Re: Not just a service pack
I'm not aware that there has ever been an authoritative definition of what constitutes a Windows service pack. If it consists of minor updates and there's nothing radically different about it, I call that a Service Pack.
4545 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
I'm not aware that there has ever been an authoritative definition of what constitutes a Windows service pack. If it consists of minor updates and there's nothing radically different about it, I call that a Service Pack.
What, precisely, did you find so difficult to accomplish on the laptop without touch? If I want to launch a program, I tap the Windows key and type the first couple of letters and return, it launches it faster that way that moving up and down a Start menu ever did. Even if you for some reason have an absolute aversion to using the keyboard, the Start Screen can easily hold around thirty tiles on even a laptop screen, grouped by function, so unless you're commonly using that many which I doubt, it's the same move to lower left (though again, I tap the Windows key) as you would with Windows 7 and then select the program you want. You don't even have to dig through sub-folders.
Is it not time to just track 8 and 8.1 together? 8.1 is essentially a service pack to 8 and they came out in a very narrow timescale between the two. Tracking them separately just misleads.
>>"everything he stated is just plain obvious"
Maybe so, but we're living under a government that appears unable to see the obvious, so it's worth stating.
I like John McAfee. People should not mistake eccentric for unaware - he's a very smart person. And occasionally people tar him with the label paranoid, until they actually read more and find some of what he's actually been through. Someone rich yet still willing to fuck with the status quo, that's a rare combination and it leads to some surprising circumstances on occasion. El Reg should have linked to the video where he distances himself from the software which he actually left behind long ago - thar's hilarious.
Okay, I have read some drivel in the comments sections. Hell, I have written some drivel in the comments sections. But this idiot is taking crap posts to a whole new level of shit.
That's okay, they're actually all in Seattle.
By "not outwitted by a direct question", do you mean avoiding any meaningful answer of it? Where are the actual studies - or even study - that shows that the increasing surveillance isn't having an effect on people's willingness to do business here?
I have no knowledge of anybody being discouraged from doing business in the UK by our proposed or actual snooping. However, I do have knowledge of at least two significant deals that fell through with American companies because of lack of trust in the US government not snooping. It's not a small issue for US businesses at the moment. And the UK has been behaving similarly to the USA so I would not be surprised if there were a similar reaction.
I would want more than anecdotes from a few of this guys friends on this before I considered it actual data.
I think I have seen the future, and it's Containers all the way down.
This is kind of an odd article. I'm not sure if my understanding is at fault or the author's. I don't quite see the overlap / conflict between Docker and PaaS that the author seems to be talking about, but I may just not quite have got what they mean.
The point of PaaS to me is that I have someone else providing the services that I need and these people (Amazon, Azure et al.) are going to know a lot more about managing it all than I do. Or quite frankly even if they don't, I want to focus on my applications, not on administration of all these services.
That's why PaaS is my GoTo. IaaS is my fallback if PaaS can't do what I need because with IaaS I can do a lot more, but at a very marked increase in work outside my core business. As PaaS gets better and better, I see the need for IaaS reducing for my use cases (and many people's). I think there will be a big shift away from IaaS towards PaaS because if the latter gives you what you need and lets you focus on what you really care about, why wouldn't you?
But where Containerisation fits into the above conversation, I'm not quite sure. I think the author is saying that Containerisation obviates the need for PaaS to some extent? Or that people think it does and he's saying that actually people are wrong and it doesn't... But I'm not quite clear. Containerization is, I guess you could call it, a refinement / supplement / tool for IaaS and thus keeps parity between the two approaches, offsetting the complexity of IaaS to some extent? I'm not sure if that's the argument.
Paris, because maybe I'm just being like her today.
>>"Well it will be my Birthday...so probably."
And you get the best birthday present ever! A new edition of Windows! :)
>>"I stopped using Microsoft Office 15 years ago (yes, in 2000) switching to Open Office and later to LibreOffice. I never looked back [...] I realized how much I do not need this application when I bought recently a PC with a preinstalled Microsoft Office. I deleted it without switching it on, even once"
It's always amusing how the most critical posts of MS products feel the need to emphasize their points by explaining how they avoid being able to make informed comparisons. They're always this unaware combination of "I stopped using this over a decade ago..." and "I deleted it without trying it.." followed by how rubbish they know it is.
