What if "what I want" is to be able to visit the sites that are linking to a YouTube video I'm watching. Today I can't easily do that because YouTube doesn't want me leaving YouTube.
But what do I know?
As to my absence I've been a bit overwhelmed by work stuff, sorry about that, it's no excuse
I pay for content when I can get it, honestly these services are MORE CONVENIENT than fiddling around with torrents / content streaming sites
Does the industry make more money by blocking content than not?? If so how???
Why even create a pirate economy? To sell DRM which is expensive and easily circumvented??
I don't understand it and I probably never will...
Yes, the industry does make more by blocking content. They do this by selling the rights to a show in each market at a value they perceive to be fair for that market. The owners of "Myth Busters" lease the rights to show it in Norway and the Netherlands on Discovery. Discovery wants **exclusive** rights to show the new episodes and whatever rerun deal they've worked out. If viewers in these markets get the show on demand via Netflix that would dilute the audience that Discovery is counting on and thereby decreases the revenue they generate. They are expecting a certain number of eyeballs and sell their advertising slots based on that number.
The owners of a show can negotiate for larger sums for exclusive rights than diluted rights. Not only does Discovery **want** exclusive rights, but they've paid for those rights. It's in the contract somewhere.
I'm pretty sure that sites like FlixSearch will put an end to all this regional nonsense in the near future. Using FlixSearch along with UnoTelly it is possible to find a show in any region and then dynamically switch to that region to watch it. Unless Netflix works out a way around this reliably, I don't see exclusive deals lasting into the future. They just won't be worth it.
Voice search on the phone is natural. The phone is a device that historically is good at one thing, voice. Even though a modern phone has a decent keyboard input, t's still clumsy when on the go. When I'm out for a run or a ride and I want quick directions, or to dictate a note, send a text message, or check the train schedule, the voice interaction is vastly superior to wrestling my phone out of it's armband and typing something. The voice interaction isn't amazing, but it works about 80% of the time on the first try and that's good enough for me. I don't have to stop my workout and fumble around.
On the other hand, when I'm sitting at my desk I can, with two key strokes switch to my web browser and launch a new search tab. I can type about as fast as I can speak and my accuracy is probably around 95%; google makes up for the remaining 4% in spelling errors (searching for instead of ). I get better accuracy and less fumbling around if the room is loud. Also, in our quiet open-plan office I look like a total D-Bag talking to my monitor. That's a big plus. too.
The full-size keyboard isn't the end-all of interfaces, but for a desktop it's waaaay better than voice search. If voice search ever gets to the point where I can throw out a complex, natural language queries into the air a la ST-TNG, I'll switch. "Computer: Post a witty comment to SlashDot about voice interfaces and how bad they sucked in the naughties and teens"
ummmm... you might actually try reading what he wrote. Mighty big of you to say that he agrees with what you are saying.
Thank you for so astutely reading that thread; I thought maybe I was losing my mind
What is right wing about filing a lawsuit to unmask a doe, suing that person, then settling for a much smaller amount. It seems this is used by many different trolls, and likely doesn't have any political ideology behind it. It is sleazy though. Filing a lawsuit with the intention of settling just to get a payout is wrong. It is short circuiting the justice system for personal profit.
Yeah that's neither right nor left, it's the universal language of greedy bloodsuckers.
What is right wing about that process? The Democrats support the movie industry, not the Republicans.
The fact that Democrats support something doesn't negate the possibility of something being right wing. The Democrats are not ideologically pure, or ideologically homogenous, and very few of them can be considered "left".
To me, pretending that copyright is only about property rights, and ignoring the fact that copyright was also supposed to be about free speech and about making material available for free to the public after a limited time, is definitely "right wing".
This has nothing to do with the DMCA, this is a straight out copyright infringement lawsuit being filed. The real problem is that the methods the copyright holders (or the copyright enforcement goons acting on their behalf) are using to identify torrent users aren't good enough and its good to see at least one judge willing to call these enforcers out on it.
Exactly. Would have been nice for judges to start doing this 11 years ago, but glad they've come around.
I find it funny you think your vendors are somehow required to push updates to your device. They're not.
Next time before you buy, check the support list of a custom ROM.
Don't buy any no-name chinese crapware, then install some other custom Android OS, and be done with it.
Vendors are definitely not required to push updates, but they probably should be. It is pretty irresponsible for vendors to continue selling phones with known vulnerabilities, or ignoring vulnerabilities and not offering patches.
This is not unlike an automobile firm allwoing known safety related flaws in their cars to persist because it is too expensive to fix them. I'm looking at you GM. In this case the "safety" flaws are not life threatening, but are a threat to our privacy and security. The recent StageFright bug is a good example. This flaw not only compromised the usability of the device, but potentially compromised users banking and credit information. Plenty of phones will NEVER get patched and users will continue to use these shitty, vulnerable devices.
This is partially Google's fault for making Android so mutable; it's crazy hard and expensive for manufacturers to keep up with patches and there's no incentive for them to do so. That's not an excuse for us not to hold them responsible. We certainly expect our cars to not explode in our faces throwing metal shards into our eyes and thorax. We should hold phone makers to the same standard. We should expect that known security flaws will be patched and not ignored.
Will this increase the cost of phones? Probably. But would you rather have a slightly more expensive handset that gets security updates, or use a phone that's woefully out of date. If you are in the latter category, you're probably reading this in Internet Explorer 5 on Windows XP and in for a shock when you open your retirement account and find a balance of $0.00. Or worse -$53,000.99.
3500 Calories = 1 Food Pound