What's happening at Netflix is a DIRE warning about not having physical ownership of movies and TV

[RichA]

You leave the ownership in the hands of companies, relying on
"streaming or downloads" you can see movies and TV shows evaporate due
to economic, business or social pressures. If you really like a movie
or TV show, buy the DVD/Blu-ray.

[nick]

Losing 1800 titles is a small price to pay for Hemlock Grove and House
of Cards.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/30/4287902/netflix-losing-almost-1800-titles-from-its-streaming-library-starting-tomorrow

[Obveeus]

I've never understood the handwringing over catalog changes. 50 gazillion
movies to choose from and people want to throw a fit if 1% of them are out
of circulation for awhile? I doubt you are going to find any people in the
real world that have seen everything in the Netflix catalog...or anyone
whose queue will be emptied by the expiring of this clump of shows. Other
than a few people that might get caught in the middle of a TV series
marathon (of something like SOUTHPARK) when it expires, I can't imagine why
anyone would *really* care.

[nick]

On May 1, 9:07 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

> "nick" <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 1, 3:44 am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> You leave the ownership in the hands of companies, relying on
> >> "streaming or downloads" you can see movies and TV shows evaporate due
> >> to economic, business or social pressures. If you really like a movie
> >> or TV show, buy the DVD/Blu-ray.
>
> >Losing 1800 titles is a small price to pay for Hemlock Grove and House
> >of Cards.
>

> >http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/30/4287902/netflix-losing-almost-1800-...

>
> I've never understood the handwringing over catalog changes.  50 gazillion
> movies to choose from and people want to throw a fit if 1% of them are out
> of circulation for awhile?  I doubt you are going to find any people in the
> real world that have seen everything in the Netflix catalog...or anyone
> whose queue will be emptied by the expiring of this clump of shows.  Other
> than a few people that might get caught in the middle of a TV series
> marathon (of something like SOUTHPARK) when it expires, I can't imagine why
> anyone would *really* care.

If it's available on DVD anyway, I don't care either. But I care if
it was something I wanted to watch and it's only available for playing
and not available on DVD. And in the larger sense, just like cable tv
has deteriorated into a vast wasteland of reality shows, I'm worried
Netflix streaming will evolve primarily into a service trafficking in
new releases, "original programming", season runs of tv shows and the
British crime dramas that are taking over the world.

[moviePig]

On May 1, 9:07 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:

> "nick" <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 1, 3:44 am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> You leave the ownership in the hands of companies, relying on
> >> "streaming or downloads" you can see movies and TV shows evaporate due
> >> to economic, business or social pressures. If you really like a movie
> >> or TV show, buy the DVD/Blu-ray.
>
> >Losing 1800 titles is a small price to pay for Hemlock Grove and House
> >of Cards.
>

> >http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/30/4287902/netflix-losing-almost-1800-...

>
> I've never understood the handwringing over catalog changes.  50 gazillion
> movies to choose from and people want to throw a fit if 1% of them are out
> of circulation for awhile?  I doubt you are going to find any people in the
> real world that have seen everything in the Netflix catalog...or anyone
> whose queue will be emptied by the expiring of this clump of shows.  Other
> than a few people that might get caught in the middle of a TV series
> marathon (of something like SOUTHPARK) when it expires, I can't imagine why
> anyone would *really* care.

A good while back, there was a tv ad that showed the casual continuous
consumer availability of anything ever recorded. ("How is that
possible?", a grizzled technophobe snarls.) We're already living in
that mental universe, it seems.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Ed Stasiak]

> Obveeus

>
> 50 gazillion movies to choose from and people want to throw
> a fit if 1% of them are out of circulation for awhile?

If some of those 1% are flicks or tv shows you want to see, it's
a valid complaint and they could be tied up in copyright limbo
for years due to economic, business or social pressures as
RichA mentioned.

But I'd say the real issue with streaming is that the copyright
holders charge per viewing while with a physical DVD, you can
of course rewatch it over and over for the one-time purchase
price.