Are you sure you're not confusing it with Office Web Apps. You can use MS Office without an Internet connection, including mobile versions. Office 365 is actually a subscription model that can cover both downloadable versions and the web apps. It's not a specific piece of software itself. You obviously can't use the online versions of Office without a connection, but you can use the downloadable versions.
What's the UI like? Substantially different to the desktop version, I presume?
I see ACs here have finally given up pretending that going into the BIOS and clicking Secure Boot to off is difficult and are now blaming Microsoft for the dark deeds they have yet to perform. Or even announce.
>>"If MS were to make the Trial option mandatory for paid apps, it might solve a great many problems."
It should certainly be encouraged. I have on several occasions avoided an app because it had no trial period. But mandatory would be problematic as there are some cases where it is simply not legally possible - for example the music notation software demo'ed at Build recently which contains third party copyrighted musical scores and so can only be sold, not licenced. (Resolvable probably, but an example). There are also apps that are specialized but rare use. Such apps could have their sales reduced by trial periods by most people only needing to get a few uses out of them and then not needing the app again for a year, or maybe never. I have used a piece of software like that on a few occasions and was able to do everything I needed with their trial version.
But it's definitely a warning sign when they don't have one - agreed!
Not a bad idea in general, but I'm wary of the part about removing apps because they are more expensive than equivalents. Seems like it would favour new copy-cat apps over the original innovators and it might also favour larger vendors over small independents. Neither of which are a good thing. Vendors should be able to set their own prices.
What did you call your app? LetYourFriendsKnowYouAreAnIdiot-ogram ?
That's a good name for it, I think.
Yes. A couple of years ago:
It was exactly what I thought of when I read the story. I wouldn't have thought they'd be caught out like this twice. Apple are usually better than this, but there you go...
Incidentally, El Reg. seem to be giving up any pretence of knowing parody these days and just going for direct Daily Mail style gratuitous sexualisation. Unless I'm missing some subtle relevance to the giant image of a strapless model to this article. Off-topic, yes. But then so is the photo.
The thing is, we don't NEED the government to provide such filtering. There are plenty of cheap solutions and ISPs commonly offer it as part of the package in the first place, anyway.
People can argue the merits of that back and forth all day, but the government isn't trying to do this for the sale of children - it's about introducing pervasive monitoring.
>>"an inside regulator can cheat the system, and an outside regulator can poison it."
Well if you accept that anyone without a vested interest must be ignorant to the point that they cannot effectively regulate, maybe. But is that the case? First off, the reason you have regulators outside the market is generally the regulations are for guarding against externalities. People within the market are pretty capable of working out what is most efficient for their goals. You get the regulations to prevent those goals conflicting with the wider society - environmental pollution, anti-trust issues (where one market reaches over into another), defrauding investors, etc. And people outside of a market are often very capable of recognizing where that market is impacting them.
>>"Not really a surprise that Worstall gets the author of Lord of the Flies confused with the writer of The Princess Bride."
I don't know much about the VFX industry, but I do know that every time Worstall has blundered into an area that I do know about with one of his polemics, his analysis has been shallow, misguided and above all, setting out to prove his desired conclusion. So I can well believe your post. Honestly, there's always that difficult choice when I see a Worstall article as to whether to read it and reward him with clicks but have the opportunity to correct the worst of his excesses, or play the long game and hope not reading will eventually mean he goes away.
VFX studios keep going bust because they run below capacity, do they? That might harm some investors yet somehow doesn't seem to be harming the market as VFX continues to become ever cheaper and more commonplace. That is likely the greater reason - IT investments depreciate quickly and with the rate of progress in VFX by the time you are set up and ready, you have a very limited window because your next competitor springs up without the weight of investment in legacy technology holding them down. You spend ten million dollars on your hardware and software (and to some extent staff as skills also depreciate in a fast-moving sector), and six years later whilst you're still paying that off, someone else spends ten million dollars on hardware and software and new hires and they're better equipped than you are.
