Knowing the recent history in California and her history, she has been doing something right for a very long time. She'll shred the Constitution and destroy personal responsibilities, but her constituents in the People's Republic of San Fransisco love her (as do the folks in Los Angeles,) and she keeps getting elected in landslide victories. The farmers in California hate her, but there aren't enough of them to outweigh San Fransisco and Los Angeles.
Just like everything else, the fangs will be removed from whatever law she proposes (unless it has to do with Hollywood and copyright,) and the nation will move on.
They can block it. They can encrypt it and force you to pay a subscription.
Not legally. The FCC public broadcast license will not allow them to encrypt it. In a matter of fact, until recently, cable companies which rebroadcasted public television stations were not legally allowed to encrypt them either (they have found other ways of dealing with it now.) The cable companies have been complaining about that for some time, because they all had "Essential" tiers which had the local broadcast channels plus a few basic cable channels for a huge discount (I believe I was paying about $35 for it, at the time.) The problem was, the person could cut out all the channels and just use broadband, and could still receive the broadcast channels without "paying for it".
Man, the only network I watch is CBS. IF they were to shut down, I would be sad but I would find other things to do.
So long as they didn't kill their web presence, shouldn't be much of an issue. The only show on CBS I watch religiously is Big Bang, and they stream it from their website.
I actually can't get them from my house, ever since they went digital. My digital receiver looks cross-eyed whenever I try to connect because their signal is too weak and too far away. The only time I've seen them recently (since cutting the cord) is when I had my RV in a campsite a couple miles from them and they came in clear.
Supernatural is re-running on TBS or TNT.
If the CW drops, it could move to the Turner stations...
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't TBS/TNT a cable only network? How would moving those to TBS/TNT help someone who has gotten off of cable and is digesting over-the-air broadcasting if that over-the-air channel disappears?
Sure, it would still exist if it moved stations, but why would CW die if it was still accessible on cable?
It just wouldn't be available to those who cut the cable.
I'm more forgiving with Activision/Blizzard because they still make good games, but I don't buy them at the drop of the hat anymore
But that is the problem. They still make a few "good" games, which they can milk over and over again to make up for all the crap that loses them customers. So long as people are willing to buy them despite their best efforts to screw their customers, they won't learn and will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. Only by removing all funding do we convince them that a change is necessary.
Of course, that requires the assumption of sanity, and we have pretty much confirmed over and over again that they don't have any, so I suspect a total lost of funding will be rationalized as a 100% increase in piracy.
Unfortunately, from the looks of things, not changing will pose no problem for them anyway.
It kept me from buying a number of their games. I have not bought a single game (except through DRM safe GOG.com,) from either Activision or EA since this madness started. With Activision, it was Warcraft 3. With EA, SPORE. I would have bought SimCity 5, since I have all the other ones and love playing them, but EA proved a while back they didn't want my money.
Sure, they have a large community still willing to throw money at them, but how long before they burn all their goodwill and through all their funds. They can't live forever. But that being said, Scientology still exists, so it takes a long time to kill off hellspawn.
The funny thing is, reading the consumerist article on this topic, is the worst company in America, possibly two years in a row, still doesn't understand why they are the worst company in America. Which is probably why they will remain at that spot for years to come. You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make them drink, and no matter how much bad press the EA is getting, if they aren't willing to understand why they suck so bad, and want instead to rationalize it away, they won't change.
It isn't homophobia or bad choices for a game cover, it is the abject failure to understand your customer and provide them a reason to buy. It is the antithesis of CWF:RTB, played out far better and quicker than the MPAA/RIAA example.
Re: Re: So you're saying ISP records shouldn't be like phone records.
No. Juries have the power to rule on fact. A Judge tells the jury what the law is, and the Jury weighs evidence and makes a ruling of fact, that is to say, what happened. They take that ruling of fact and use the instructions as to the law to come to a verdict.
Rest assured, you'll see this argument again from OOTB, but the statement is still insightful*1000.
