Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Three-Year Deal Nets Hulu Exclusive Rights to South Park-> 1

Submitted by gunner_von_diamond
gunner_von_diamond (3461783) writes "From the PC Mag Article:
If you're a fan of South Park, you better be a fan of Hulu as well. Specifically, Hulu Plus.
The creators of the funny, foul-mouthed animated TV show have signed a deal with the online streaming service. Valued at more than $80 million, the three-year deal grants Hulu exclusive rights to stream the 240+ episode back catalog of South Park in addition to all new episodes (as soon as they've aired on Comedy Central). "This is a natural partnership for us. We are excited that the entire library will be available on Hulu and that the best technology around will power South Park Digital Studios," said creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, in a statement."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Two sides of the coin (Score 2) 534

Yes, there are legitimate situations where some police records need to be sealed for a modest period of time, in order to preserve the safety of undercover operatives/informants etc. Laws and procedures already exist to allow for that, all they have to do is convince a judge (privately) that some document needs to stay secret (for now) and it's fine.

This is different. This is an entire branch of law enforcement claiming that they never have to release any documents ever to anyone, no matter what's in them or whether they actually have any legitimate need to keep them secret. Given how friendly judges usually are to law enforcement on these kinds of things, the fact that they don't even want to have to convince a judge to let them keep their secrets is a big red flag to me.

Comment: Snowden/Greenwald NOT the source (Score 1) 237

by atfrase (#44659839) Attached to: Report: Britain Has a Secret Middle East Web Surveillance Base

The article cites Snowden's files as their source, but Snowden and Greenwald have both explicitly denied that, and even go further to assert that neither of them have provided any information whatsoever to the Independent:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base

That means somebody is lying, and that is extremely important and worth your careful consideration, no matter who you think it is.

I'm disappointed that this development hasn't already been modded up in the comments here; a lot of folks are jumping to conclusions by taking the Independent at their word about who leaked this particular information.

Comment: Re:Yes, and? (Score 1) 237

by atfrase (#44658385) Attached to: Report: Britain Has a Secret Middle East Web Surveillance Base

Snowden gave the trove of files to The Guardian at least. The specific leaks, after the initial ones, are decided by Glenn Greenwald and not Snowden.

Whether Greenwald gave some stuff to the Independent or Snowden did that earlier is unknown.

No, it is known, straight from both Snowden and Greenwald themselves: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base

They deny giving any information to the Independent. Since they are not the source, as the Independent claims, they further surmise that the timing and nature of this particular leak make it plausible that the UK intelligence agency did it intentionally, in order to justify even harsher "anti-terrorism" and "anti-leaker" laws and powers.

Comment: the key word is "targeting" (Score 1) 262

by atfrase (#43937217) Attached to: Intelligence Director Claims NSA Surveillance Reports Inaccurate
Yes, sure, "it cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen" -- but a sweeping dragnet that intercepts and logs every private communication of every citizen of the United States isn't exactly "targeting" any particular citizen, is it? Of course to us, that makes it worse and not better, but to the agents of the modern US surveillance state it is a lovely loophole indeed.

Comment: Re:Same as school exercise (Score 4, Insightful) 304

by atfrase (#39173821) Attached to: Active Video Games Don't Make Kids Exercise More

Yeah. All for the opportunity cost of one of those parents being at home to cook three square meals a day.

It is very, very important for people to read and understand the significance of this comment.

Many folks from the "middle"-class on up simply don't understand what life is like for single parents, or even or dual parents who must work multiple jobs to pay the bills. Yes, raw food of the sort that can be prepared into healthy and nutritious meals is not (necessarily) inherently expensive; what puts it out of reach for many low-income folks is not the money but the TIME it takes to go to the grocery store, bring those foodstuffs home, and then prepare them.

Single parents cannot leave their small children unattended that long, and bringing them along adds even more logistical overhead. There often isn't a single grocery store in low-income neighborhoods, requiring an even longer car trip, if the family can even afford a car; otherwise, an even longer bus ride, which also limits the trip to how much can be carried in two hands to, from and on the bus.

Making a healthy diet accessible to low-income families is not an issue of price, it is an issue of availability and logistics, and those issues are NOT insignificant. People need to understand that, to avoid falling into the trap of thinking poor folks are just lazy -- they're not, most of them work harder than you do, I promise you. Unless you've actually been a low-income single parent, don't presume to understand what the challenges are.

Comment: Re:Common Nonsense (Score 1) 384

by atfrase (#38443036) Attached to: Sony Sued Over PSN 'No Suing' Provision
Can any legal types comment on whether it would be viable to fight back with our own Service Provider License Agreements?

"By providing me, <NAME> with service, you, <COMPANY> agree to be bound by this Service Provider License Agreement (SPLA)..."

Could we craft a generic boilerplate SPLA with provisions that nullify these kinds of anti-consumer restrictions, and just all print them out and mail them en masse to the legal dept. of any company we do business with? Would it be considered legally binding on them, just exactly the same way EULAs are legally binding on us? Has this already been done?

Comment: PCI (Score 5, Insightful) 114

by atfrase (#36729092) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: An Open Handheld Terminal For Retail Stores?
If you intend to process credit card payments through your custom application on the point-of-sale device, you'll likely fall under the purview of the Payment Card Industry's Payment Application Data Security Standard (PCI PA-DSS), which may require a source code audit and limit what you can have the software do. That may be no problem for you depending on your resources and intended use of your software, but it's worth keeping in mind.

Comment: Re:Corporations shouldn't pay any taxes. (Score 5, Insightful) 1193

by atfrase (#33975822) Attached to: How Google Avoided Paying $60 Billion In Taxes

If corporations were not recognized as individuals in a number of other annoying contexts (political contributions, "personal" rights, etc) then I *might* be inclined to agree. But as it stands, they've got the best of both worlds; no meaningful taxation like individuals are burdened with, but all the same protections and "rights" as well.

Comment: Re:Does it still exist? (Score 2, Interesting) 196

by atfrase (#33969708) Attached to: Record-Breaking Galaxy Found In Deep Hubble Image

I think there's a maximum length after which a galaxy cannot exist; diminishing element returns from supernovae. Unfortunately I'm not sure how long it is, but it's much longer than 13 billion years; individual red dwarves can last for hundreds of billions of years. As for merger with other galaxies or destruction by a supermassive black hole though, its anyone's guess.

If the universe is under 15 billions years old, how do we know red dwarves can last 100 billion years?

Comment: Re:Fair use? (Score 3, Interesting) 130

by atfrase (#33842528) Attached to: DMCA Takedown Notice Leveled Against Ohio Congressional Race Ad

But the baffling thing here is that this isn't some big company demanding a political ad be removed; it's a tiny film studio. And the film in question is free on the internet.

It just seems like there has to be a missing piece to this story.

Is it really that baffling? Let me take a stab at that missing piece:

Campaign manager: Hey tiny film studio, how do you feel about perjuring yourself to shut down this ad that's making us look bad? We'll owe ya one, and we have this funny feeling the perjury won't be prosecuted anyway.
Tinyfilmstudio: A corrupt congressman in my debt? Yes please; consider it done.
Campaign manager: I knew we'd see eye-to-eye on this one.

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Working...