I've got the same complaint about NFL games as well. The only game I get to watch each week, unless I'm at a resturant or a friends house that has it on, is the Sunday night game on NBC. NBC is the only network that airs a football game online. And it works very well. Now I can understand maybe ESPN or the NFL network not putting their games online for free, but ABC, CBS, and FOX already send these over the airways for free, so in my opinion they should be able to simulcast them over the web as well.
Now before you slam me and say I should just put up an antenna, you should know that I can't. I live in a town that is in a valley that is at 2000 feet above sea level, but all of the mountains around are 8000 feet higher or more (we have the tallest mountain in the continental US in the mountain range near us). So OTA TV is just not feasible. You might get 2 or 3 channels, like PBS and the local city council meetings, but none of the networks. And I just can't justify paying for a Cable or Sat. TV subscription that I am just not going to use.
When we did have Cable TV, we only watched maybe 7 channels, CBS, FOX, Disney, Discovery, A&E, Food Network, and maybe one or two others. Now if they offered some type of Ala Carte programing fee, I might be more interested, but for now, I'll just stick with my Hulu and Netflix watching for TV and movies and NBC on Sunday nights for my weekly football fix.
Wait. I'm confused. In his post Mike references his interview with TorrentFreak in which he says "...Feel free to use any of our posts going forward as well. Unlike some, we're not scared of people copying our stuff...." How is this jumping all over Allen? He basically says what she did is fine and she can do it all she wants. I mean, hell, it's getting Mike's message out there, isn't it? The only negative thing Mike said about what Allen did was that she was by hypocritical. She can't have it both ways. Either she believes what she preaches, and followes it, or she doesn't. When you do something that is the opposite of what you say you believe, well, that my friend is defined as hypocrisy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another brick in the wall (oops, I hope they do not come to me charging for the quote...)
Damn you DH. I almost lost my lunch laughing. :)
Now, I may be in the minority here, but even though I detest Britney Spears music, I still think the woman is so doable. And when I saw the line "pumping of..." All my brain saw was pumping Britney Spears, and I got so freaking excitied...Then I saw the word Cher. *shudder*. Thanks for bringing me up, and then back down, DH.
Ah yes. But lets not forget. One show is going to be held and the other got canceled. By this you can infere, and it seems Mike did, that the one that is taking place is going to be better than the one that is not taking place. Even if it is the shittiest piece of garbage ever it still will be better than the one that did not take place. It just may stink more and never happen again.
Actually PRMan, the V-Chip is not very usefull at all.
At our house we don't have a cable subscription, or any TV subscription for that matter, or OTA TV. What we do is run Netflix via the Xbox for our dose of hollywood entertainment. We would only add movies to the Instant Queue that we would want our kids to watch. Then all of a sudden Xbox and Netflix changed how they do things. They made it so not only can you see the instant queue but you get recommendations of off what you have recently watched, and you get to see new releases for all of main categories (action, comedy, etc.) of movies.
Since my wife and I don't put movies we want to watch in the queue, as this would make shows/movies available to our children that we do not want them to watch, we did not like this change. Because now the recommendation will put out movies based of of say, Terminator, or Leverage, or CSI, all perfectly great movies/shows, but not what I want my children watching yet. So I decided to enable the rating option on the Xbox. Set it to TV-G - TV-PG for TV shows and up to PG for movies. Locking out unrated and not-rated shows/movies/games. You would think this would work, right? Wrong.
My four year old loves the Bob the Builder shows, guess what they are rated, Unrated, guess what the latest Sci-Fi "C" (mabye even F) movie is rated, Unrated. Awesome. Now I can either put a block on that locks out my sons shows, as well as shows I don't want him to see, and his games, such as Lego Indiana Jones, Lego Star Wars, and Kung-Fu Panda, or not lock out anything.
Now, this is really only a hardship in that I have to remember a stupid Xbox password (no it can't be alphanumeric, that would be to easy) that has to be a combination of buttons/controls on the controller, but it should not be an issue. And of course he (my 4, almost 5, year old) already cracked the first password I picked. All he did was mash random buttons until he got it to work. Then the watched what he pushed until he guessed it and remembered it. And they tried telling me he wasn't ready for kindergarten this year. psssha. Kindergarten wasn't ready for him, and won't be...Ever.
