Re: so if I don't like it
You can return under statutory rights surely?
5958 posts • joined 28 May 2010
You can return under statutory rights surely?
It's a contract between you and Google. If you don't like the terms, don't enter the contract. Sale with strings attached is not some new thing Google invented, it's pretty common.
Someone will come along and tell us a fancy legal term for this no doubt.
Does this stand up to legal scrutiny though if you buy them outside the US?
If 4OD is crap on WP8 at least it will consistent with other platforms.
iOS means iPad too, and they let you download HD video. It's not just crappy 320x240 res stuff. They want stuff you download to only last X days, and only Y days once you start playing it; the functionality is to let you download to view without WiFi access, not to let you build an offline library.
I don't know why that's the functionality but they own the content so it's kind of their choice (no you don't own it just because you pay TV license).
iOS has built-in Flash replacement functionality though so there are built-in DRM-friendly ways to do things, surely... does Android?
Clearly they do use it or people wouldn't be asking.
Different people have different ideas. Downloading always seems pretty secondary to streaming with iPlayer even though the iPad download functionality is very well executed, I don't know if there are any stats to support that feeling though.
Netflix feel streaming is a big enough market, BBC are tasked with getting their content to license players in as many ways as possible (I suppose), not selling it.
Now we just need a phone that plugs into a tablet that plugs into a keyboard dock...
"If you have the right to claim God hates $demographic because of $event then I hate the right to say you're a nobend for saying that"
Yes you do, absolutely. But that's not the same as hacking 'my' website to stop me saying it.
"I don’t think you have to be a liberal to dislike the WBC"
I didn't say anything about liking the WBC. I didn't use liberal as an insult, but to make a point.
I SAID the point of free speech is you're supposed to let people you loathe have it too. Taking down their website or supporting those who do is endorsing the suppression of their free speech, surely? Don't anonymous believe in free speech?
Since I'd be in favour of WBC being banned and censored, I have no problem with their site being taken down, but not in the name of freedom.
It's a good job WBC are a bunch of loons then!
Hateful as they are, I thought all you internet liberals were in favour of free speech? When a copper gets in trouble for saying something on Twitter, that's wrong because it suppresses his right to say what he wants. But WBC shouldn't have the freedom to say what they want?
Personally people like WBC are why I am not in favour of the kind of unlimited free speech the internet endorses, but it seems a bit two-faced.
That's the attitude which got man on the moon...
Yes - it's a reality show aimed at geeks and people with a sense of adventure. I'm sure the masses will tune in to begin with but it will lose its attraction for them "day 70... still on the bloody spaceship"
I think the AC is a better nomination, get rid of all the bitter little idiots.
The people need to be physically and mentally sound... BB are out.
Not everyone even intends to use GitHub for OS projects - many use it as a great tool for developing proprietary software. Although presumably they would not make their projects public... so maybe making your project public should have some automatic license - GPL or github's own license or something?
Don't the FSF and other bodies attempt to push GPL as the "right license"? Or am I mixing FSF with Torvalds?
Now if only Google would do a proper enterprise version of Chrome so businesses can adopt it properly... centralised updates, proper support, etc.
90% of the world already have.
Crazy but brilliant.
I had thought about doing the same with DropBox + SkyDrive but wondered if there might be any problems doing so?
It's not really your business what patents they are is it?
Running netbeans is not a need for a "serious laptop" for 99% of users. Running Word is.
Yes absolutely. The 1024x768 iPad 2 I own suddenly stopped being usable when they made a version with double the resolution. Oh - wait it's just as nice as it ever was. You sir are the kind of number-driven purchaser the marketing teams are looking for.
I was hoping to see it included - has ER reviewed it yet?
Why are you blaming MS that companies are charging £6-800?
There must be opportunities for a smart entrepreneur to sell some pointless gimmicky use-cases to those who insist on having iPad apps developed for no reason.
WTF are you on about? Why is Netflix going to lose the majority of its customers for staying with DRM? The facts show that Netflix streaming is growing at a huge rate so you're just letting your idealist rhetoric get in front of the facts, which is that they are coining it and DRM has marginal impact.
I don't think "our essential freedom to use the web the way it was intended to be" included watching hi-definition streaming video. The very idea would have seemed preposterous.
Have you never considered that allowing you to save offline content skews Netflix's business also? They want to measure when and how things are watched and this affects what they pay for licenses and how much they can dictate to the content providers. If you download everything and watch it at your leisure, they lose this information.
They could change their model but why should they when streaming is the way the world is going this decade?
