When most people talk about this, their "ideal world" scenario for self-driving cars, they envision no one owning a car (How is beyond the scope of the comment) and the only "empty vehicles" are driving to get someone. Their scenarios are: the autonomous vehicle is driving someone somewhere, driving to get someone, or recharging/repairing somewhere. They always skip over everything else.
Try to put yourself in the shoes of the typical consumer of media. The one that wants to watch the movie, but doesn't know or care about codecs, doesn't want to buy hardware to run a NAS and a plex box, and really doesn't want to fiddle with blu ray firmware to permit the ripping of content to mkv.
Why on this forum would I want to do that?
The things you are putting in front of watching the movie are not reasonable for most consumers.
Most consumers can't be bothered to even pick the movie they want. What I initially responded to is not even reasonable for "most consumers" anymore: maintaining a physical media collection.
You question was how setting up the server was less convenient than sharing a disk drive. That wasn't actually what I meant was inconvenient. I meant that the ripping and transcoding was less convenient that having the streaming license. Sorry for the ambiguity.
True, it is, but if just "having the streaming license" was enough, this entire article would never have been written, let alone discussed on Slashdot, so your assertion here, while factually true, is a red herring. Thanks though.
Because ripping the master, setting up the media server, and making it available remotely is non-trivial. That's why.
The first time, sure. If one is dedicated to maintaining their own library, then one would be very well served to look into ways to make "ripping and transcoding" trivial. There are several out there, from automated scripts to full-on GUI programs. Yeah, sure, using a program is 'non-trivial', but hardly a barrier.
As for the media server, again there are tons of options. Lots of people use Plex, but for those who want a "private" or "selfhosted" one, Jellyfin has been doing quite well. Set it up once and go. Or if one is extra lazy, just a shared volume and capable player hardware.
Being limited to one working disc drive or physical format seems less convenient to me, but okay.
In that regard, yes, physical media is better. But there are tradeoffs. Cross-device compatibility comes to mind. You need to haul around a physical player to watch the physical media. Of course you can rip the media and transcode it... but that is less convenient.
How in the blue hell is putting a ripped copy on a media server "less convenient" than a disc drive? Pick decent codecs in a non-ancient format and it will run on any modern system.
But... we are talking about digital purchases. The value of access to vast libraries for a monthly subscription is astronomical. Easily the best media entertainment bang for our buck that has ever existed.
Ah yes, the halcyon days of early Netflix, when you could logon to one service and see basically everything that's available. I remember those days too, but they are long gone, my friend. Now it's "logon to a service and hope they have whatever it is you're looking for", at $13+ per month, each.
While I have gladly relinquished my need for physical ownership, I won't buy a release under those conditions. I'll wait until it hits my bundle, thanks.
You're going to wait a long time on some things, friend. That is, assuming you're into something that only exists on some obscure also-ran "network", something other than Netflix, Prime, or Disney+.
I remember it as "Animal Farm" though "1984" was probably in there too (My memory is a little fuzzy on the matter, It was like 16 years ago). Amazon went as far as ripping it out of people's Kindles.
It didn't even affect me, but it did put a period on the idea of "buying" anything digital like that. The only digital content I buy is something I can download without "DRM" and keep on my own storage. My kids and some family members think I'm weird and a data hoarder, but I've never lost a purchase.
I tend to agree, e-mail security is actually pretty easy, just not on Microsoft stuff like Windows. If I can look at the headers for any e-mail sent to me, I can tell within about 10 seconds if it's legit or not. However, for some goddamn reason, Outlook makes it impossible to look at e-mail headers. On every other e-mail program I use (Linux, Android, and self-hosted webmail), I can see the entire header block of the e-mail with two clicks or less. On Outlook on Mac, there is no option to view headers that I can find. I can view the entire source of the message, after faffing around for minutes and doing several searches to find the option. And I have to use that option every time I need to see the source of any given message.
In my other e-mail applications, I can inspect links before clicking (Either hover or view info), but in Outlook, not only does it not show me the link at the bottom of the window (A word-wrapped tool-tip popup, brilliant!!), the whole 'safelinks' bullshit that O365 runs everything through (Often twice) makes it nearly impossible to tell what the original URL was. This might help users not step in every single bear trap that lands in their inbox, but from what we've seen here, it doesn't, it also prevents power users like us from protecting ourselves using tools we have everywhere else.
Oh man! Oh man! This is the Pebble Time 2 I wanted, even kickstarted back in 2016. And they're projecting 30-days on a charge! Even my PTS only did 9 days at most! Even though this isn't expected to release till Christmas, I think I've found my next smartwatch!
It's behind a show-you-nothing paywall, so no thanks.
I was curious if it was actually every step of the software lifecycle, or if it was only conception through release, like so many developers think as "lifecycle". Is maintenance (aka the Gen X of software lifecycles) handled? Alas nothing to read without giving up either money or data.
Oh man this is pitiful. I just searched Printables for "philips fixables" and they posted exactly one comb attachment. There are more 3rd-party Philips-compatible attachments than there are official ones.
No wonder they didn't post a link. But for anyone who wants to see, here you go.
Fine, great, some people don't serve files. Others do, and this will break that. Collateral damage and overly-broad blocking are stupid too. In some ways even more stupid, because they won't know what they're doing unless/until someone manages to find a way to complain in a way they'll see.
That is a garbage solution, honestly. It's overly broad and punitive to anyone not using a mainstream browser (e.g. using wget to download a file). And all the bot owners will have to do is pick a non-blocked UA string and they'll be right past your door guard (I've seen this already on some of mine).
Yes of course. No one allows you to send without a valid and matching PTR record anymore.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Because my experience is vastly different. Even jumping through hoops, setting up crypto verification (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), I routinely get comments from family members that my mail doesn't go through. Sometimes they can find it in their Spam folder, but usually it's just gone, shuffled off to the big
Literally the same thing they've done about it for the last decade: not a goddamn thing.
What you're describing is exactly what I've gotten out of Microsoft, Comcast, Google, and to a lesser extent other large webmail providers. They do not care about deliverability if you're not signed up with some of their BS partner programs, which are not documented anywhere. If you try, you'll get stuck in bot-hell of generated KB articles that are all fucking wrong.
I receive similar reports from them, and the exact same e-mails sent to @gmail.com, @comcast.net, and others do validate correctly, but O365 properties can't. So I'd say this is more of a Microsoft filter problem then anything else.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -- The Wizard Of Oz
