Apple will have the most watched show in the history of mankind
Here's the thing with Apple: no matter what show they debut, it will be the most watched show, ever, in the history of mankind. Not because it's ground-breaking or excellent quality, but because Apple will automatically download it to every user's device.
Then Apple will make the claim that 500 million people downloaded their show; sure, no one had a choice, but it was still a download. Then even if only half the people watch it, that's still 250 million people. How does that compare to the Super Bowl or the moon landing? Yet this would be the viewership for a bland comedy or drama that would be too generic for the regular networks.
And before you laugh at this idea, it's exactly what Apple did with the U2 album a few years ago: they automatically added it to everyone's devices and then claimed it was the most downloaded album ever.
Actually, "The Next Generation Interactive Technical Manual" CD-ROM has been out for over 20 years and is still available for sale at Amazon. So, technically, the fan version would be competing with this version. Though I don't know if CBS owns the manual or gets a cut of the sales.
However, there's something (insert expletive here) about how a lawyer sends out a cease and desist order and then promptly goes on vacation so the defending party can't negotiate.
The problem, as always, is greed. Studios seem Neflix raking in the money so they want to create their own streaming service to make the same money. Yet Netflix is so popular *because* it has the content from the studios. Splitting content over different services makes Netflix *and* their own streaming service worth less. Okay, sure, maybe the studios don't want to compete with Netflix, but isn't it still a good way to get content in front of people?
And it's not like Netflix is telling people where to get the content after the studios take it away. Want to watch Star Trek? Sorry, it's no longer available on Netflix. It's on CBS AllAccess, but you have to go through the process of signing up, then going through the catalog, then playing it back, etc. Want to watch Toy Story? Sorry, it's no longer available on Netflix. Then where is it? Nowhere, because Disney is holding it for their own streaming service due out in a few years. CSI or CSI: New York? Nope, moved to CBS All Access also. But Netflix has a large selection of Korean romance movies and Bollywood movies.
I read these stories all the time here and I wonder when someone will go after the root cause: how do patents like this get issued in the first place? Why doesn't the patent office bear any responsibility for allowing patents that shouldn't be granted? Why does it take companies going back and forth (with usually millions in legal fees) to invalid a bad patent? Why not just not approve a bad patent in the first place? Yes, I know- patent officers are over worked and are under pressure to get things out the door, but maybe they need to slow down and consider the further effects of what they're doing.
"I know that many authors, musicians, journalists and other content creators cheered this on, incorrectly thinking that was a blow to Google and would magically benefit them."
I'd like to see a separate article that digs into why so many people vote against their interests: - Trump would make a better president than Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and other Republican state governors. - Brexit would usher in a new age of British independence from the EU. - Let's create a sales tax for every state, county, and town so every government gets their fair share without telling businesses how to collect the money or how to send payments to every tax agency. - "If Google or Facebook is making money then I'm not, so I want to stop Google and Facebook but I don't care about Bing or any other site."
Content should still be made available to existing customers
I can see Apple's point of view that they may not be legally allowed to sell something when the copyright holder tells them not to. But why in the world do they have to delete the media that people have already paid for? Just make the items inactive on the storefront but allow existing customers to keep downloading and watching.
However, maybe we should follow Apple's lead and complain to the copyright holders. Which movies were deleted from everyone's accounts and which studio should we boycott over this? At the very least, people should stop buying content from the studio because of this issue.
"Does anyone know if WB own the rights to both or the name "Harry Potter" in any context outside of the films? " An interesting question, but irrelevant simply because it would cost too much money and too much time for a festival (or anyone else) to argue against WB's attorneys.
Just look at the recent decision of San Diego Comic Con versus Salt Lake City Comic Con: no "magic festival" is going to risk defending themselves against WB when there's even a sliver of a chance they would have to pay millions in attorneys fees.
In that case, it's good that the officer was there to pass judgment and offer a summary execution. Just think about how much time and money has been saved by not arresting the guy and giving him an actual trial where he's presented with evidence and has a chance to defend himself in front of a judge. Because obviously it's better to shoot the guy than hope he might learn his lesson after getting arrested and going on trial. (That's sarcasm by the way.)
All thing being equal, which is more likely: that a 3 year-old has a cardiovascular disorder and this lady actually needs a prosthetic limb to let her live her life or both of these people are dangerous terrorists looking to smuggle bombs onto a plane.
