I'm still wondering why anyone had to upgrade to XP from 2000.
Well, I upgraded from Windows 98 to Windows XP, which was a huge improvement. I can't say I've seen any appreciable difference between XP and 2000 though (I regularly use 2000 at the office), save for the skin and themeing abilities in XP, which is not a big selling point for me.
I have, however no intention of ever upgrading to Vista, although my hardware can run it, why would I want to? Eye candy does not equate to a solid operating system and the whole built-in DRM support in Vista is a massive brick wall to me ever even possibly wanting to use it.
Every British person i've met, male or female, claims that American women play those crazy games defined in "The Rules" - i.e., the ultimate women's guide to never having or enjoying sex - a hundred times more than British women, who are more receptive to open advances.
At some point I recognized those 'games' for what they were and now simply refuse to play them. By telling people I know they're bullshitting, I usually get them to simply be honest. Life is so much easier that way.
Ok, interesting, I wasn't aware of that one. Great.
I wonder how ABC feels about this, calling fast-forwarding through commercials 'theft'. Certainly seems to be a perfectly fair application of the quoted law, since it's 'at the direction of a member of a private household' and no fixed copy is ever created.
Too bad the courts will only see that issue the way they're told to see it and not the way that the law states or even actually makes sense.
What I'm interested to know is how this affects parents who use their DVR's to achieve the same purpose to sanitize movies for their children. Hollywood has expressed anger over THAT practice, too, which seems to me wholly unfair.
Teaching for tests is better than not teaching, and, frankly, arts and music aren't very useful.
Arts and music aren't very useful...
Well, let's take that at face value, and ask ourselves why children that learn to play instruments early in life do better at math than children who don't.
Or, tell Locke, Hobbes, and Thomas Jefferson that the 'arts aren't very useful' and then see philosophy change the world.
The utter ignorance necessary to make such specious claims is completely beyond me.
As for "teaching for tests is better than not teaching," well, then what is the point of teaching? If the purpose of teaching is to pass tests, you're correct. However, if teaching is for ANY other purpose, you're sorely mistaken - and in fact the child would probably be better of incapable of memorizing facts and figures, because at least then society wouldn't create yet another mindless consumer-drone. Or weren't you aware that that's all 'school' is for? The age when 'education' had anything to do with 'teaching' has long since passed.
No no, that sounds like a great reason but really has nothing to do with it. Why should they care if some dude in Shanghai, China sees the release on the same day as Joe Blow in NYC? If there's going to be any excitement about the DVD, it will have been generated by the movie in the theater and the announcement that there's GOING to be a DVD... not the particular day on which the DVD gets released.
I've never heard of a DVD being released before the movie was even in theaters elsewhere in the world. Not that I doubt it happens, but I can't imagine it happens often enough for the mega-million dollar investments required to implement region-encoding to have been worth it, unless they expected to be get lots of extra money for that kind of investment, which leads me to....
No, the real reason behind region-encoding is so that you can charge rich American Joe Blow twice as much as the dude in Shanghai. Americans pay up the proverbial ASS for things like crappy cell phones whereas if you go anywhere else in the world, phones with twice as many features go for 25% the price. And the only reason behind this is that Americans are generally more affluent and so are a better source of revenue - i.e., Americans are paying whatever the DVD producers think the market will bear, a price which is significantly higher in the US than anywhere else.
But I also realize that if everyone exercises their right to skip commercials then the current business model is doomed.
And this is a problem... why? Nothing guarantees success, except buying Congress, which seems to be the only approach any of these companies are willing to take anymore. "Wahh, save us from the bully public!" They learned that innovation actually takes time and effort and costs money, so instead, they whine that their 'business model is in jeopardy.' Yeah well, deal with it, it's called capitalism.
What's that old saying that companies nowadays wish wasn't true? Oh yeah, "Adapt or perish."
I see a lot of attitude here that seems to suggest that we can do what we want and the networks can't do anything but take it and keep delivering the shows we want.
Exactly, because that's exactly the point. We CAN do what we want - and so can they. We can't force them to do anything, but likewise they can't force US to do anything. But that's exactly what they're trying to do. They're going to waste god-knows how much time, effort, and money, in order to effect CONTROL over the viewing experience - instead of actually innovating and supplying a solution that satisfies both parties.
What is that solution? I have no freakin' idea. But so long as companies like this one insist that the only way to continue doing business is to actively FORCE people to do what they want, they're not going to discover those ideas and instead, will actively work to crush them.
Now, that doesn't seem very self interested, to me. It seems like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
It's also wrong to expect something for nothing. Free broadcast TV without commercials is something for nothing.
Congratulations, you've accepted what you were told to accept without ever questioning it. I won't admonish you for that. I simply find it unfortunate.
I don't know what percentage of people get TV over cable, but I do, and millions of Americans and I pay a nice hefty monthly fee for the pleasure. I pay that fee which originated years ago with cable as a commercial-free alternative to broadcast tv.