Normally start-up costs are significant barrier to entry. But when your investment depreciates with time, that offsets it to a surprising extent. A second factor is staff retention. In a growing market, staff have supreme mobility. And the VFX market is growing and healthy.
>>"Along with being bright enough to see Minix and copy the idea"
Hmmm. Windows seems to have been pretty successful. I'll copy their idea and then I'll be rich too.
Step 1. Look at what they've done.
Step 3. Sell my own version.
I seem to be missing a step. Never mind, I'm sure it's trivial - riches here I come! :D
"In the U.K. there will be a referendum on the E.U., but the people will be lead sleep walking in to the TPP/TTIP treaties"
Despite this treaty coming through the EU, we actually have a better chance of avoiding it by staying in where opposition to TTIP is growing daily, rather than leaving as all of our main parties and UKIP are actually in favour of signing it. (caveat, not sure where SNP stand) and would do so independently immediately on withdrawing from the EU.
Stallman is a great man. He was instrumental in the success of Libre software. Without him, there might well not have popular GNU/Linux distros for example and the entire Open Source movement would be a decade behind where it is today at the very least, or more likely unrecognizable as what we have today.
And he ALWAYS backs up what he says. If MS give the NSA advance notice of vulnerabilities that is a bad thing and worthy of criticism. I don't care if he looks like Jesus. Hell, I don't care if he thinks he is Jesus! What I respect is someone who is intellectually honest, self-consistent and supports their beliefs with facts.
A lot here could learn from that.
And two weeks later, amanfrommars began posting on El Reg. forums...
Good for Skype. Your interface is weird; and your availability status and grouping functionality are both primitive to an alarming degree. But here's to you for doing the right thing!
Sadly, I've seen too many of their other posts. They're not subtly trolling (as if that would be a good thing, anyway). They actually mean it.
Your post is, excepting that JAVA's cross-compatibility is a factor in its success, start to end nonsense.
I'll just do the highlights and that alone will take me ten minutes.
>>However today we have POSIX.
POSIX has been around since the late nineties. In fact, the main parts of it were around in the Eighties! First public release of Java was around the same time as the formalization of POSIX. POSIX has been available throughout all the time that Java was establishing itself.
But that's a minor detail in comparison to your suggestion that POSIX obviates the need for Java. POSIX is limited standard focused solely around the UNIX model and very limited in scope. It's never even been revised to deal with Object Orientation which it just pretends doesn't exist. It would be quicker to list the things it does cover than all the things it doesn't. The most modern thing it attempts is a well-intentioned [b]attempt[/b] at ACLs. Which are ignored by most GNU/Linux distributions. And that's another thing. Aside from only being good for writing programs that move a few files around, it's not even fully implemented on all major GNU/Linux distributions! Heck, [b]systemd[/b] isn't even POSIX-compliant and that's everywhere! And I haven't even started on Windows yet! If, and let me emphasize the IF, you install Cygwin on Windows you get the limited capabilities of POSIX on Windows (at a snail's pace and unable to use most of the Windows OS). POSIX is just a set of UNIX standards not even fully adhered to in the GNU/Linux world and you are offering it up as a cross-platform alternative to Java? They're not even the same type of thing. Tell me how I compile a C++ program on GNU/Linux and run it on Windows 7 using "POSIX". Your argument doesn't make any sense.
>>You no longer need to port software you can just re-compile it. So it's trivial to just publish your software in source code.
Well that's just great. Because 99% of the computer users you want to run your program are just great at downloading a C++ compiler appropriate for their platform and then assembling it into executable code and setting that executable up as installed along with any library dependencies, resolving version issues, etc. And you're aware that Security is a thing these days? That with the JVM you can actually handle permissions in a sensible way. Exactly how safe do you think sending people source code to compile would be?
>>Java, like C++ and similar languages seem to make it easy to write complex software
ROFL! No-one has ever, ever sat in front of a C++ compiler and thought, "Oh! Writing complex software is easy now!" Not for more than two minutes, anyway. And I speak as a former C++ programmer who regards the language as very impressive. I mean, Visual Basic might fool (until they get into the second week and realise they've just created a huge unworking mess), but C++? No. And the same for Java.
