got something wrong, nor am I shocked to see they apologized for their error. I've seen signs of bad reporting in the past, so making a mistake is not something new for the BBC. They're not as credible a source as some claim. As for apologizing; well, they're not the first to do it, and certainly won't be the last.
I know many people here live and breathe the BBC, but I hold little faith in their reporting skills.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) defines the standard, as they were founded by the inventor of the the Web! http://w3c.org/Consortium/
What they say, goes. Microsoft is a company that makes a browser that renders the Web. The W3C makes the Web. What Microsoft can do is what everyone has to do - suggest changes, improvements, and modifications to the standards. Just because Microsoft implemtented the changes without getting them approved doesn't therefore make them "standard".
The only way this would be similiar is if Trillian had tried to sell a chat client that used Yahoo to block out users who didn't pay. I don't understand this statement, so if you could please define this more for me, I would be grateful. No, I'm not being sarcastic.
The reason I'm confused is because Trillian does sell a chat client.
Further, compatibility was critical to Trillian because there was no alternative to reaching Yahoo users.
There was and is an alternative to reaching Yahoo! users - Yahoo! Messenger.
Why would Microsoft have to support a competitor's product that works on Microsoft technology? They don't do that now with products that work on Windows, so why would they have to for Word?
What? I don't understand why DRM suddenly absolves Apple from any ethical responsibility. The point stands. Yahoo! blocked Trillian from using their protocol - their DRM - and Slashdot users disliked it. Now that Apple is blocking their DRM - their protocol - it's considered okay by the Slashdot community?
The perfect online music store would be iTunes, with every song ever made available, and the ability to play the song anywhere. However, since the latter request would make the former request impossible, I'd just like to see iTunes with all music available. The sound quality of the songs are great, and the price can't be beat (legally, and no, allofmp3.com is not legal).
Thanks for the answers, everyone. In my experience, aside from a few bands, I haven't liked the live experience. It's interesting to see how many do like tour sound quality.
First, I would like to know why people would want to listen to live performances. Most often these are songs sung on tour, with the singer half dead from exhaustion. On top of that, acoustics are pretty bad as well! There's also the problem with many singers not being all that great of singers, and peforming pretty poorly outside the studio, but that's not true for every singer.
Second, are most bootlegs recordings from the mic mix, or from the crowd? If it was the crowd, I ask again, why would anyone want these things?
Personally, I don't know why live recordings are sold. I don't think they're worth the money.
So that makes it okay? Not trying to be a troll... it just seems that many users here bring up the "copyright isn't theft" argument, and it appears very often that it is in defense of copyright infringement, rather than just a clarification.
Let's look at what you said. I offer a small-scale download. Obviously, this isn't a full size, or full quality version.
Okay, now let's look at you Slashdotters want before a purchase. A full music stream? At what quality? Obviously, you're only willing to download a near perfect quality download, because you've ignored the alternatives. Amazon.com and other online music distributors offer preview songs. You can retrieve the lyrics online. You can go to a store and listen to the songs in preview booths. iTunes offers thirty second previews. The websites of the bands often offer the entire music video. But of course, ignore all that, and instead just illegally download the entire song in mp3 format, ripped right from the original CD.
Excuse me? This gets modified a troll? I thought the moderators were supposed to be objective here. Please tell me how illegally downloading music is in any way justified by "going through the playlists of others". Good job moderators, you just showed you're biased against following the law. Bravo.
Yes, which is why I don't post high-quality, original sized images on the Internet. I was referring more to a "what if" situation than what has really happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Even at the time I didn’t understand why Microsoft got punished about setting a default browser. It was their operating system; of course they should be able to set something as default.
If only one could search the internet for answers to questions like yours (LeEco does not appear to be the company to which you are referring)
That‘s too bad—you are missing out on the use of quite a valuable tool. I have been saved a lot of money and time by using RottenTomatoes because my preferences almost always align with those of the movie critics. (Batman V Superman was one such avoided disaster.)
As for myself, I block as many ads as I can, Google Adwords included. I don't trust Internet advertisements. I trust television advertisements more: businesses on the television can be found and prosecuted, while an Internet company could be based in a far-off country in the basement of a warehouse. I don't think I have ever purchased an item from a site via an advertisement click-through.