There's also the concern that via advancing technology, the
copyright holders will soon be able to charge per _viewer_,
with your tv scanning the room to see who is watching.

Invite a buddy over to watch episodes of ST:TNG? You'll be
charged for _two_ "tickits" and if you try to disable the spying
device in your tv, the stream won't play.

And even if you pay to "own" the movie, you can easily lose
it thru a hard-drive crash or on-line storage failing, as a friend
found to her dismay when all her carefully set-up playlists for
iTunes just disappeared one day.

[Obveeus]

"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>> Obveeus
>>
>> 50 gazillion movies to choose from and people want to throw
>> a fit if 1% of them are out of circulation for awhile?
>
> If some of those 1% are flicks or tv shows you want to see, it's
> a valid complaint

No it isn't. There are 1,800 items expiring. If 150 of those are things
you 'wanted to see' (which seems overly generous if you looked at the list
of what is expiring), but never actually got around to seeing, the reason is
almost entirely because there are plenty of other things that you wanted to
see (and prioritized higher). So what if stuff you never got around to
seeing is unavailable for awhile? You have not lost anything.

> But I'd say the real issue with streaming is that the copyright
> holders charge per viewing while with a physical DVD, you can
> of course rewatch it over and over for the one-time purchase
> price.

Sure...you can fork over big money for one viewing in the hopes/belief that
you will watch that same thing again and again rather than watching anything
new. Feel free to look over the 1,800 expiring titles and take a guess as
to how many of them are so good you will want to see them even twice, much
less dozens of times. Now imagine that you had to buy all 1,800 titles on
DVD before being able to watch them and decide if they were worth watching
that second time.

> There's also the concern that via advancing technology, the
> copyright holders will soon be able to charge per _viewer_,
> with your tv scanning the room to see who is watching.
>
> Invite a buddy over to watch episodes of ST:TNG? You'll be
> charged for _two_ "tickits" and if you try to disable the spying
> device in your tv, the stream won't play.

I heard the evil TV sets of the future will work in combination with your
DVD player and refuse to play the DVD you own if there are other people in
the room trying to view 'for free' with you.

> And even if you pay to "own" the movie, you can easily lose
> it thru a hard-drive crash or on-line storage failing, as a friend
> found to her dismay when all her carefully set-up playlists for
> iTunes just disappeared one day.

If you bought it on iTunes, can't you just re-download it for free? Either
way, though, how is this any different than when you scratch that DVD you
bought, leave that album too close to the fireplace, lose your entire DVD
collection to a thief, or watch your entire DVD collection become complete
obsolete when manufacturers move on to the next distribution format and stop
making DVD players?

[Obveeus]

New releases will always be in the greatest demand, but what you are
describing is REDBOX, not NETFLIX. I don't see NETFLIX losing the 'vast
catalog' even if only 1% of its users are watching the stuff. It is simply
too easy/too cheap to have all those extra titles available via
NETFLIX...something a REDBOX, BLOCKBUSTER, etc.. cannot claim when trying to
supply via a physical footprint.

> and the British crime dramas that are taking over the world.

Thumbs up for MI5.

[notbob]

On 2013-05-01, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

> I've never understood the handwringing over catalog changes. 50 gazillion

> movies to choose from........

Unfortunately, 49.9 gazillion of them are sad rehashes of the other .1
gazillion. I swear, the older I get, the less I'm enthralled with
old, or even new, movies. What's the old saw, there are only 7 basic
plots? Well, after you've seen those seven recycled plots 49
gazillion times, it starts getting really old. Even my list of movies
I don't mind seeing for the two dozenth time is diminishing rapidly.
Only an exceptionally brilliant acting stint can save many classics.
Yet, how many times can I be held spellbound by The Man Who Shot
Liberty Valance? Apparently, not one more time, as I haven't watched
it since it hit Netflix streaming. I'm noticing more and more
longtime faves in the same box. And with new movies, It's becoming
almost impossible to NOT "see it coming", anymore, and cliches are
becoming more than cliched, to the point they are virtually painful to
watch. I squelched a recent new movie in the first 60 secs cuz jes
the intro theme music elicited a now too common, "Oh Chryst ....not
another one of these!". Now, that's cliched!