If you immediately jumped to the conclusion that both of them are terrorists in disguise trying to sneak past security, then you too should join the TSA!
I say if the movie studios want their IMDB page taken down, then do it. Then IMDB and Google should put up a page saying "Information about 'Star Wars IX' is not available due to a takedown notice by Disney." Then see how long it takes for the cast and crew (and hundreds of people who worked on the movie) to get rightly upset that their listing on IMDB has suddenly been taken down as if it were a pirating site, simply because the studio's for-hire takedown service couldn't/ wouldn't get it right. Sure, the cast and crew might get angry with Google for taking the page down, but the takedown was a legal notice from Disney, so everyone should complain to them. And if the cast and crew of multi-million dollar movies start complaining that the studios are taking down legitimate sites, then maybe we'll see some changes to the takedown system.
The main problem with politics in this country is that people get so dug-into their own position that they don't listen to each other. It goes something like this: Person 1: Trump's policy against immigrants is bad. (As reported by a few news sites and backed by Trump's character.) Person 2: I think Trump's policy is good (Okay, that's someone's opinion.) Person 1: But according to these sites, here are the bad things that will happen. (Again, using statistics and proof.) Person 2: I'll believe whatever I want and you have no right to censor my postings. You think Trump is bad now, just wait until my friends and I vote-in even worse people!
And, yes, I've seen a number of sites talking about a "left-wing backlash" as far-right people try to "get back" at left-wing people for attacking them. So once again, people let emotion tell them how to vote: they're rather "get back" at someone else than vote for candidates that would be best for them or the country.
I know I'm going to get a lot of arguments from security experts, but my motto is: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This holds doubly and triply true for software updates. There are countless stories on the web, and on this site, about how an update (usually Windows) broke someone's computer or forced an app to stop working or whatever else. Okay, sure, the company usually fixes the update within a day or 2, but that doesn't help anyone who has a dead computer right now. Yes, I know software updates include security patches, but each person should weigh the risks: is there a higher change that a "remote user could exploit a vulnerability in a Windows ocx file" (or however Microsoft puts it) or there a higher chance that the update could break something?
As an example, I don't remember the last time I installed Windows 7 updates. But the last time I did it, Windows started displaying the menus on the left instead of the right. It took me 2 hours to figure out how to search Google to even get a usable answer. (The solution was that the Windows update read my Intous tablet as a pen input device and decided to set all the menus to display on the left for no reason. There's an option in the Pen & Tablet Control Panel to set the direction of the menus.)
Anyway, United should follow the lead of Chrome, Firefox, and other companies and make their software use more and more system resources so that users are forced into getting newer hardware just to keep up. Then United could put out the usual press release saying "For a better user experience, please use the latest phone." Then it's not their fault people are still using older phones. /s
The worst part of this decision is that the *judge*, or all people, should know that his decision sets legal precedent. If SDCC wins the case (even if it's for $20,000) AND they get to recover attorney's fees, then there's nothing to stop them from suing every other comic-con for using the same name. Oh, the jury only awarded them $10,000 in the next case against New York Comic-Con? Now that a precedent has been set, they should be able to sue for $4 million again. Aren't judges supposed to you know, judge the entire case, including how the law should be applied? It would have been easy for him to say "The jury ruled, neither party gets attorneys fees, and the case is over".
"And if an organization removed those programs (or at least greatly restricted them) and another terrorist attack did occur, it would only cement the stupid idea in peoples' heads that we can protect ourselves against all evil and that those programs weren't a waste of money."
And this is the same reason why politicians can't or won't vote to reduce the budgets on anything in the "war on terror"- they don't want their political opponents to accuse them of being soft on terrorism. So the same thing happens that always happens: someone asks if we really need invasive searching at airports and someone else says "but terrorism" and the agenda is passed.
Yet no one seems to be asking about results. Do all these security procedures stop terrorism? Where's the scientific study showing statistics and proof? Oh, right, it's all about "feeling safe" even if there's no proof to show it works.
This is what's confusing me: Republicans say they're all about the free market and letting business decide how to run their business. If a cake maker doesn't want to sell to gay people, then that's perfectly fine and it's not discrimination. But when Facebook and YouTube want to kick people like Alex Jones off the site for hateful speech, then it's "not fair" and the sites are "targeting conservatives".