I know it's difficult to get money on the Internet, and that advertisements are one viable source of maintaining a steady income. But I really feel betrayed when a site that becomes popular decides to put ads up on their site to cut costs. I understand it's either that or the site is slower to update or dead entirely, but I really don't like having to wade through ads. I'll donate or buy products, but I don't want to have to click on ads and purchase from the companies supplying the ads to keep a favored website afloat.
I didn't remember them being so goofy, though.
Now, I understand that on the Internet, there are bandwidth bills to pay. I'm not saying that asking for money on the Internet is necessarily wrong. However, I still don't think it follows common sense that a site built around a community charges the community to stick around. That's counter-productive, isn't it?
I'm not surprised that the BBC got something wrong, nor am I shocked to see they apologized for their error. I've seen signs of bad reporting in the past, so making a mistake is not something new for the BBC. They're not as credible a source as some claim. As for apologizing; well, they're not the first to do it, and certainly won't be the last.
I know many people here live and breathe the BBC, but I hold little faith in their reporting skills.
Sorry about the italic text. I seem to have forgotten to close a tag.
What they say, goes. Microsoft is a company that makes a browser that renders the Web. The W3C makes the Web. What Microsoft can do is what everyone has to do - suggest changes, improvements, and modifications to the standards. Just because Microsoft implemtented the changes without getting them approved doesn't therefore make them "standard".
The reason I'm confused is because Trillian does sell a chat client.
Further, compatibility was critical to Trillian because there was no alternative to reaching Yahoo users.
There was and is an alternative to reaching Yahoo! users - Yahoo! Messenger.
Why would Microsoft have to support a competitor's product that works on Microsoft technology? They don't do that now with products that work on Windows, so why would they have to for Word?
What? I don't understand why DRM suddenly absolves Apple from any ethical responsibility. The point stands. Yahoo! blocked Trillian from using their protocol - their DRM - and Slashdot users disliked it. Now that Apple is blocking their DRM - their protocol - it's considered okay by the Slashdot community?
Tom's scanner says my Microsoft Shared\Ink GDI file is vulnerable, but Microsoft says everything's okay on my computer. What's up with that?!
The perfect online music store would be iTunes, with every song ever made available, and the ability to play the song anywhere. However, since the latter request would make the former request impossible, I'd just like to see iTunes with all music available. The sound quality of the songs are great, and the price can't be beat (legally, and no, allofmp3.com is not legal).
Thanks for the answers, everyone. In my experience, aside from a few bands, I haven't liked the live experience. It's interesting to see how many do like tour sound quality.
Second, are most bootlegs recordings from the mic mix, or from the crowd? If it was the crowd, I ask again, why would anyone want these things?
Personally, I don't know why live recordings are sold. I don't think they're worth the money.
Yes, you're paying the $150,000 for the camera lens. The HAL 9000 set is a reproduction.
I mean, it came out of nowhere... "Servo Magazine had an article" BAM "Jews Did WTC"... haha... so stupid, but funny due to the shock value.
Wow, 2XL has been taking some steroids!
So that makes it okay? Not trying to be a troll... it just seems that many users here bring up the "copyright isn't theft" argument, and it appears very often that it is in defense of copyright infringement, rather than just a clarification.
Okay, now let's look at you Slashdotters want before a purchase. A full music stream? At what quality? Obviously, you're only willing to download a near perfect quality download, because you've ignored the alternatives. Amazon.com and other online music distributors offer preview songs. You can retrieve the lyrics online. You can go to a store and listen to the songs in preview booths. iTunes offers thirty second previews. The websites of the bands often offer the entire music video. But of course, ignore all that, and instead just illegally download the entire song in mp3 format, ripped right from the original CD.
Excuse me? This gets modified a troll? I thought the moderators were supposed to be objective here. Please tell me how illegally downloading music is in any way justified by "going through the playlists of others". Good job moderators, you just showed you're biased against following the law. Bravo.
Yes, which is why I don't post high-quality, original sized images on the Internet. I was referring more to a "what if" situation than what has really happened.
This doesn't justify filesharing. There are legal methods of obtaining playlists of others.