I think ...
Beyonce deserves that gTLD more than he does.
589 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Aug 2007
Hulu requires Flash! You want me to miss my shows?!
Tired of all these exploit stories, I went ahead and uninstalled Flash, only to discover Hulu needed it. So I downloaded and installed it again, through IE, and Hulu worked again *in IE*. But it didn't work on Firefox (and neither of the 2 Flash Player add-ons worked, either) so I had to download and install it again, through Firefox, to get it to work on that, too. Very strange.
@ Doug S
Possible misunderstanding on my part, then, as the article seemed to indicate the FIOS application as the culprit. I was going on the assumption that all subscribers had the app installed but, thinking back to when I first got DSL, they tried to get me to install some desktop app that, as it wasn't required for the connection to work, I quickly uninstalled. I guess it's the same with FIOS.
Good thing they stopped the FIOS roll-out years ago or a lot more people would've been affected.
But, wait, does that mean there are *only* 5 million people connected to FIOS (out of ~115 million households)? If that's what Verizon means by claiming they "compete" against cable, I don't think cable has much to worry over.
In this instance, I would say that is probably not the case, as that would imply they believe this story they're putting out. Based on the information available, however, that story would appear to be an outright and deliberate fabrication. Since we can't prove they're lying, they're free to insist it's the gospel truth.
Like all deluded ubermenchen drunk with power, the oligarchs/corporatists running America have convinced themselves (like those deluded old Nazis did) that their 1000 year reign will, indeed, last 1000 years, totally ignoring the lesson history gives us over and over again - that as empires come, empires eventually go, and other empires will rise up to replace them. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
The question is not 'if' but 'when' and whether it will come with a whimper or a bang, a slow descent into irrelevance or dragged kicking and screaming from the stage.
And why would they care, even if they've taken that into account? The millstone of history, though it grinds inexorably, generally grinds slowly, so they'll all be long gone when that day of reckoning rolls around.
A shame that they're so short-sighted, so obsessed with getting their own (and fuck the common folk), such dicks about it, in other words, when with a modicum of effort they could manage the transition with grace. That would, however, require they harbor some tiny shred of decency or altruism, qualities they have repeatedly shown themselves to be completely lacking.
One is tempted to say, "Line them all up and shoot them" but that would be wrong, right?
When I say "make better movies", I'm including prole trash in that, not just make more artsy-fartsy stuff.
I like prole trash just as much as the next person - not everything can be Citizen Kane, nor does it need to be in order to entertain.
I was thinking, in this particular, of Aaron Eckhardt's Frankenstein movie - total waste of $1.50 and 2 hours I'll never get back.
One can't help but imagine all involved in this (and similar projects), on seeing daily rushes early on, saying, "Um, it's not turning out quite like we pictured it but ... well, fuck it, in for a penny, in for a pound." Nobody sets out to make a bad movie except, of course, Uwe Bohl.
You mean, like, with a DRM scheme of some sort? That worked really well for the music industry, didn't it?
Not really meaning to be sarcastic here and certainly, in general, no defender of the movie industry and their absurd business practices but I have to admit that this is a kind of Catch 22 for them.
The studios have every right to try and protect their IP, but if they add stringent DRM, legitimate consumers (who *should* have the right to make copies their purchased media so they can play it on any device they own), as well as freetards, will bitch to high heaven, complain that it's pointless as the DRM will eventually be broken, etc, etc.
With the wide availability of stream-capture software, it's hard to see a streaming-only solution being the answer.
Couple of obvious suggestions to ease the losses due to piracy:
> lower prices on the product so people are more willing to buy it, rather than pirate it
> make better movies
I splurged and treated myself to an LG G for Xmas.
Kind of pointless as far as what it can do since my actual cell is a Windows Phone. Google has hinted at porting the Wear app but, again, pointless for me as I only turn the phone on when I want to make a call and immediately turn it off afterwards and, as no one has the number, I've no need for notifications, either. (It's paired with an HTC One, in case you're wondering.)
The fitness features? Meh. I may try the new music control features, though.
I really just bought it for the novelty of changing the watch faces and it works pretty well for that.
I like the square design, it looks pretty sharp but the rubber strap is a flaky skin magnet so I'll have to switch the band out.
All in all, very pleased with it.
Still plenty of material to make more films from. There's the Silmarillion (all the parts he didn't work into the Hobbit trilogy). And he can always go back and add all the stuff that he left out of The Lord of the Rings movies, Tom Bombadil, say, or the battle for the Shire or the pretty obviously implied (in the books) marriage of Legolas and Gimli, left out as to not scotch Legolas' appeal to swooning teenage girls. That was a pretty shocking omission.