So, Republicans need to make up their mind: either companies can be allowed to discriminate, which means choosing to not serve gay people *OR* Republicans. OR all companies must follow government rules and offer service to everyone, no matter if anyone else finds them distasteful.
Here's what I suspect happened: Bondi has realized that guns *are* the problem, but she's somehow indebted to the NRA by way of lobbying, political contributions, or simply being a "good girl" and following the Republican Party line. So instead of blaming guns, she deflects the issue and blames it something irrelevant. As many posters above have said, study after study has shown that violence in video games does not cause real-life violence. And I'm betting that some of these studies wee done 15 or 20 years ago. Yet *an attorney general* doesn't know about these studies?
To also put things into context, this is the same attorney general who continued to fight *against* gay marriage, even after the US Supreme Court ruled it legal.
I love how people simply say "just switch banks- that'll show them". First, is this a realistic option for someone who has their bank account linked to automatic payments with their employer, electric company, water company, cable company, rent/ mortgage, and more? It becomes a major headache to have to update all of these accounts.
Second, how many customers does it take before a bank even notices that it's losing business? 1 or 2 or even 10 people won't do anything. You'd need hundreds of thousands or a million... and you try convincing a million people to go through the headache I just mentioned.
Here's another example about competing with free: MP3 files are super-easy to download *for free*. Yet Apple's iTunes seems be thriving by selling music. Why? Again, it's convenient, easy, and far less risky than downloading music from a pirate site.
What's the term for when something eats its own tail?
So Trump uses (and abuses) Twitter. Congressmen say Twitter is up to no good so they want to sue it, which may cause it to shut down. Trump loses his ability to use Twitter.
Personally, I think the outrage over 3D printed guns is mostly about nothing. Like the article says, 3D files have been available for a while for anyone who wants to look for them. Then why is everyone getting so upset now? It is because one court said it was okay? Where was this "outrage" when other courts were talking about the issue?
One of my friends made an excellent comment on Facebook: I'm going to 3D print a nuclear bomb! Then all I need is radioactive material, a detonator, a fuse, a timer, priming caps, and so on. In other word, and all the other things needed to make a working weapon.
On the post: Some Apple Employees Think Company's New TV Service Will Be Dull As Nails
Apple will have the most watched show in the history of mankind
Then Apple will make the claim that 500 million people downloaded their show; sure, no one had a choice, but it was still a download. Then even if only half the people watch it, that's still 250 million people. How does that compare to the Super Bowl or the moon landing?
Yet this would be the viewership for a bland comedy or drama that would be too generic for the regular networks.
And before you laugh at this idea, it's exactly what Apple did with the U2 album a few years ago: they automatically added it to everyone's devices and then claimed it was the most downloaded album ever.
On the post: CBS Bullies Fan Star Trek Project To Shut Down Despite Creators' Pleas For Instructions On Being Legit
Re:
However, there's something (insert expletive here) about how a lawyer sends out a cease and desist order and then promptly goes on vacation so the defending party can't negotiate.
On the post: Thanks To Streaming Fragmentation, Bittorrent Traffic Is Suddenly Rising In Traffic Share
Fragmentation makes all services less valuable
Studios seem Neflix raking in the money so they want to create their own streaming service to make the same money. Yet Netflix is so popular *because* it has the content from the studios. Splitting content over different services makes Netflix *and* their own streaming service worth less. Okay, sure, maybe the studios don't want to compete with Netflix, but isn't it still a good way to get content in front of people?
And it's not like Netflix is telling people where to get the content after the studios take it away.
Want to watch Star Trek? Sorry, it's no longer available on Netflix. It's on CBS AllAccess, but you have to go through the process of signing up, then going through the catalog, then playing it back, etc.
Want to watch Toy Story? Sorry, it's no longer available on Netflix. Then where is it? Nowhere, because Disney is holding it for their own streaming service due out in a few years.
CSI or CSI: New York? Nope, moved to CBS All Access also.
But Netflix has a large selection of Korean romance movies and Bollywood movies.