Discounting jury nullification, the jury weighs the evidence (and the veracity of the witnesses testimony of that evidence.)
I can barely tolerate this protection of "geographical" designations, but trying to prevent companies from saying "wherever-style" is going too far.
Amen. As a beer brewer (hobbyist), nobody who drinks my Belgian-style beer thinks, "Hey, we aren't in Belgium. How can you call it Belgian-style?" They think..."yum". California is known for a number of "styles" of beer, including Steams, and if anyone tried to trademark steam as a California only style, I think they'd get lynched by a mob headed by the majors (unless the majors tried to do it, which I wouldn't put them past trying to do.)
After all, one of the major's claims to fame is their honed tradition of brewing Bavarian-style Lagers in St. Louis, MO (and quite crappy, I might add.)
Re: Re: Re: You promote tiny outlets, disregarding collateral damage
* Yes, I'm making stuff up. I don't have a crystal ball (because I am a cheap bastard).
You really should. It is only $15 a year, which according to some commercials is far less than a cup of coffee a month (apparently those commercials don't drink 7-Eleven coffee.) And the added advantage is you get a nice "insider" badge next to your name and keep Mike running this site.
Try reading the last paragraph: when I do, I get the feeling that a bit more got left out, it doesn't read the same as the conclusion to any other article here on Techdirt.
I believe the last paragraph was more of a P.S. then anything else. The original Ars Technica interview ended as abruptly, as Mullen kept asking the pointed questions Hansmeier had no intention of answering.
After all, the poor guy's going to need a rhinoplasty, and after this disaster, his executive bonus won't be big enough to cover it.
I think we may have found the perpetual motion machine that saves mankind from future destruction. The spin EA does puts off enough energy that it rivals most stellar black-holes, and the suck is nearly the same. If we could figure out how to capture and harness this energy, we wouldn't need fossil fuels ever again.
Gibeau and the rest of the execs at EA are so hopelessly incompetent that they don't know what DRM is.
Apparently they don't know what MMO is either.
Every MMO I've played, ever, even back in the days of the pseudo MMO called a Multi-User Dungeon (MUD), you instantly saw the manipulations of other users instantaneously (or as close to it as possible, accounting for lag.)
From what I understand talking with those who have it, you may see some updates to other people's cities once in a while, and interactions may happen between cities (I say may, because there are a lot of people who have complained about it never happening.)
That isn't a MMO. That may be an online experience, but unless you can see what is happening in the world to both you and to others in your area, that is not an MMO.
The election of Police Chief, Fire Chief, and other "public servant" managerial positions is more than bizarre to those living somewhere other than America. In fact it's downright fr3eakin weird and abhorrent.
For the most part, I'd agree with you. I happen to live in a city in which our Police Chief, Fire Chief and other managerial positions (except the City Attorney,) are appointed positions. However, I see little difference between the politicians we elect choosing their best friend to be Police Chief and the public at large choosing their best friend to be Police Chief. Of course, the public doesn't usually receive kickbacks, unlike the politicians, and thus in some cases it is the fairest way to chose a Police Chief.
Hopefully, however, the public has enough information to choose the best one for the job. But that is a problem with appointments too.
Re: Re: Interesting to juxtapose a paywall may be going up:
I'm afraid many will fail to do it right here. For Youtube it'll be a smashing success. For the content providers it all depends. It's yet one more channel for the artists to make money!
If what they want is priced properly to the value, I'd go for it as a consumer (provided they removed the advertising, unlike Hulu's pay us for free content and we'll still give you the same commercials model, but then again, I still have a Hulu Plus account and still pay each month, so apparently it isn't enough to annoy me.)
I'd buy into subscriptions for Nerdist/Geek & Sundry because I know those guys make good material, and I am willing to support them, as with RoosterTeeth, MinutePhysics and HISHE. But anything more than a couple bucks a year is probably too much for most folks. Hell, I'd even throw a little money towards collegehumor.