>>Now most problems in IT are very trivial
Please, you're hurting me.
>>the core of the operation of most companies could just as well be managed by punchcard collators or very simple computer programs, often not even needing an SQL database
I would love to know what you do for a living. Have you ever even seen the inside of an office?
>>"However since it seems so easy to write complex software people don't bother having a nice and simple design first. The result often are brittle and inflexible systems."
Sometimes someone's post is wrong simply in the odd factual detail. Sometimes someone's post is biased and slants facts or omits inconvenient ones. But your post is so lacking in familiarity with the subject matter it is beyond correction, it should just be dismissed wholesale as meaningless.
I did not understand what you wrote. And I'm not blaming myself for that.
>>"You beat me to it, a responsive Google Love Doll would be the ultimate product to rake in the bazillions. Just don't let MicroSoft screw it up. Please, keep it Open Source so it can be "dinked with" and modded."
You really want such a product to be made by the world's largest advertising and data gathering corporation?
Actually, scratch that - you really want such a product to be made?
Oh you question the sanity of such parents now, but wait until everyone has them and then listen to the faux-polite comments you get for depriving your child of one...
* But isn't it safer knowing they have a Smart Toy keeping an eye on them. Did you know that every year thousands of children are abducted / die in accidents / are seriously injured whilst unattended, many of which could have been prevented if they had a Smart Toy with them that could report the child's distress / non-responsiveness / absence.
* But don't you know that Smart Toys are designed to stimulate your child's learning. Smart Toys are shown to lead to a 4.7% improvement in maths scores in primary school children over those playing with non-interactive / education-focused toys.
* All her other friends have one. Don't you realize how unhappy and left-out your child feels?
I'm sure that I've missed a few things. Wait until these toys start networking with each other or allowing the parent to tune in and listen to what the child is doing at any time.
>>"@H4rm0ny If a client passes out in front of me, then I try to revive, then I CALL A FUCKING AMBULANCE..."
Well that depends. Are you willing to spend the next five years of your life locked in a prison cell because some stranger with thousands of times your own money who pays to fuck you has passed out? And it's a fairly certain choice - the US legal system has major hate for people who accept money for sex and who are complicit in drug use. You're almost certain to spend years of your life in an American prison. So make the choice and tell me: are you willing to give up five years of your life for this stranger? You probably have friends, probably have family. Even if you, Brewster's Angle Grinder, are willing to give up half a decade of your freedom for this person, would you do that to those you're close to? I want an honest answer from you here.
And even if you claim that you're willing to do this, at what stage do you do this? The guy is slurring his words a bit. Do you accept your life in prison because he's a bit woozy? No, he's on heroin, of course he's not going to be sitting there as if nothing is odd. So no, you're not going to choose to go to prison because he's off his face. You're not a doctor, btw. It's not like you're an expert on this stuff. So now he's passed out an wont come round. Do you decide to go to prison at this point? I've seen people passed out who wont come round or just mumble at me. They were fine afterwards (well, had a headache, but anyway...). She has almost certainly seen the same thing. So tell me now, are you going to go to prison five years because someone has passed out? Remember, your prison sentence is a near certainty because you slept with someone for money and there are drugs present. Hell, even assume this person is someone you like, do you want them to wake up next day with a loss of their career and losing their wife and kids because you got jumpy and panicked? No, even if you're thinking of the other person's well-being you don't call 911 because people pass out from drugs or alcohol all the time without dying. It's not like calling the authorities is necessarily a good call even from their point of view. Remember, you don't know that they're dying.
And all this assumes that she is sitting carefully by his side monitoring him. For all we know, she comes over at some point (maybe she was a bit out of it too) and can't get a response from him and then there's an "oh shit!" moment where she realises he's not breathing. That's actually a lot more plausible than her sitting there checking him every few minutes. It's not like dying of a knife wound, there isn't screaming and yelling for help. He was probably just quiet for a bit. So now tell me, are you going to subject yourself to five years of prison over someone who is already dead or would die before an ambulance got there? She's not a doctor. If someone stops breathing, how long do YOU expect them to hang on waiting for an ambulance? She tried to revive him, couldn't, people only are revivable for a very, very short time once they stop breathing. Almost certainly less time than it takes an ambulance to arrive.