I wonder if that's why many oldsters finally opt for the dirt nap.
Nothing new under the sun. ;)

nb

[reilloc]

On 5/1/2013 8:36 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Obveeus
>>
>> 50 gazillion movies to choose from and people want to throw
>> a fit if 1% of them are out of circulation for awhile?
>
> If some of those 1% are flicks or tv shows you want to see, it's
> a valid complaint and they could be tied up in copyright limbo
> for years due to economic, business or social pressures as
> RichA mentioned.
>
> But I'd say the real issue with streaming is that the copyright
> holders charge per viewing while with a physical DVD, you can
> of course rewatch it over and over for the one-time purchase
> price.
>
> There's also the concern that via advancing technology, the
> copyright holders will soon be able to charge per _viewer_,
> with your tv scanning the room to see who is watching.
>
> Invite a buddy over to watch episodes of ST:TNG? You'll be
> charged for _two_ "tickits" and if you try to disable the spying
> device in your tv, the stream won't play.

Uhhhhhhhhh...yeah. What about those black helicopters they send as
backup just in case somebody in the room is hiding under a blanket but
secretly watching? I'm worried--but not about what you're worried.

LNC

[BTR1701]

In article <klr7ro$o9j$1...@dont-email.me>, reilloc <rei...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Microsoft Patents TV That Watches Back, Counts Heads, Charges Admission

Here's a scenario for you: at some point in the the near future, you sit
down in front of your Xbox 720/960/1080 and queue up a little
video-on-demand from the Live Arcade selection of movies. You select a
film from the menu and, before you can press the "Play" button, you are
greeted with another menu giving you several price points, depending on
how many people will be watching.

It sounds ridiculous, but Microsoft has applied for a patent covering a
method that could make this a reality. Geekwire (via Slashdot) has the
details on a patent application utilizing the Kinect (or its successor)
to count noses for content providers.

� � The patent application, filed under the heading Content
� � Distribution Regulation by Viewing User, proposes to
� � use cameras and sensors like those in the Xbox 360
� � Kinect controller to monitor, count and in some cases
� � identify the people in a room watching television,
� � movies and other content. The filing refers to the
� � technology as a "consumer detector."

In one scenario, the system would then charge for the television show or
movie based on the number of viewers in the room. Or, if the number of
viewers exceeds the limits laid out by a particular content license, the
system would halt playback unless additional viewing rights were
purchased.

While it's a little early in the process to decide whether this is
actually a pursuit Microsoft deems worthy of implementing or just some
brainstorming put on paper, there's no denying that media companies and
content providers would certainly not mind at all if an enterprising
group could create something that would allow them to monetize every
eyeball in the house.

While Kinect hackers have managed to crank out some very interesting
uses of the body-tracking technology, it looks as though the in-house
team has something a bit more devious up its collective sleeve. With
this in place, PPV events could move to the Xbox to get the most bang
for their buck during prize fights and MMA bouts. Movies rented through
XBLA (Xbox Live Arcade) could rake in even more money by charging for
each additional set of eyeballs, leading to Xbox owners treating their
own living rooms like drive-ins and sneaking in additional viewers
through piles of coats lying strategically on the floor.

Every use may not be as mercenary as the above scenario, however. The
Kinect "Consumer Detector" could also prevent younger (or at least,
shorter) eyeballs from being sullied by R-rated movies or, god forbid,
porn.

� � The system could also take into account the age of
� � viewers, limiting playback of mature content to adults,
� � for example. This patent application doesnt explain
� � how that would work, but a separate Microsoft patent
� � application last year described a system for using
� � sensors to estimate age based on the proportions of
� � their body.

Unfortunately, this will prevent pornstar midgets from viewing porn, but
please, let's think of the children, each of whom represents a potential
income stream.

The intro paragraph of the application lends itself to use for many
different royalty collecting entities. In addition to the mentioned Pay
Per View/Video-on-Demand possibilities, there's also performance rights
organizations to be considered, because once you start talking licenses,
they're never far behind.