On the post: Facebook Responds To Blackberry's Silly 117 Page Patent Lawsuit With Its Own Silly 118 Page Lawsuit
Pass the responsibility to the patent office
Yes, I know- patent officers are over worked and are under pressure to get things out the door, but maybe they need to slow down and consider the further effects of what they're doing.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Why do people vote against their interests
I'd like to see a separate article that digs into why so many people vote against their interests:
- Trump would make a better president than Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, and other Republican state governors.
- Brexit would usher in a new age of British independence from the EU.
- Let's create a sales tax for every state, county, and town so every government gets their fair share without telling businesses how to collect the money or how to send payments to every tax agency.
- "If Google or Facebook is making money then I'm not, so I want to stop Google and Facebook but I don't care about Bing or any other site."
On the post: You Don't Own What You've Bought: Apple Disappears Purchased Movies
Content should still be made available to existing customers
However, maybe we should follow Apple's lead and complain to the copyright holders. Which movies were deleted from everyone's accounts and which studio should we boycott over this? At the very least, people should stop buying content from the studio because of this issue.
On the post: Success! Roanoke 'Harry Potter Festival' Changes Name To 'Generic Magic Festival' Due To WB's Bullying
Re: Harry Potter isn't just films.
An interesting question, but irrelevant simply because it would cost too much money and too much time for a festival (or anyone else) to argue against WB's attorneys.
Just look at the recent decision of San Diego Comic Con versus Salt Lake City Comic Con: no "magic festival" is going to risk defending themselves against WB when there's even a sliver of a chance they would have to pay millions in attorneys fees.
On the post: Officer Who Killed Unarmed Man Now Teaching Officers How To Go About The Difficult Business Of Being Alive
Re:
Because obviously it's better to shoot the guy than hope he might learn his lesson after getting arrested and going on trial. (That's sarcasm by the way.)
On the post: TSA Decides The Path To Flight Safety Runs Through A Passenger's Prosthetic Leg
Occam's Razor
If you immediately jumped to the conclusion that both of them are terrorists in disguise trying to sneak past security, then you too should join the TSA!
On the post: Hollywood Studios, Big Fans Of Automated DMCAs, Also Very Busy DMCAing IMDB For Some Reason
Give them what they want
Then IMDB and Google should put up a page saying "Information about 'Star Wars IX' is not available due to a takedown notice by Disney."
Then see how long it takes for the cast and crew (and hundreds of people who worked on the movie) to get rightly upset that their listing on IMDB has suddenly been taken down as if it were a pirating site, simply because the studio's for-hire takedown service couldn't/ wouldn't get it right.
Sure, the cast and crew might get angry with Google for taking the page down, but the takedown was a legal notice from Disney, so everyone should complain to them.
And if the cast and crew of multi-million dollar movies start complaining that the studios are taking down legitimate sites, then maybe we'll see some changes to the takedown system.
On the post: Reddit Ignored A Year's Worth Of User Warnings About Iranian Propaganda
Re: Wishes
Person 1: Trump's policy against immigrants is bad. (As reported by a few news sites and backed by Trump's character.)
Person 2: I think Trump's policy is good (Okay, that's someone's opinion.)
Person 1: But according to these sites, here are the bad things that will happen. (Again, using statistics and proof.)
Person 2: I'll believe whatever I want and you have no right to censor my postings. You think Trump is bad now, just wait until my friends and I vote-in even worse people!
And, yes, I've seen a number of sites talking about a "left-wing backlash" as far-right people try to "get back" at left-wing people for attacking them.
So once again, people let emotion tell them how to vote: they're rather "get back" at someone else than vote for candidates that would be best for them or the country.
On the post: United Airlines Made Its App Stop Working On My Phone, And What This Says About How Broken The Mobile Tech Space Is
If it ain't broke, don't fix it
This holds doubly and triply true for software updates. There are countless stories on the web, and on this site, about how an update (usually Windows) broke someone's computer or forced an app to stop working or whatever else. Okay, sure, the company usually fixes the update within a day or 2, but that doesn't help anyone who has a dead computer right now.
Yes, I know software updates include security patches, but each person should weigh the risks: is there a higher change that a "remote user could exploit a vulnerability in a Windows ocx file" (or however Microsoft puts it) or there a higher chance that the update could break something?
As an example, I don't remember the last time I installed Windows 7 updates. But the last time I did it, Windows started displaying the menus on the left instead of the right. It took me 2 hours to figure out how to search Google to even get a usable answer.