I'm sure that's want they want, and are trying to do -but the content creators won't play ball. Some content comes to the UK at the same (or very close to) time as in the US, others is years behind.
Did you not read the article? Netflix simply do not want to sell downloadable content. You might not like streaming-only services so you can go to another provider, but Netflix's success is proving you are in something of a minority and either the cost/profit predictions of offering this are not worth it, or they feel it would dilute their brand. It's their choice and you are perfectly free to go elsewhere.
Is it not possible for Chrome and FF to build DRM capabilities into their Linux browsers? Or does something about DRM make it incompatible with GPL/GNU/etc?
As Rikkeh saya, Netflix aren't able to dictate which countries see which content. They are beholden to the content owners who demand it is licensed separately in different regions.
Tom you are very narrow minded if you think DRM "can't work" if some people can get around it. The aim is not to make it impossible for you to rip it - as you say this is not feasible - but to make it hard enough that 90% of people don't know how to do it, or are put off doing it by the need to install and configure a bunch of extra software.
I never claimed to be defending IE7/8 - they were clearly inferior for general consumers to FF/Chrome. In my view IE10 has finally caught up for the typical user while being the only big enterprise player. I run Chrome on one monitor and IE10 on the other (multiple gmail accounts still don't play too well in the same session) and the difference is small these days although I don't really see much change from IE9 in everyday use.
IE10 is now at least half-decent so there are far fewer reasons to switch from it than there were when it was Chrome Vs IE7/8 - other browsers might still be better but the difference is reduced therefore the pressure to move is also reduced. Any bundled software only needs to be "good enough" to retain users.
Didn't Chrome get hacked as readily as IE at the last hack-fest thingie? I know ChromeOS came out pretty unscathed but the Chrome browser didn't.
That doesn't help if sale of drones is unregulated and millions of the things start being used in this illegal manner... how is PC Plod going to tell who is operating the damn thing when someone reports it keeps bothering them? Hell how's he going to tell who is controlling it if he happens to be there when the drone appears? Users could fly the thing to knock off the copper's helmet with impunity!!
Though I want a drone, I can see blocking them at source is potentially the way this might go. Thought waiting for it to BE a problem first would be preferable in case it's very rare.
"There are perfectly good reasons for using a drone around a home"
I never claimed otherwise. I suggested banning them flying over others' land would be a problem as would using them to spy into others gardens from above your land.
If someone flies a drone into your property, I wonder if you're allowed to shoot it down - maybe yanks will start buying shotguns rather than pistols.
"@jdx: with your fit woman example where do you draw the line? If I could be upstairs in my house ogling her or hovering a drone above my property is that still allowed"
If you could see her from your house, she can expect to be observed and should shut her curtains.
Hovering a drone high above your own land... well you would not be allowed to build a high viewing platform on your garden which allows you to overlook neighbours, as far as I understand it, so I'd say this falls into that category.
Your camera ha to be pretty bloody high to see into my back garden over the roof of my house. Google sees nothing a lorry driver doesn't.
Thanks. Simply banning drones from flying over peoples' houses would be fine in my view... if you live in a city you'd have to take it elsewhere to fly, in the country or a village you could fly it from your garden out across the fields.
"one of the biggest complaints regarding Street View is that the camera is about 9 feet up, and therefore able to see over the top of normal sized fences and hedges - just like a flying drone."
Yes but that's no different from anyone driving a lorry or sitting on the top deck of a bus. If your garden/window is viewable from the road, but only in those situations, you should expect people can sometimes see in.
If you have a secluded back garden or your house is not overlooked, you do not expect any possibility of anyone looking in.
True, but it's only recently become a mass consumable cheap device anyone can buy off the shelf. A few people doing it, it can be treated under existing laws. Millions doing it, easier to bring in specific legislation.
You have a very naive view of humanity. You don't think a guy who gets a drone for 'honourable' (nerdy) purposes who realises a hot woman sunbathes naked in her private garden or showers with the curtain open in her un-overlooked bathroom, would abuse that? It's very easy to say people won't BUY drones to perve, and I agree (mostly). But that doesn't mean they won't use them for that...
His cars can't go into your back garden.
There is a difference taking static photographs on a car traversing public roads anyone could see, and flying a drone over my garden to look through my windows.
Does anyone know the legal ownership of the air above your land? If a person can hover 2" above my lawn are they 'in' my property? 2 feet? 20 feet?
The pictures in the article look very reminiscent of the covers on sci-fi books/magazines from the 60s.
Did Greenpeace just read John Wyndham's book? Are they also warning of giant sea tanks?