In short, you haven't thought this through.
>>"I have no idea, how you measure "rational" in these situations. But when an adult does something wrong, they face up to it. Actions that lead to someone's death are about the most wrong you can do. And attempting to avoid responsibility is wrong."
Well maybe I don't have faith that the consequences would be proportionate. I might well be willing to "own up to what I did" if it were a question of it just being people knowing what happened. But I know that's not the case. Maybe what happened was that some rich, married stranger paid me so that I would let him fuck me and then voluntarily took drugs which he'd wanted me to supply and maybe I don't think that I deserve to be thrown in prison for half a decade because of that. I might even have people who depend on me that I actually DO care about.
So yes, I'm sticking with "rational" in this instance and I don't believe you have actually considered things from the point of view of someone in her situation or in the circumstances of her life. It's called empathy.
She spent two years in prison before they decided she was guilty?
Separately, I like how news coverage of this always reminds us that she "finished a glass of wine before leaving". I'm sure we're meant to take it as some act of callous indifference. But I think if I had just killed a client, I would probably need to finish the whole bloody bottle! Removing evidence of your presence if you are able, is also a rational action whether the killing was deliberate or accidental.
>>"My father's middle name has 200 bits of entropy, constantly changes"
Let me guess, your father is Bruce Schneier?
It's not the device that needs any particular OS. It's the user. As someone else said - choice is good. Now developers from both UNIX and Windows backgrounds can easily develop for the Pi so that helps the Pi become even more useful and successful which is good for all.
But the question I want answered is how much does Windows IoT edition cost? Because I can program on both platforms and whilst C# is nice, so is Python. if I can stick Rasbian on there for free I don't see how Windows IoT will compete with that. At least for non-commercial use which is a major driver of uptake.
>>"When one party is 10 times the size of everyone else put together, there is no "number 2". There's just a market leader and a more or less equal collection of also-rans."
I would say when the market is worth two-hundred billion and growing rapidly, I would say number 2 position is a pretty awesome place to be. ;)
Besides, the Gartner Magic Quadrant isn't really a leaderboard where people come first, second, third, etc. A company could be far bigger than its nearest rivals in terms of revenue but be in the upper left rather than the upper right. The difference is significant because the report is not only a summary of where vendors are, but on where they are going. Anything in the upper right, Gartner are predicting good things.
Both AWS and Azure cover a lot of different services and features. Given that both companies are well-established and not going away, then decision as to which must be based on suitability and quality of the services rather than market position. AWS has come from a position of IaaS (Infrastructure as a service) and spread a little into PaaS (Platform as a Service), whereas Azure has targeted PaaS aggressively from the start. To me, this is more interesting because I see PaaS as far more the future than IaaS. I want to offload as much maintenance and administration as possible. I also find Azure has better management tools, though it depends what your use case is, of course.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that #1, #2 - these things matter only to the shareholders and the fan-people. To the customer, it makes no difference at all, save that underdogs will price more competitively long-term.
>>"How naive. They can't code their way around the law."
Of course you can. Accountants do it all the time. If you are hosting only encrypted content that you yourself cannot access, then for example, you cannot be made to reveal what you know because you don't know anything. MS are simply taking it one (well two) steps further and finding ways to make it so that even processes cannot be accessed by them. Remember, MS's goal is to get your money, not to get your internal data - that's the government's aim (though they would like your money too). So it's entirely within MS's interests to find ways to lock even themselves out, odd though that sounds.
I think it's more the opposite. All these technologies are new and enhance your control. I don't mean they're new in the sense of updated versions of old tools, I mean they're new in the sense of doing things that weren't actually use cases previously.
In the Olden Days, data was data and security was about not letting someone have access to your computer. Then it started to get more sophisticated and it was about having the right user accounts on the box, but if you could access the hardware you could still read the data off the drive. Then we started to see technologies that guarded data against physical access - TruCrypt, Bitlocker, et al. Essentially making security entirely about verifiable credentials.