The description, along with the methods listed below it in the filing,
seem to indicate that your fully-paid and relatively peaceful viewing of
a movie or prize fight could come to an instant halt and ask you to feed
the meter any time someone new walks into the room. Or better yet, the
new system could push already-strained friendships to the limit. "Oh,
hey. I'd invite you in but I've only got enough money for five people.
Sorry, man. Maybe next time." AWKWARD.

But beyond the fact that this patent, if granted and implemented, will
create a whole new level of rent-seeking across a wide swath of the
"creative industries," there's also privacy issues that need to be
addressed. Does any company, whether it's Microsoft or any of the
upstream content providers, have the right to basically scan your living
room for signs of life simply because they're the one licensing the
content? For that matter, is it any of their business how many people
you have watching a movie or listening to music in your private
residence? It certainly never has been before, but with the advent of
digital distribution (and its accompanying "licenses"), the attempts to
wring every last dollar out of every bit of content will continue.

Will "buying for five but watching for ten" become the new "piracy?"
Pursuing this angle isn't going to make Microsoft any friends, at least
not in terms of customers. Consumers' first reaction would probably be
to toss the "Consumer Detector," in which case it's not difficult to
imagine it becoming a mandatory piece of equipment for certain
applications. After that, for consumers concerned about this, their only
option would be to toss the Xbox. I don't think Microsoft has enough
confidence in the future of its console line to take that chance.

http://tinyurl.com/cjwcaf9

[BTR1701]

In article <klr7bk$l8b$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

> "Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:

> > There's also the concern that via advancing technology, the
> > copyright holders will soon be able to charge per _viewer_,
> > with your tv scanning the room to see who is watching.
> >
> > Invite a buddy over to watch episodes of ST:TNG? You'll be
> > charged for _two_ "tickits" and if you try to disable the spying
> > device in your tv, the stream won't play.
>
> I heard the evil TV sets of the future will work in combination with your
> DVD player and refuse to play the DVD you own if there are other people in
> the room trying to view 'for free' with you.

And if you're still alive and kicking at that point, I'm sure you'll be
calling anyone who has the stones to watch their own TV without paying
for everyone in the room a 'thief'.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Obveeus
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > If some of those 1% are flicks or tv shows you want to
> > see, it's a valid complaint
>
> No it isn't.

Sure it is, even if the movie / tv show that was available
on streaming will come back around again, I don't want my
entertainment to be dictated by some faceless corporation's
scheduling dept.

> the reason is almost entirely because there are plenty of other
> things that you wanted to see (and prioritized higher).

Or life just got in the way and I didn't get to them yet.

I don't want to watch half a season of the show, only to find it
won't be available again for some unknown period of time (or
never again, due to some economic, business or social issue).

> Feel free to look over the 1,800 expiring titles

Who wants to be continually checking to see what's about to
expire? I want to watch it, when I want to watch it.

"Hmm, Obveeus says "Problem Child: 2" is a cool flick, I think
I'll watch it today... Damm it, not available due to Homeland
Security banning it!"

> > You'll be charged for _two_ "tickits" and if you try to disable
> > the spying device in your tv, the stream won't play.
>
> I heard the evil TV sets of the future will work in combination with
> your DVD player and refuse to play the DVD you own if there are
> other people in the room trying to view 'for free' with you.

No doubt that's what copyright holders would like but at least as
it stands now, you can watch a DVD with whoever you want free
of charge, as you own that physical DVD.

All I'm saying is; A DVD in hand is worth two streams in the bush.

> If you bought it on iTunes, can't you just re-download it for free?

I suppose, until Apple MegaCorp decides you have to pay for it
again, because "fuck you, peasant'.

But all her carefully set-up and cross-refrenced playlists (which
presumably included up-loading a bazillion CDs she has) are
gone forever.

> Either way, though, how is this any different than when you scratch
> that DVD you bought,

At least that's your fault and under your control. iTunes deleting
everything you "own" and flipping you the bird, is another story.