The reasoning being used by these networks is akin to saying it is our RESPONSIBILITY to provide their ratings. Provide something I want to watch (yes, that includes commercials) and you've got yourself a deal. Or they can choose to not provide that, in which case I can choose to watch what I get something out of and discard the rest.
"Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming." -Jamie Kellner chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting
My reply to that bullshit:
I never signed no stinkin' contract. I pay for my TV (I have cable). I am not getting your stupid TV shows for free, and I do not pay to watch your commercials, thank you very much.
Now go jump off a tall building so that someone less moronic can take your place.
'Play', 'pause' or 'stop' should be enough for everyone!
Play and pause, sure. But stop? Nope, they want that removed too, because it's theft to not watch the whole show/movie the way it was INTENDED to be watched.
After all, that's the argument they use to say that not watching commercials is theft, why not apply it to the stop button too?
I prefer commercials over, lets say, government funded media.
But government funded media is exactly what you're getting, when companies successfully lobby Congress to do things like, say, make it illegal to change the channel during commercials.
Haven't heard of it? Of course you wouldn't - the media is making sure nobody ever hears about that. It's called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006 and it's already in Congress.
Some days I just want to kill myself and save myself the trouble of suffering through the next ~80 years in a world committed to absolute and total control of everything.
Thief. Or at least, ABC and all the rest would like you to think so. Because you know, it's now your DUTY to watch television, where once they were grateful for your viewership - now it's your responsibility!
And creating a straw man for the express purpose of glossing over a point isn't?
The point is that the original poster was trying to make out that spending time on Slashdot is just as much a waste of time as watching TV. While I do think there are some worthwhile things to watch on TV, I think in terms of raw value of time spent, interacting on Slashdot is far more valuable if only because it gets people to think, if not about someone else's point, than at least about their own opinion on stuff (those that actually participate in the discussions).
It's astounding how little many people know about their own point of view on various topics, points of view that never develop until challenged. That is the real value in interaction. It's also something that, while not unheard of, does not happen frequently while watching a TV show.
Firstly, you waive any right to the privacy of information that you distribute. If the US Gov bought your information, that means you gave it to one of these data-companies and agreed to allow its dissemination.
The people who work for these data brokers have already admitted they use illegal methods to obtain this data. That right there renders your whole argument moot.
But, just for the sake of argument, let's say that I distribute information I don't want shared, like, oh, my social security number when I apply for a credit card. No, the company has no right, under any circumstances, to distribute that information.
Secondly, the US Gov's buying of your information does not deprive you of any of the above entities (life, liberty, property).... By these actions, one is not deprived of their liberty, unless the aforementioned information is used in coercion of an individual, which is an entirely different issue.
And you trust your government not to use that information in a coercive way? Then there's probably nothing I can say to make you believe otherwise.
But beyond that, the government has NO RIGHT to that information about me - I give them enough when I give them my tax return. They don't need to know that I buy Mountain Dew twice a week at the Giant grocery around the corner.
Slashdot Mirror
Best.
Post.
Ever.
I love those commercials. My favorite one is the recent hotdog one about 47 more hotdogs really hitting the spot.
Hmmm, seems somehow appropriate.
I have, however no intention of ever upgrading to Vista, although my hardware can run it, why would I want to? Eye candy does not equate to a solid operating system and the whole built-in DRM support in Vista is a massive brick wall to me ever even possibly wanting to use it.
And anyway, I want to move to Britain.
Ok, interesting, I wasn't aware of that one. Great.
I wonder how ABC feels about this, calling fast-forwarding through commercials 'theft'. Certainly seems to be a perfectly fair application of the quoted law, since it's 'at the direction of a member of a private household' and no fixed copy is ever created.
Too bad the courts will only see that issue the way they're told to see it and not the way that the law states or even actually makes sense.
What I'm interested to know is how this affects parents who use their DVR's to achieve the same purpose to sanitize movies for their children. Hollywood has expressed anger over THAT practice, too, which seems to me wholly unfair.
I wondered how long it would take for someone to pull that one out. LOL.
And Homer Simpson sold his soul for a doughnut. Price too high for what should be almost free? Perhaps.
But then, nobody who loves sports and wants to be a career athlete should have any trouble selling their soul for the chance, right?
Comply or be relegated to mediocrity. Nice set of choices we've got there.
Arts and music aren't very useful...
Well, let's take that at face value, and ask ourselves why children that learn to play instruments early in life do better at math than children who don't.
Or, tell Locke, Hobbes, and Thomas Jefferson that the 'arts aren't very useful' and then see philosophy change the world.
The utter ignorance necessary to make such specious claims is completely beyond me.
As for "teaching for tests is better than not teaching," well, then what is the point of teaching? If the purpose of teaching is to pass tests, you're correct. However, if teaching is for ANY other purpose, you're sorely mistaken - and in fact the child would probably be better of incapable of memorizing facts and figures, because at least then society wouldn't create yet another mindless consumer-drone. Or weren't you aware that that's all 'school' is for? The age when 'education' had anything to do with 'teaching' has long since passed.