Now we're seeing that taken to the next stage where entire "machines" (as in VMs) and processes depend on verifiable credentials. The uptake of the Cloud for people's platforms is actually driving the development of tools for controlling what happens and what is accessible that are even more capable than their predecessors. Because the Cloud makes such things necessary.
And ironically, governments' determination to spy on people is running headlong into existing business needs and pushing forward this technology far faster than it would develop on its own. MS have and will always have, one overriding goal - get your money. What we're seeing here, is them finding ways to code around the US government. The article is right to say that this will make the NSA howl.
And I have no problem with that. ;)
This I don't understand. Package management is one of the things I find easier done from CLI.
>>"Or will this have DRM preventing that?"
Not unless they've gone stark raving mad. They want to sell as many of these as possible and build up community support. You use DRM for protecting your content, not so much for limiting sales. The lack of support for OS/X and Linux is just saving development effort, not trying to exclude people.
That said, I have had little interest in Oculus Rift myself but always figured it would probably do quote well. But now that I've seen the hardware requirements I think there is serious risk. Even when this comes out next year, there will only be a small fraction of gamers who have the capability to use it. And that means game studios have little incentive to support it if it takes a lot of effort.
It's success is largely going to come down to how much resource it takes to add OR support to a game you're already making. If it's low, this thing could succeed enough to continue. If it's high, I suspect it will fail and replaced by a successor later on.
Type of lizard.
>>"Again, however, my argument is not that piracy is justified by any of this, just that these annoyances are a major reason why ordinary people turn to illegal downloading and streaming in the first place and this opens the door"
And I don't dispute that. What I am doing is critiquing justifications of piracy. You keep responding to me doing so with explanations why people pirate in ways that suggest you are disputing what I say.
I am perfectly aware of WHY people pirate. Including the cases you list which whilst they exist are not representative of most piracy and you can check the most common pirated movies if you doubt it. There's also the question of whether it is ethical to take something without paying just because you want it now or because someone else bid higher than you for it (e.g. Fox buying the Australian rights). What I take issue with are things like people arguing that they have a right to the content, that people should be able to put ultimatums to sellers that they give the content at a price the consumer wants (which for many people is "free") or else the consumer will simply steal it, that piracy doesn't impact sales and other such unsupportable positions.
Unless you are arguing that piracy is justified, then your replies that keep quoting me are not arguing with anything I have said and shouldn't be presented as such. But surely you see that they are presented as such.
>>"The bit I wanted to purchase wasn't. Do you want a list?"
Whether what YOU wanted is available or not is immaterial to this argument. The question is whether the overwhelming majority of what is pirated is available - which it is because most piracy is current and popular media. YOU not being able to find a particular piece you wanted is not a justification of the overwhelming majority of piracy. And yet you present your personal minority case as a counter-argument to the far larger general case. That is where your logic is flawed. As already explained, but apparently not understood.
>>"Nice that you're so well catered for - anybody with different tastes can whistle, eh?"
Not remotely what I said. "See previous point" refers you to the fact that again, you are making a counter-argument to a vast majority case based on a personal, minority case.
>>"Ooh, you got me! I'd better rush home and put a drill through that hard-drive full of ill-gotten gains."
Why shouldn't you? It's people's work that you refused to pay for.
>>"Have you ever tried to buy a CD/DVD and found that it's no longer available, or not available in the appropriate region for your player? I have."
Yep. Are you attempting to use this as a counter-argument to piracy when the huge, huge majority of it IS available for purchase? Or are you just randomly trying to argue for this case even though it has little to do with what I wrote?
>>"Ever tried to get around the above problem buy purchasing the album/film as a digital download, instead of physical media, only to find that it's not available as a digital download? I have."
Not that I recall, see previous point.
>>"Ever purchased a DVD with the intent to use the UltraViolet digital copy, only to find that the code inside the case has expired? I have."
No. Maybe you bought a second-hand one? Did you take it back and ask for a refund or a copy that is correct. Or is the correct response to a faulty product now to steal it.