[David Johnston]

On 5/1/2013 1:44 AM, RichA wrote:
> You leave the ownership in the hands of companies, relying on
> "streaming or downloads" you can see movies and TV shows evaporate due
> to economic, business or social pressures.

Not if you actually downloaded them. Streaming is just an update of
video rental.

[Russell Watson]

I'm a "Ripper Street" fan, myself...

[trotsky]

I just finished watching "Luther" with Idris Elba and found it to be
fantastic.


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[moviePig]

Yeah, I hate to admit it, but I feel I could mono-diet on the better
of those British crime dramas for quite a while. (And I hadn't yet
heard of 'Luther'. 8.4 at IMDb...)

[trotsky]

On 5/1/13 12:37 PM, moviePig wrote:

> Yeah, I hate to admit it, but I feel I could mono-diet on the better
> of those British crime dramas for quite a while. (And I hadn't yet
> heard of 'Luther'. 8.4 at IMDb...)

That number is on the low side.

[Obveeus]

The major drawback to UK 'series': the above show offers 3 'seasons'
totaling 14 episodes.

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:

>> Obveeus
>>
>> 50 gazillion movies to choose from and people want to throw
>> a fit if 1% of them are out of circulation for awhile?
>
>If some of those 1% are flicks or tv shows you want to see, it's
>a valid complaint and they could be tied up in copyright limbo
>for years due to economic, business or social pressures as
>RichA mentioned.
>
>But I'd say the real issue with streaming is that the copyright
>holders charge per viewing while with a physical DVD, you can
>of course rewatch it over and over for the one-time purchase
>price.
>
>There's also the concern that via advancing technology, the
>copyright holders will soon be able to charge per _viewer_,
>with your tv scanning the room to see who is watching.

You underestimate how unacceptable it would be, to most people, to
have a sensing device in their home that is controlled and watched by
a third party.

You know, I was thinking the other night. If there was one major
medium I had to give up, it would be television.

[Mason Barge]

Microsoft's top management has lost contact with their customers, as
evidenced by the Windows 8 debacle.

If they seriously think that people are going to let them put a sensor
in their home to count how many people are watching a show, they are
going to get their fingers burned again.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <gko2o89sqcbgsduer...@4ax.com>,

Wasn't that threshold already breached with cellphones? For that matter
you could do the same thing by geolocating how many cellphones were in
the room..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[David Johnston]

If there was one medium I had to give up, it would be radio. But that's
a pretty easy answer since I only listen to radio in the car.

[Obveeus]

"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 May 2013 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Obveeus
>>>
>>> 50 gazillion movies to choose from and people want to throw
>>> a fit if 1% of them are out of circulation for awhile?
>>
>>If some of those 1% are flicks or tv shows you want to see, it's
>>a valid complaint and they could be tied up in copyright limbo
>>for years due to economic, business or social pressures as
>>RichA mentioned.
>>
>>But I'd say the real issue with streaming is that the copyright
>>holders charge per viewing while with a physical DVD, you can
>>of course rewatch it over and over for the one-time purchase
>>price.
>>
>>There's also the concern that via advancing technology, the
>>copyright holders will soon be able to charge per _viewer_,
>>with your tv scanning the room to see who is watching.
>
> You underestimate how unacceptable it would be, to most people, to
> have a sensing device in their home that is controlled and watched by
> a third party.

But people are lined up for stuff similar to that such as the home security
cameras that you can watch via the web or the cell phones that tell people
exactly where they are and where all their friends are so they can meet up
more easily.

Still, Even if people are eager to sign up for a Nielsen type service that
would give them credit for 5 people watching rather than one, I don't see
that translating into pay per person. At worst, it might try top charge if
you went over your familysize threshhold or some other such indicator, but
this is still the kind of technology that would be tied to pay-per-view
events (like boxing), not ramped up payments for an all-you-can-eat service
like NETFLIX.

> You know, I was thinking the other night. If there was one major
> medium I had to give up, it would be television.

Really? Before the newspaper? Before the radio? Before going to movies,
plays, concerts at the venue?

