Here in the UK we get ABC1, and of the "free" channels available it is absolutely the worst, bar none, for commercials. And, most irritatingly, more than half the commercial time is spent plugging their own programmes!
Not "specials", you understand, but just several ad breaks in a half hour comedy spot to remind you that comedy show is on every day - in fact, you're watching it now! (Or at least you would be if the d*mn commercial would end...)
So, as far as they are concerned, skipping over reminders that the show you're watching is likely to be on tomorrow too is "stealing television". Boo hoo.
Their most infamous moment was a couple of weeks ago when they managed to slip two ad breaks into "Commander in Chief" *before* the titles!
They were scuppered by environmentalists who insisted that people power down their desktop computers at night rather than leave them on standby, thus assuring that the 2am scheduled virus scans never happened.
...honestly, why do people think they have to pay for subscriptions to Norton or any other? is it just because none of their friends like em enough to tell em about Avast and SpyBot?
It wouldn't have helped, because the infected machine was a work computer, not a home computer. Avast is only free for personal, non-work use, and using it any other way is piracy. Having said that, though, I wish they had paid for Avast in order to support the free version.
Indeed. When somebody produces a really good news site that installs malware when you visit it will they start sacking people for browsing news at work?
The problem is that if a data leak affected, say, 30% of all Americans, then it still wouldn't cause that big an uproar. Everybody would just say "Hey, there's so much stolen data out there now there's little chance they'd actually use mine..."
Personally, I found AllOfMP3 to be a Godsend for downloading tracks that I already own on vinyl without having to pay for them a second time. I could legally (here in the UK) rip them to my MP3 player, but at 10 cents a track I'd rather they did the work for me. :-)
"It's really not that hard to deduce on your own."
From what it says up above, the school sent a message saying that the vendor had to reply by email. It also says that an unspecified message was eaten by a SPAM filter. It doesn't say whether the message that was eaten was the school's request for a reply or the vendor's reply, and it doesn't actually say that the vendor replied.
In summary, yes, it really is that hard to deduce on your own without any further information, which your "helpful" reply doesn't contain.
Was it the school district's follow-up question that was eaten by the vendor's SPAM filter, or was it the vendor's reply that was eaten by the school district's SPAM filter? I can't work it out from the article above...
A picky point, but the definition of SPAM is email sent to an address that you have no prior business relationship with, so SPAMming your customers isn't possible...
"And besides, spam is only sent to you when you sign p for something online. If you never sign up for anything online, or if you neevr input your email address into any online form, then you are safe."
Unless of course they use a dictionary attack and spam you that way..
...or use a virus to harvest your address from a friend's address book...
Free's fine, but I'd settle for clearly priced shi
I live in Scotland, and I'm sick of going all the way through a US website, jumping through hoops to register and verify my email address etc. only to be told at the last second that the shipping on my $5, 3oz product is a non-negotiable $50 because I'm outside their "comfort zone". It's almost as irritating as sites that claim to accept internationl orders but won't let me proceed without entering a "State".
So, what happens if you were waiting for a commercial break to cue up a program you want to record on another channel? W£hat if you were only watching the channel with the commercials on it until the program you *really* wanted to watch comes on on another channel?
Is there a "press this button, be charged $1" over-ride? Or an "I really want to change the channel" option that'll let you switch channels, but won't let you back to the channel that had the ads until you've missed two minutes of the program after the ad break?
"2) Viewers will decide to use cracks or DVRs without the commercials (which will be easy to come by as the flags are just what the crackers would be looking for), and things will revert back "
Or the police will take it as an excuse to start kicking in doors and arresting people under the DMCA.
An addendum to my previous comment; I watched the pilot episode of "Commander in Chief" on abc1. They ran the show for *four minutes*, then cut off the title music halfway to give us *six minutes* of ads. Dreadful.
Not in the UK it didn't - we got it on an ad-free BBC channel. :-)
And, more importantly, we got it *without* the intrusive and asinine "laugh track". I almost got caught buying a cheap set of DVDs until I listened to one and discovered it was the US edition of the show, where they didn't trust the audience to know which of Hawkeye's quips were supposed to be funny and which ironic.
