100 pages saying "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."
Followed by a footnote in 8pt font saying the prior 100 pages were off by a bit, and "dull boy" should be replaced with "psychotic killer wielding an axe". Sorry Shelley Duvall and Scatman Crothers, but you were clearly warned.
That sounded great to me. I could be rid of my trusty Slingbox, and the added complexity. But every time I've tried to use the Tivo streaming functionality, I've found a DRM douchebaggy impediment. Here's a list of what I've found.
1 Did not work with my Android, only worked with Apple. OK, Android was added later.
2 Would not work on my wife's iPhone on AT&t, only over WiFi.
3 Would not work on my Android phone, because phone was previously rooted.
4 Does not work out of country. (OK, pretty common restriction, but that's over half of my use cases, and my Slingbox does it fine.)
In all, it fails in just about each of my family's usage scenarios. So, thus far, I am pretty much f@#$d, so I have only used it in my home over the LAN. Yay! TV content I bought in my very own home! I re-installed my Slingbox.
It seems like Tivo worked very hard to make sure I could not use the place shifting feature. And succeeded.
Now, tech is hard enough to get to work when everybody is trying to make it work. When certain switches and gates are put in, with the express purpose of making the tech NOT work, well, chances are the content will not flow, both from the gates working as planned, and also from random false positives or other glitches.
"The punishment for impeding someone's First Amendment rights should be at least as dire"
The harm of a first amendment infringement is far more serious than that of a copyright infringement.
One is an abrogation of basic human rights, as detailed in the 1st Amendment to the constitution and the damage is ALWAYS irreversible. When speech is impeded, that opportunity for speech is gone forever. Even if the ban is lifted later on, you can't restore the lost speech opportunity.
The other contravenes some mundane laws about commerce. It also is a problem for which there can be compensation, and there often is at ridiculously high amounts.
Yet the current system of control and enforcement is biased in entirely the wrong direction. Control and enforcement of copyright is AT ODDS with our laws and constitution.
I'm pretty sure Mr. Garrison, of Southpark, CO, already invented that.
" "IT" can go up to two hundred miles per hour, and gets three hundred miles to the gallon. The only problem is that "IT" is controlled by a quite painful and uncomfortable method; using four "flexi-grip handles" that somewhat resemble erect penises; two held in the hands, one in the mouth, and a fourth handle which is inserted into the anus."
You're only talking about one movie, and one for which their was a North Korean "Fatwah" on theaters that showed it.
Mike is taking more about the Motion Picture industry's ongoing track record.
And, in fact, the one movie that you are talking about kind of proves many points Techdirt has made over the years. By offering easier legit access, more people will buy. There will still be piracy, but there will also be more legit online sales.
Re: 'No foxes in this hen-house, just us chickens'
"what moron, years or decades back, first thought that internal investigations were a good idea?"
Always internal folks. And it IS a good idea. For them.
An internal investigation is pretty much ALWAYS a response to the risk of an external investigation. It is done in the hopes that the line "No need for that. There already has been an investigation." would give enough political cover to stave off a pending external investigation. It is the FUD of investigations.
The biased investigation is then put in pretty folders and cover pages, and presented by politicians "friendly" to the cause. They use words to describe it, such as "rigorous, detailed, no stone left unturned, thorough, unbiased, aggressive", avoiding the word "internal". Sometimes (well, often) that is enough confusion and uncertainty about whether a legit investigation has been done to quash any legit investigation. It's a version of false equivalence, like how 1% of scientists can say there is no AGW, thus "the debate is still ongoing". It doesn't take much doubt to create the veil of a 50/50 "he said, she said" debate.
The beauty of it for the internal crew is that it can usually be considered billable hours, and charged back to someone. Sure, it doesn't work every time, but that's a bet worth taking every time.
We are now reaping the rewards of two decades of people watching the #1 news station. The "new Rupert reality" has been created, and it matters little if it matches up with reality, people still believe it on faith.
Even if, occasionally, these peeps are forced to see a deviation from their beliefs in reality, they discount those facts as "a glitch in the matrix". Cognitive dissonance be damned. Let's go find some better facts elsewhere. Yay confirmation bias!
Hate to keep making it about that news station. But I truly believe that's where a large part of the problem is. I'm not going to Godwin this, but there have been other cases where long-term propaganda can shift perceptions, and cause great harm.
For example, a local golf store would love to know if people's Internet searches identify them as golfers, so that they can buy ad placements on that user's screen. They can bid at auction for search terms such as "golf, clubs, country club, lame sport" etc.
Why not let GHCQ bid for terms like "ammonia, bomb, jihad" etc. Then they can place fake ads for the would-be terrorists, and lure them in with cut-rate trinitrotoluene.
No free lunch, Cameron. You've gotta bid for the keywords versus Dow, Union Carbide, and other agricultural ammonia sellers.
Hmmm. What would click-bait "news" sites look like for these ads?
Re: Re: Re: Re: The definition of broadband should include ping time
Also, a cable to your home can be a dedicated wire JUST FOR YOU, such as a telco twisted pair for DSL. It can also be a coax broadband pipe shared among a hundred or fewer neighbors, such as cable. In those cases, you share the full radio spectrum the wire can carry among a small group of subscribers, and can get better speeds.
With satellite, the satellite transponder is aimed at a part of the country, say the West, and you share it's bandwidth with the entire region. That means if you're near Seattle and I'm near San Francisco, and you request a website, my dish also receives the transmission of the website you requested (and ignores it). Also, the satellite ISP does not have the full RF spectrum, only very narrow licensed bands. That is a lot less bandwidth shared among a lot more users, hence the lower speeds, and lower usage caps from satellite ISPs.
Fenderson is right that "Satellite is never a viable alternative. It's a last-ditch thing, what you do if you can't get a real internet connection."
Not a good enough analogy. In your story, the water is being consumed, and is not there for anybody else to use. In the case of TV signals, aereo used up none of a finite resource. They merely helped the broadcasters reach a wider audience by extending the range of the signals on a public airwave.
Instead, for an analogy, try: running a performance venue, and having a large sculpture water fountain in front of it for art. Then saying "anybody who drives down the public street must pay me if they look at my water fountain".
It's not impossible to dance around the truth, speak in nebulous terms, and obfuscate the issue. That's what he's paid to do, but instead his article is just the idiot's version of NN Cliff's Notes.
How bout this, if he were more shrewd:
"Network Neutrality, as enacted by the government, would just be a further regulatory extension and Washington power grab. It would be subject to the biases and bungling of beltway politicians, and set up our country with concrete regulations that are unable to flex and change at the speed of Internet innovation. That would cripple our country's ability to stay nimble, and provide the worlds most important tech advances. What's more, we run the risk of moneyed interests gaining too much influence at the regulatory level, and biasing the rules against the citizens of this great nation."
Then he should probably add the following for good measure,
"Thus, we must fight against NN. At least to protect the children. USA #1. Obama sux."
That pile of BS would give him enough cover to vote what his funders want, and have some confusing cover. Nobody would be talking about it.