Of course, maybe you are just speaking metaphorically about giving up the
'TV' because you will still be watching all your shows via the
internet...which, in my mind, doesn't really count as giving up TV.

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<2c737289-9382-402d...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

I still haven't made it through Luther 2 though. It's going to be hard
to top the happy ending MRS. PUCCI DIES of the first.

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[moviePig]

On May 1, 3:46 pm, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article
> <2c737289-9382-402d-a653-20d74af2c...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,

Please tell me that's not a spoiler. As far as I've been able to
Google, 'Luther' episodes aren't named...

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:53:23 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

Yeah, see, it didn't even come to my mind, so it wouldn't be a major
medium for me, since I listen to it just about zero. But I agree, in
the grander scheme of things, it might be considered "major".

Newspapers hardly make the grade, either, any more. It's movies, tv,
books, and internet for me.

[Tom]

On May 1, 2:44 am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You leave the ownership in the hands of companies, relying on
> "streaming or downloads" you can see movies and TV shows evaporate due
> to economic, business or social pressures.  If you really like a movie
> or TV show, buy the DVD/Blu-ray.

So, who are we to buy the discs from if not companies?

The movies in question are disappearing, they are going to be
available to stream from Warner Bros. as well on disc.

Tom

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<c18d413e-76de-44c5...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

I thought you said you'd finished watching Luther? And if you don't
already understand it or deliberately go searching for the meaning, it's
not a spoiler.

[RichA]

On May 1, 9:36 am, Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net> wrote:
> > Obveeus
>
> > 50 gazillion movies to choose from and people want to throw
> > a fit if 1% of them are out of circulation for awhile?
>
> If some of those 1% are flicks or tv shows you want to see, it's
> a valid complaint and they could be tied up in copyright limbo
> for years due to economic, business or social pressures as
> RichA mentioned.
>
> But I'd say the real issue with streaming is that the copyright
> holders charge per viewing while with a physical DVD, you can
> of course rewatch it over and over for the one-time purchase
> price.
>

That's another issue, apart from Jesus freaks or others pulling movies
at some point. America is headed to a service-rental economy, which
the socialists would LOVE.

[Stan Brown]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:43:57 -0400, Mason Barge wrote:
>
> You underestimate how unacceptable it would be, to most people, to
> have a sensing device in their home that is controlled and watched by
> a third party.

Like a cable box, you mean?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

[RichA]

"I hear...an obey...the will of Landru."
The world needs more sheep like you, relic.

[RichA]

IF you download them when they are available. A week later, they
could be gone from the menu, never to return.

[Tom]

Don't do any kind of search for the name Mrs. Pucci. If you do, it
will be spoiled for you.

What a dope for writing that...

Tom

[RichA]

Hopefully, but what is Warner Bros, or anyone's motivation to make new
disks if the average person just streams a movie once? Most people
don't collect movies, those who do would probably like of having
movies available in solid form when they are able to buy them, as well
as have movies from the past re-released in case them missed out
before. Video stores are pretty much gone. Hard-copies of movies are
already disappearing from catalogs. Each successive generation of
hard-copy formats has fewer and fewer titles. VHS, DVD, Blu-ray.
Fewer and fewer titles with each one.
All that is left is streaming. It's only a small step up from (like
we were 40 years ago) where the only way you could see a movie that
was out of the theatre was if some network decided to run it. Even
then, whatever they decide to run they can censor, according to the
whims of those in power at the time of broadcast. Remember the 1990's
when they had nudity on network TV? Where did that go? Changing
morality is just one danger.

[JRStern]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:08:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hopefully, but what is Warner Bros, or anyone's motivation to make new
>disks if the average person just streams a movie once? Most people
>don't collect movies, those who do would probably like of having
>movies available in solid form when they are able to buy them, as well
>as have movies from the past re-released in case them missed out
>before. Video stores are pretty much gone. Hard-copies of movies are
>already disappearing from catalogs. Each successive generation of
>hard-copy formats has fewer and fewer titles. VHS, DVD, Blu-ray.
>Fewer and fewer titles with each one.