Like we get here in the UK on the ABC1 channel, you mean? Ten minutes of show (if you're lucky) then a three minute break, half of which is promoting other shows that you're never going to watch because of the intrusive commercials...? I've seen them stick a break in before the last *ten seconds* of a show just to keep you hanging on for the punchline. :-(
On the post: ABC Says People Wouldn't Mind If TiVos Can No Longer Fast Forward
It's particularly laughable coming from ABC...
Not "specials", you understand, but just several ad breaks in a half hour comedy spot to remind you that comedy show is on every day - in fact, you're watching it now! (Or at least you would be if the d*mn commercial would end...)
So, as far as they are concerned, skipping over reminders that the show you're watching is likely to be on tomorrow too is "stealing television". Boo hoo.
Their most infamous moment was a couple of weeks ago when they managed to slip two ad breaks into "Commander in Chief" *before* the titles!
Thank G*d for my PVR.
On the post: eBay Says You Can't Trust Google Checkout; Bans It From eBay
Weren't Micro$oft buying eBay?
On the post: False Nano Names Backfire As People Mistakenly Worry About Health Risks
Ah....
On the post: Why You Don't Surf For Porn If You Work For The Government
Re: achacha's comment
They were scuppered by environmentalists who insisted that people power down their desktop computers at night rather than leave them on standby, thus assuring that the 2am scheduled virus scans never happened.
On the post: Why You Don't Surf For Porn If You Work For The Government
Re: Re: Norton subscription expired
On the post: Why You Don't Surf For Porn If You Work For The Government
Re: How about the CREATOR of the Trojan
On the post: Can There Be An Exxon Valdez For Privacy?
On the post: Music Industry Doles Out More Free Advertising For Sites It Hopes To Shut Down
AllOfMP3
On the post: Is It Your Fault If Someone Else's Spam Filter Catches Your Important Email?
Re: Re: Can someone clarify, please...?
From what it says up above, the school sent a message saying that the vendor had to reply by email. It also says that an unspecified message was eaten by a SPAM filter. It doesn't say whether the message that was eaten was the school's request for a reply or the vendor's reply, and it doesn't actually say that the vendor replied.
In summary, yes, it really is that hard to deduce on your own without any further information, which your "helpful" reply doesn't contain.
On the post: Is It Your Fault If Someone Else's Spam Filter Catches Your Important Email?
Can someone clarify, please...?
On the post: Vonage Runs Afoul Of Dreaded 'Failure To Hyperlink' Regulation
On the post: FTC Comes Down Hard On Kodak With $26,000 Spam Fine
...or use a virus to harvest your address from a friend's address book...
On the post: Free Shipping Worth More Than A Bigger Discount
Free's fine, but I'd settle for clearly priced shi
On the post: So, Wait, Do We Blame Or Praise Tech For Stopping Another Columbine?
Re: Whoops.
Not a problem, Riley. After all, the original article got away with "one of whom talked to much"...
On the post: Philips Patents Pissing Off TV Viewers
Locking people into commercial breaks
Is there a "press this button, be charged $1" over-ride? Or an "I really want to change the channel" option that'll let you switch channels, but won't let you back to the channel that had the ads until you've missed two minutes of the program after the ad break?
Enquiring minds want to know.
On the post: Philips Patents Pissing Off TV Viewers
Re: further to Anonymous Coward's comments
Or the police will take it as an excuse to start kicking in doors and arresting people under the DMCA.
On the post: Philips Patents Pissing Off TV Viewers
Re: Obvious answer to this issue
Yeah! Just like the V-chip! Oh... Wait...
On the post: Faster, Better Commercial Breaks... Or Just More Annoying Commercial Breaks?
Re: abc1
On the post: Faster, Better Commercial Breaks... Or Just More Annoying Commercial Breaks?
Re: Re:
Not in the UK it didn't - we got it on an ad-free BBC channel. :-)
And, more importantly, we got it *without* the intrusive and asinine "laugh track". I almost got caught buying a cheap set of DVDs until I listened to one and discovered it was the US edition of the show, where they didn't trust the audience to know which of Hawkeye's quips were supposed to be funny and which ironic.
On the post: Faster, Better Commercial Breaks... Or Just More Annoying Commercial Breaks?
Next >>