(The solution was that the Windows update read my Intous tablet as a pen input device and decided to set all the menus to display on the left for no reason. There's an option in the Pen & Tablet Control Panel to set the direction of the menus.)
Anyway, United should follow the lead of Chrome, Firefox, and other companies and make their software use more and more system resources so that users are forced into getting newer hardware just to keep up. Then United could put out the usual press release saying "For a better user experience, please use the latest phone." Then it's not their fault people are still using older phones. /s
On the post: Bonkers Attorney's Fees Ruling Results In SDCC Getting $4 Million Out Of SLCC AFter $20k Jury Award
This sets a precedent for future cases
Oh, the jury only awarded them $10,000 in the next case against New York Comic-Con? Now that a precedent has been set, they should be able to sue for $4 million again.
Aren't judges supposed to you know, judge the entire case, including how the law should be applied? It would have been easy for him to say "The jury ruled, neither party gets attorneys fees, and the case is over".
On the post: DHS Continues Facial Recognition Deployment With An Eye On Expanding Program To All Domestic Travelers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this is the same reason why politicians can't or won't vote to reduce the budgets on anything in the "war on terror"- they don't want their political opponents to accuse them of being soft on terrorism.
So the same thing happens that always happens: someone asks if we really need invasive searching at airports and someone else says "but terrorism" and the agenda is passed.
Yet no one seems to be asking about results. Do all these security procedures stop terrorism? Where's the scientific study showing statistics and proof? Oh, right, it's all about "feeling safe" even if there's no proof to show it works.
On the post: And Here Come The Completely Ridiculous Lawsuits Over Internet Company 'Bias'
Hypocrisy at its finest
Republicans say they're all about the free market and letting business decide how to run their business. If a cake maker doesn't want to sell to gay people, then that's perfectly fine and it's not discrimination.
But when Facebook and YouTube want to kick people like Alex Jones off the site for hateful speech, then it's "not fair" and the sites are "targeting conservatives".
So, Republicans need to make up their mind: either companies can be allowed to discriminate, which means choosing to not serve gay people *OR* Republicans.
OR all companies must follow government rules and offer service to everyone, no matter if anyone else finds them distasteful.
On the post: Flordia AG Somehow Pivots To The Danger Of Video Games After The Latest Florida Shooting
Video games are the problem, not guns
As many posters above have said, study after study has shown that violence in video games does not cause real-life violence. And I'm betting that some of these studies wee done 15 or 20 years ago.
Yet *an attorney general* doesn't know about these studies?
To also put things into context, this is the same attorney general who continued to fight *against* gay marriage, even after the US Supreme Court ruled it legal.
On the post: Wells Fargo Admits 'Computer Glitch' May Have Contributed to 400 Foreclosures
Just switch banks
First, is this a realistic option for someone who has their bank account linked to automatic payments with their employer, electric company, water company, cable company, rent/ mortgage, and more? It becomes a major headache to have to update all of these accounts.
Second, how many customers does it take before a bank even notices that it's losing business? 1 or 2 or even 10 people won't do anything. You'd need hundreds of thousands or a million... and you try convincing a million people to go through the headache I just mentioned.
On the post: You Can't Compete With Free Meets Its Ultimate Counterexample In The NES Classic
iTunes competes with free
MP3 files are super-easy to download *for free*. Yet Apple's iTunes seems be thriving by selling music. Why? Again, it's convenient, easy, and far less risky than downloading music from a pirate site.
On the post: Bad Reporting, Grandstanding Congressmen, Tweeting President Combine For Clusterfuck About Twitter
No Twitter means no Trump tweets
So Trump uses (and abuses) Twitter.
Congressmen say Twitter is up to no good so they want to sue it, which may cause it to shut down.
Trump loses his ability to use Twitter.
Hmm... maybe this is a good thing. :)
On the post: Ignorant Hysteria Over 3D Printed Guns Leads To Courts Ignoring The First Amendment
Yet more outrage over mostly nothing
One of my friends made an excellent comment on Facebook:
I'm going to 3D print a nuclear bomb! Then all I need is radioactive material, a detonator, a fuse, a timer, priming caps, and so on.
In other word, and all the other things needed to make a working weapon.
Next >>