Could be burned on-demand for a dollar, compared to printed in
quantity for fifty cents. As long as you order them from a fairly
large-scale source, should be minimal problems.

You could even upload a happy birthday message to Aunt Mary to be
burned into it in front, in back, or as an intermission.

Wait a second, ... forget you heard that, I think I'm going to patent
it.

J.

[moviePig]

> Don't do any kind of search for the name Mrs. Pucci. If you do, it
> will be spoiled for you.
>
> What a dope for writing that...

Yeah, I'll take your word that it shouldn't have been written without
a spoiler-warning. Meanwhile, though, I can see how I might've
sounded like I'd finished Season 1...

[Tom]

OTOH, for those who know Mrs. Pucci and have not yet seen LUTHER, it
was clearly a spoiler...

Tom

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<b845b7e9-aa57-4403...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

Eat shit and die, Tom. No wonder your betters have you killfiled.

>
> Yeah, I'll take your word that it shouldn't have been written without
> a spoiler-warning. Meanwhile, though, I can see how I might've
> sounded like I'd finished Season 1...

Yep, that's what I took your meaning to be. Also I'm reading this in
RAT where Luther season 1 is old news, but, AFAIK, nobody's talked about
season 2 at all. Maybe I've been hiding my eyes if they posted?
Anybody?

[Obveeus]

I watched the first episode last night per the hype in this thread. The
series could not be more of a cliche procedural if it tried. Broken cop
that should not still be on the force...check. Super criminals beyond
anything remotely realistic...check. Last minutes saving of victims in
illogical manners with nonsensical medical resuscitation...check. Ex-wife
that is cute, but causes the hero cop even more emotional problems than his
job...check. Hard-ass boss that keeps giving hero cop more chances even
though they are not deserved...check. Hero cop who has no respect at all
for the law...check. The pilot episode of this series looked to be as lame
as THE MENTALIST, so what is it about this show that people like?

[trotsky]

I'm sure the lack of girls in their tweens has you all in a tizzy.

[trotsky]

Moron alert.

[nick]

But it's British and it stars Idris Elba (women think he's hot, men
have a man-crush on him). It's like people who watched The Benny Hill
Show but thought Three's Company was crass, leering crap. Never under-
estimate the power of anglophilia.

[trotsky]

Sure, some people put two and two together and get 25. Did Beck write
the song "Loser" about you?


(possible spoilers)


Since I'm the one that brought up "Luther", let me expound. Having
watched American TV most of my adult life, and having just finished
watching "Cracker" on Netflix (an obvious inspiration to "Luther), I can
say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Brit TV allows for a level of
intensity that American TV couldn't even dream about. (Until "Hannibal"
came along, at any rate.) Let me also say that Obveeus' comments bear
little resemblance to the show itself, too. (You can see how confused
he is in the sentence: "Hard-ass boss that keeps giving hero cop more
chances even though they are not deserved..." Why is a "hard ass boss"
giving him all these chances? And "hero cop"? In the first five
minutes he lets a perp fall to his possible death. He then has to take
leave because of the psychological problems this causes him. Dirty
Harry he's not.)

This series made me wonder if TV can indeed be better than movies, since
there is so much more time to develop the characters. If the storylines
are as good or better than feature films, which they certainly are here,
it makes for something that is very compelling to watch. My take:
Obveeus had a bug up his ass because I'm the one that gave the show a
ringing endorsement, and had a hard-on to say something negative about it.

And if his point of reference is "The Mentalist" he's just begging to be
dismissed as an idiot.

[trotsky]

On 5/1/13 12:47 PM, Obveeus wrote:
> "moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 1:17 pm, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:

>> On 5/1/13 8:21 AM, nick wrote:
>>

>>>> and the
>>>> British crime dramas that are taking over the world.
>>>

>>> I just finished watching "Luther" with Idris Elba and found it to be
>>> fantastic.
>>
>> Yeah, I hate to admit it, but I feel I could mono-diet on the better
>> of those British crime dramas for quite a while. (And I hadn't yet
>> heard of 'Luther'. 8.4 at IMDb...)
>

> The major drawback to UK 'series': the above show offers 3 'seasons'
> totaling 14 episodes.


