What irks me the most about current Xbone defenders, is that they are angry that people got the always-online retail-discs-are-coasters part of the Xbox. That it had to phone home every 24 hours in order to "allow" us to play the games we bought and (had to) put on our hard drive.
Once Microsoft rolled that back, they all complained that it set back digital distribution another decade. As if Microsoft now can't implement Xbox-Live-connected-only single player digital downloads to your hard drive on its own. As if the ability to play a game with no internet enabled by simply putting in a disk would prevent download games from being possible.
It is still possible to allow the 1984-ish big brother distopia that they want if they only buy games digitally. And those that don't want online play can still use their disks bought in a real store if they want to as well.
Hah, I came in to these comments specifically to point out both Google's attempt to install fiber into provo (the next city south), and also the Utopia project: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_Infrastructure_Agency).
Unfortunately, the actual city that could make use of fiber connection - Salt Lake - has adamantly refused to opt into either Utopia, nor did it lobby for Google's fiber. And now, with this law, legislators are acting as if fiber optic infrastructure is a disease, trying to quarantine its spread.
I'd say this is a clever ploy by the REAL Starbucks to weaken fair use laws. By taking "parody" use of something to it's very extreme, they will certainly get a court and jury to admit that making fun of a company while using their resources isn't fair use.
And... we will forever be unable to post a picture of a company logo - even under clear fair use - again.
Huh, and I thought we paid for radio with our ears, having to listen to idiotic car salesmen and accident lawyers trying to drum up business. Who knew I was a leech on creativity by making these radio stations pay for the content.
Why, if only we had a similar concept in place online. Why, some kind of "internet radio", in which I could listen to music with the occasional advertisement. Certainly that would be a swell thing.
I'd listen to it on the iPhone knockoff I made for $50 bucks worth of parts and $100 worth of "innovation" crafting an operating system for it.
Honestly, I'm actually kind of fine with it in this case. As MWL-G said, there have already been multiple attacks on foreign and civilian targets - possibly at random - in the area BECAUSE of the Olympics. Once they get underway, there are going to be many factors of 10 more people around, making for better targets.
But, this surveillance MUST be temporary. As soon as the threat is over with, and things return to normal, it should be scaled back.
The difference between this period leading up to / including the Olympics and our own situation is CLEAR and PREVIOUS evidence of a threat. Unlike our own, in which we are told to "trust" in the NSA that they need to stay vigilant despite a large, organized attack not having happened for over a decade (Boston was by two guys who did it without massive support from any group).
So, if the admin responded to a petition with an age of 90 days, and the average are at 298+... Did the administration do this JUST so it could increase the average wait time faster than if it ignored them all?
Oh my. Buy DirecTV stock. One of the biggest downsides to the NFL sunday ticket that a TON of people bought every year was that local sports teams were NOT included in the package, with rights to those games (whether they chose to show it or not) was the EXCLUSIVE rights of local broadcasters.
Or maybe not. If this just stops the "blackout the game if we don't sell-out a stadium" rule, then it won't do anything for the local broadcaster "exclusive right to broadcast in local area" rights.
Oh well. One step closer to the people getting what they want, and not what corporations want us to have.
Actually, I'm with OOTB on this one. I know, I know, VERY odd. But, if we don't like this, we need to not support it. If we keep buying digital goods because it's the ONLY choice, we are reinforcing the companys' decisions to screw us over this way.
Until we can get the content that we pay for guaranteed access to forever from the very beginning of a transaction, we shouldn't ask for anything less.
The problem is that OOTB is being rude as always and not being sympathetic to this. The ability for Amazon to revoke licenses IS in the terms, but as always nobody reads them (and they shouldn't HAVE to). But now that we know, everyone should stop buying, and let Amazon and the content publishers watch as their sales in this format drop to nothing.
It worked for iTunes and other music distribution options. When you can buy a song that CAN be downloaded at will and has no DRM, yes it can lead to piracy. But people accepted nothing less and we got DRM-free MP3s. The files could be copied and pirated, but guess what? People still bought them. It wasn't the end of the world.
Heh, when news of this first broke, I spoke with my father who we are planning to make apps together. We'd discussed, at least a year ago, that android should allow people this option. I'd argued at the time it probably won't, since any earlier android os versions would not include this feature. Most android devices never update their core version, and those that do are usually at the will of the device maker to update the version their device runs on (such as phones).
Guess they ended up doing it anyway. I'd love this feature, and am sad to see it go, but I also accept Google's reason and believe that they wanted to make it ready fully before allowing it. My opinion is that they want to make it a part of the APK that your program has to continue working if your app was denied a permission it asked for.
See, right now, your app will crash - hard - if it tried to use a permission that is disabled. So google will reintroduce it only when it becomes a standard for people designing under the new android versions to put in "permission denied" workarounds, even if it's to say "this program cannot and WILL NOT work without XXXXXX permision" and close.
Yeah, that's my opinion too. A single unintentional (and not followed-up-on) search on google will not place you on a terrorism watch list. There are far too many people in this country that are indeed curious about how to make some things that would be considered disrespectable for the NSA to monitor each and every one of them. And then to "blow" the investigation multiple times by making these facts known the day after? Pure coincidence.
Heh, I love how he found it "odd" that his friend's wife liked Harry Potter, a "kid's movie". My parents like the books, and the movies too, so it's not at all odd that an adult would like them. And this man is reading a VERY popular book to his kid the same time the movies are out? WOW! STOP THE PRESSES!
I worked as a phone agent at DirecTV for a while, and I heard from customers all the time as to why they have to pay for packages with all these channels that sucked. The most basic package (that they never advertise) has about 30 channels plus locals for 30 bucks a month. Some people looking to reduce their bills go to it, and complain that NOTHING is available. The next step up? the 70 channel pack for 60-70 bucks. And still very few movie channels.
The REAL meat of TV packages come ala carte already: HBO, Starz, Showtime, Encore, etc. However, those cruise on their success (and have to pay for modern movie rights) and charge about 15/month for their packages each.
I'm in favor of pay-per-channel programming, but once you got it, would you REALLY shell out for the one or two channels that you - while waiting for that movie to start - clicked over for half an hour? I'm talking about Discovery, History, TLC, and other channels like that. They have something neat to watch once in a while, but when you're looking at your bill, it's hard to justify paying for them, even $1/month (which I doubt it will be that low).
Everyone, everywhere, wants to take out the channels they don't watch (GodTV), but somewhere there is someone that doesn't want AMC and watches only GodTV, so they want to strip out AMC. It's a lose-lose situation for programmers, now that I think about it.