No no, that sounds like a great reason but really has nothing to do with it. Why should they care if some dude in Shanghai, China sees the release on the same day as Joe Blow in NYC? If there's going to be any excitement about the DVD, it will have been generated by the movie in the theater and the announcement that there's GOING to be a DVD... not the particular day on which the DVD gets released.
I've never heard of a DVD being released before the movie was even in theaters elsewhere in the world. Not that I doubt it happens, but I can't imagine it happens often enough for the mega-million dollar investments required to implement region-encoding to have been worth it, unless they expected to be get lots of extra money for that kind of investment, which leads me to....
No, the real reason behind region-encoding is so that you can charge rich American Joe Blow twice as much as the dude in Shanghai. Americans pay up the proverbial ASS for things like crappy cell phones whereas if you go anywhere else in the world, phones with twice as many features go for 25% the price. And the only reason behind this is that Americans are generally more affluent and so are a better source of revenue - i.e., Americans are paying whatever the DVD producers think the market will bear, a price which is significantly higher in the US than anywhere else.
Damn, you're on a roll today. Again, thank you. Very clear.
What's that old saying that companies nowadays wish wasn't true? Oh yeah, "Adapt or perish."
Exactly, because that's exactly the point. We CAN do what we want - and so can they. We can't force them to do anything, but likewise they can't force US to do anything. But that's exactly what they're trying to do. They're going to waste god-knows how much time, effort, and money, in order to effect CONTROL over the viewing experience - instead of actually innovating and supplying a solution that satisfies both parties.
What is that solution? I have no freakin' idea. But so long as companies like this one insist that the only way to continue doing business is to actively FORCE people to do what they want, they're not going to discover those ideas and instead, will actively work to crush them.
Now, that doesn't seem very self interested, to me. It seems like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
Thank you.
I don't know what percentage of people get TV over cable, but I do, and millions of Americans and I pay a nice hefty monthly fee for the pleasure. I pay that fee which originated years ago with cable as a commercial-free alternative to broadcast tv.
The reasoning being used by these networks is akin to saying it is our RESPONSIBILITY to provide their ratings. Provide something I want to watch (yes, that includes commercials) and you've got yourself a deal. Or they can choose to not provide that, in which case I can choose to watch what I get something out of and discard the rest.
My reply to that bullshit:
I never signed no stinkin' contract. I pay for my TV (I have cable). I am not getting your stupid TV shows for free, and I do not pay to watch your commercials, thank you very much.
Now go jump off a tall building so that someone less moronic can take your place.
I always wonder about people who feel so angrily compelled to tell people they are meaningless.
I sometimes wonder what their motivation could possibly be.. except that they so dearly want others to believe they are meaningless.
And so nothing in the world ever changes, and we wonder why.
I used a Tivo for a summer in 2002, complete with 30 second skip. Was very convenient.
After all, that's the argument they use to say that not watching commercials is theft, why not apply it to the stop button too?
Careful, you're actually getting into the realm of a good (and workable) idea. And you know how popular those are with dinosaur companies.
(Kim, I'm a huge fan, and this post is no exception. Err, not this post.. your post I'm replying to..)
But government funded media is exactly what you're getting, when companies successfully lobby Congress to do things like, say, make it illegal to change the channel during commercials.
Haven't heard of it? Of course you wouldn't - the media is making sure nobody ever hears about that. It's called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006 and it's already in Congress.
Some days I just want to kill myself and save myself the trouble of suffering through the next ~80 years in a world committed to absolute and total control of everything.
Coming in 2008: New laws requiring everyone to have their 30-minutes-a-day TV time.
(1984, for anyone who doesn't get the reference)
Thief. Or at least, ABC and all the rest would like you to think so. Because you know, it's now your DUTY to watch television, where once they were grateful for your viewership - now it's your responsibility!
And creating a straw man for the express purpose of glossing over a point isn't?
The point is that the original poster was trying to make out that spending time on Slashdot is just as much a waste of time as watching TV. While I do think there are some worthwhile things to watch on TV, I think in terms of raw value of time spent, interacting on Slashdot is far more valuable if only because it gets people to think, if not about someone else's point, than at least about their own opinion on stuff (those that actually participate in the discussions).
It's astounding how little many people know about their own point of view on various topics, points of view that never develop until challenged. That is the real value in interaction. It's also something that, while not unheard of, does not happen frequently while watching a TV show.
The people who work for these data brokers have already admitted they use illegal methods to obtain this data. That right there renders your whole argument moot.
But, just for the sake of argument, let's say that I distribute information I don't want shared, like, oh, my social security number when I apply for a credit card. No, the company has no right, under any circumstances, to distribute that information.
And you trust your government not to use that information in a coercive way? Then there's probably nothing I can say to make you believe otherwise.
But beyond that, the government has NO RIGHT to that information about me - I give them enough when I give them my tax return. They don't need to know that I buy Mountain Dew twice a week at the Giant grocery around the corner.