Three nights a week?

The problem is that science . . . as a scholarly field as opposed to the practice of science . . . has no way to deal with the idea that a significant percentage of our leaders are in willful denial of the sound science. The reality of the research is defeated by their ideology.

This is not new (ask Gallileo) but it is new for the U.S.

I think we're just fucked.

Of course they can complain about the manner in which you access it. Your argument is like arguing that you can break into your bank and take your cash -- after all it belongs to you -- without regards to the agreement you signed when you opened your account limiting your access to that cash. You are bound by the TOS. Don't like that? Okay -- but your opinion does not change the fact of its existence, nor does my opinion that TOS and EULAs *should* be invalid change the fact that they most certainly ARE valid and enforceable as a matter of law.

Oops.. replied to the wrong post -- oh well.

Now that I've spent some time with the app -- woah -- trademark issues up the whazoo -- they are presenting it as a youtube app (it isn't, it is a Microsoft app) they actually were dumb enough to PUT the REGISTERED MARK on the app. Prepare for incoming -- that's a great suit.

As to your other claims -- no -- MS asked Google to BUILD a youtube app. Google said no, /then/ Microsoft put out its own app which breaks the TOS and now is demanding direct access to APIs. This is going to be a clusterfuck for MS.

(a) they're not using a public API (b) it is when you break the TOS.

No -- you do not know of which you speak.

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

"For the sole purpose" meaning only, as in only to allow my software to talk to that section of that other persons software -- this isn't MS unwinding an API to find a way to make its API work with that API -- they're just scraping content. They also have to have "lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program" and are thus restricted by the terms of that licensed use -- the terms of service -- which here make clear that it is unlawful to scrape content in the way MS is doing -- and therefore it falls out of the DMCA exception.

It is a breach of the TOS -- that means it is a breach of contract. There are also DMCA ramifications. That said, very few websites enforce it that way.

Technically, you're the one breaking the TOS, not AdBlock Plus. Also -- I don't believe there are ad blockers that can easily block the video ads that are embedded into the player frame without also disabling the player. Am I wrong on that?

If it were the same thing -- maybe -- but it's not. There are no hidden APIs here -- Google doesn't want to build an app for Microsoft -- so rather than build a compliant app Microsoft built an app that breaks Google's TOS by ad blocking and ALLOWING CONTENT DOWNLOAD. Of the two, the second is the far bigger issue -- you know all those sponsored channels with bands putting up their new music -- yeah, that's an issue.

Breach of contract, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unauthorized access to a computer system and circumventing security systems under the DMCA, shall I go on?

You appear to be unable to read the written words you are replying to. I suggest removing your head from whatever tight space it currently occupies.

How, precisely, are Windowsphone and tablet users entitled to google's software? (short answer: they are not). This is more M$ double-speak "remember when those neck-beards got all bent out of shape because we reserved the most efficient APIs for our products -- let's say this is the same thing." But it's not the same thing -- Microsoft is demanding that Google spend time and resources building a Youtube app to support M$'s (barely existent) corner of the market. Google doesn't want to have their developers spend time on that app for M$ -- so M$ built an app that flagrantly violates the TOS for the youtube API and the youtube site itself.

Microsoft is by no means "right."

Well -- we all knew they were up to something -- now we now it really was world domination, just not the way we all expected.

I don't know about the devs at MS, but I got used to it pretty quickly. My new laptop came with Win8 -- which I committed to using for 2 weeks before I spent money on a Win7 license. At first I hated the stock interface, but I got over it. The desktop is a desktop -- I can still load software off the task bar by pinning a link there. The only time I see metro is when I need to load something other than the core 4-6 tools I use (Firefox, Word, Excel, IE and Publisher) ... so mostly when I want to run steam or wow.

For everything else, just hit start and start typing what you're looking for -- it pops up.

Now -- I don't think it's "better" than the start button (which did all of that without a full-screen interface that blocks my view of open docs, etc) but it's not all that bad.

The trade off is that the rest of the OS makes a bit more sense -- the interface is cleaner (less clutter around the window edge), file and print sharing is more stream-lined, etc. I have no idea what the charm bar is for, I think it should go away. But overall -- it's a standard windows experience - slightly annoying but it gets the job done. I have to go back and forth from Win7 (at work and on my desktop at home) and Win8 on my laptop -- not really enough of a difference to notice 9 times out of 10.