If the rating system is going to work it must be applied to all movies/shows. If National Lampoon wants to make an unrated version of one of their skin flicks, fine. But mark it Unrated - Adult or something. Don't punish those of us that try to make the technology work for us but are foiled by stupid companies that try to get around the technology.
Oh well. I'll end this rant now. But just keep in mind that just because I want to watch a given movie/show doesn't mean I want my children to as well. And if the rating system is screwed up that I can't set it easily, well, it needs to be fixed.
DH - keep in mind that due to advances in prosthetics there are a lot of athletes in the Special Olympics that are only there due to a missing limb, or two, and are not allowed to participate in a standard Olympic competition.
And of course I make the classic mistake of responding to his first post instead of to the one that was in response to the links I posted. Doh. Mike do you have an edit button? Or a move button I can use. :)
Hmmm. I think I just fell for a troll from the company named. If you click his profile you see that he has exactly 3 posts to his registered name. 3 guesses as to which article they are on...And the first 2 don't count. I betcha If we google his name we find he works in PR for the company. :)
But then again. He may not. Unless there are lots more Rick Pool's out there. Of course I'm sure he's not the "Rick's Pools" in southern california. :)
Just wondering, did you click through to the articles I linked? Cause it sounds like you didn't. FTA: "A trail of evidence dug up by the TCI Journal, a UK commission of inquiry, and others, showed that foreign property developers were giving millions in secret loans and payments to senior Islander politicians, including an alleged $500,000 cash payment to the Island's now former Premier, Michael Misick."
Now those "foreign property developers" have filed suite in California asking for the IP address of the TCI Journal's email account with Gmail.
From the way TFA reads it says that the file sent to wikileaks was the original court document and there was a court order that said the media could not report on it. But that was overturned. FTA: "The Commission of Inquiry Final Report was released on the 18th of July this year in significatly redacted form. A full version was released by WikiLeaks. A High Court case ensued which initially enjoined all media in the Islands from reporting the redacted findings, however within a few days this restriction was overturned.".
So basically, the company asking for the info from Google did not like the fact that their name showed up in the court document and made it online. So they filed a supoena for information. Again, FTA: "Subpoenas for records are rubber-stamped by US courts, meaning that anyone in a position to start law suits in California can obtain private information about Gmail users who are not in a position to respond in kind, including cash-strapped corruption busting journalists from the Caribbean."
Sounds to me like this is a case of abuse by a powerful company. Not a case of the "leak" being illegal.
But who are we to let the facts get in the way...Right?
I saw this story yesterday, on CNN.com I think, and it wasn't just that the court asked for the identitiy of a blogger. It was asking for the IP address of someone who uploaded some documents to WikiLeaks using a gmail email address. Now, like Mike said, if the company has proven to the court that this really is defamation, then Google should not fight the court order. But if all this is, is an underhanded technique to get at a whistleblower...Shame on Google (and the courts).
LOL. Wow. It sounds like someones jock strap is wound a bit tight today. Do us a favor, go to the bathroom, take of the jock strap, go back to your desk, and calm down. After that, please rethink what you wrote.
I'm guessing that the IT shop where you work is full of men, or women, that are all what you consider nerds? Right? Or is there a vast pool of employees that work there? I've worked with IT guys that are bodybuilders, musicians, carpenters, mechanics, navy chiefs, marines, shit, they come from all all walks of life and have all types of hobbies. I would love for you to use your attitude with the one Network admin I knew that was a recently retired Navy Chief. I would love it. Or the Gunny that is 250lbs of pure muscle and stands 6'3". Would love to see it.
Usually I agree with your Troll spotting, but I think you missed with this one.
It looked to me like this was a total blast at the idea of creating a "suitable punishment" for it [file sharing].
The second part of his post is what made me feel that way. It seemed that he was saying that we should be glad that the RIAA (and their like) haven't pushed for this to be crimilized yet. But as another commenter said, bring it on. Then they have to have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Can you imagine them having that proof? Ever?