>>"Mind you, I have been know to borrow CDs and DVDs from other people and then make copies for my own use before returning the originals! I should probably go to jail."
Well, if poor logic and argument in bad faith were a crime, perhaps...
>>"How much is the MPAA paying you? Seriously?"
I'm not recompensed by anyone in any form for making these posts. They're just what I believe. Ad hominem, much?
>>"(1) IT IS NOT STEALING! You can only steal something that physically exists"
People call taking something without permission stealing. And so do I. It's not the legal thing you would be charged with in court, but then law has specialized and explicitly defined terminology for a reason. You can steal information, have you really never heard anyone say that? If you want to correct someone who says a person was charged with theft and say the sentence was actually for larceny, be my guest. But you're not going to re-define common usage just because you don't want something you like to sound bad. The insistence on trying to get other people not to use words like theft and stealing is just PR / marketing. And I've never much been a fan of PR people. If you don't like your taking something without permission to be called stealing, tough, it's going to keep happening.
>>(2) Who is advocating that copyright infringement is acceptable? Not me.
Yet you respond with disagreements to someone who says it is and write extensively on the reasons why content producers are "kicking customers in the groin" and "make it impossible to enjoy their product" and begin your reply to me by accusing me of being a shill. It certainly sounds like you are justifying piracy.
>>"Here is what I want: A movie free of DRM so that I can rip to a hard drive so that I can watch on my computer, my TV, my tablet, whatever anytime I want. I want a movie that goes straight to the movie or straight to the menu without exception. I want a menu that goes away immediately when I press play. And when I press play, I want the movie to begin immediately, without any anti-piracy warnings or company logos or anything else. In short, I want to be able to do what I want, except illegally share my movie, with my legally purchased movie and I don't want to spend 5 minutes trying to watch my legally purchased movie."
I want those things too. I find commercials on a disc I have bought extremely annoying. But I will continue to maintain that piracy is wrong in the huge majority of cases. And if a content producer makes a product so bad that it is no longer of interest to me, then I will not buy it, rather than rip them off.
>>"I'm one of those supposed freetards in that I do not think a download = 1 lost sale. I know people who download everything they can movies tv music you name it, if you took away all the downloads the simply would not have enough disposable income to buy even a fraction of all the content they download. So take away all the downloads will not give you an equivolent boost in sales."
Indeed not. But that doesn't mean you can argue as if some portion of the downloaded content would not have been paid for.
>>"While I am sure there are people out there who if they couldnt get a certain media item via downloading would go and buy it I certainly think its a far smaller percentage as some people would have you belive."
And what percentage is it that some people believe? And what percentage is it that you believe is accurate? And what makes you believe that people who are accustomed to downloading anything they want for free are not inclined to do that in lieu of payment? Everyone I know who torrents has done it in preference to paying. It's only online that I find people with this bizarre desire to justify what they do as a good thing or their right to do so.
>>Essentially any form of DRM software is malware. It needs to prevent you from doing things you'd like to do
Not correct. It needs to stop other people from doing things they'd like to do. If I am fine with the restrictions, such as just watching the streaming video in my browser as I have paid to do, rather than saving or sharing it as I have agreed not to do, it does not prevent me from doing things I'd like to do and is not malware.
Well-implemented, DRM is only malware to the pirates and yes, DRM can be well-implemented.
Just because you think your comment "dirty dirty BRICS' should appear above everyone else's, doesn't mean you should just reply to the highest appearing post with a complete non-sequitur..
>>Apparently we have a differing view of the word "universe".
I think it's more a difference in ability to factor in context or get hung up over it. As I said, you know perfectly well what is meant. The other week I heard someone say that there were going to be more films set in the Marvel universe. I wish you had been there to lecture people on how that couldn't be. :D
>>"I will make fun of you for this "universe" thing as will many others. It is a sign that the End is nigh."
You know I wondered why there was a crowd of people outside my house chanting "haha! Microsoft called an app universal and H4rm0ny doesn't care that it doesn't run on Symbian, haha isn't she silly!". Thank you for letting me know.
You need an OS underneath your application, or else you end up with a Hell of a lot of extra code to write, test and maintain.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018