Interesting: I really didn't think you would be stupid enough to go the
quantity vs. quality route. And there are currently only 10 episodes
available.

[Dano]

"Dire"? Really?

[Obveeus]

"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote:

> On 5/2/13 6:11 AM, Obveeus wrote:

LUTHER

>> I watched the first episode last night per the hype in this thread. The
>> series could not be more of a cliche procedural if it tried. Broken cop
>> that should not still be on the force...check. Super criminals beyond
>> anything remotely realistic...check. Last minutes saving of victims in
>> illogical manners with nonsensical medical resuscitation...check.
>> Ex-wife
>> that is cute, but causes the hero cop even more emotional problems than
>> his
>> job...check. Hard-ass boss that keeps giving hero cop more chances even
>> though they are not deserved...check. Hero cop who has no respect at all
>> for the law...check. The pilot episode of this series looked to be as
>> lame
>> as THE MENTALIST, so what is it about this show that people like?

Snip of typical trotsky ranting.

> My take: Obveeus had a bug up his ass because I'm the one that gave the
> show a ringing endorsement, and had a hard-on to say something negative
> about it.

Nope. The fact that I believe you to be a complete fool has no bearing on
my take on LUTHER as being nothing more than typical crime procedural dreck
based upon the pilot.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <klthev$2hj$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

It's only 4 eps long?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kltro7$vsa$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Trotsky is delusional. Obveeus doesn't like Luther because *I* endorsed
it.

[EGK]

I liked the first season of Luther quite a bit. I thought the interaction
between Luther and Alice was the best part of the show and made it somewhat
unique at the time.

This isn't a plot spoiler or anything but, in my opinion, season 2 wasn't
nearly as good because Alice is barely a part of it.

[trotsky]

You're entitled to your opinion, however shitty it may be. I would
suggest you read some of the comments on IMDB so you can better
understand what you supposedly watched, though. Unless you're phishing
to be called a turd again.

[gtr]

On 2013-05-02 13:59:50 +0000, Dano said:

> "Dire"? Really?

Seems you don't get it. it's "DIRE", not "Dire". Only all caps can
emphasize the whatzit of it all. In any case I've sold all my worldly
belongings and am curled in fetal position in my garage, just me and my
computer and internet connection.

Goodbye cruel world.

[Obveeus]

"gtr" <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote in message news:2013050211102043522-xxx@yyyzzz...

I think you missed the point. You were supposed to sell all your worldly
possessions and then use the money to by a hard copy DVD of every film/TV
series ever made. Then curl up in the fetal position in your garage with
all those DVDs so that you will be ready for the DIRE end of days scenario
foretold in this thread.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <5a15o8takmlc97o2n...@4ax.com>,

Wasn't she busy doing the worst remake of THE PRISONER imaginable?

[EGK]

She may have been. I never watched the remake. Too many bad reviews.

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on Wed, 01 May 2013 14:46:01 -0400:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:41:28 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <klr7ro$o9j$1...@dont-email.me>, reilloc <rei...@gmail.com>

> >wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/1/2013 8:36 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> >> Obveeus
> >> >>

> >> >> 50 gazillion movies to choose from and people want to throw
> >> >> a fit if 1% of them are out of circulation for awhile?
> >> >

> >> > If some of those 1% are flicks or tv shows you want to see, it's
> >> > a valid complaint and they could be tied up in copyright limbo
> >> > for years due to economic, business or social pressures as
> >> > RichA mentioned.
> >> >
> >> > But I'd say the real issue with streaming is that the copyright
> >> > holders charge per viewing while with a physical DVD, you can
> >> > of course rewatch it over and over for the one-time purchase
> >> > price.
> >> >
> >> > There's also the concern that via advancing technology, the
> >> > copyright holders will soon be able to charge per _viewer_,
> >> > with your tv scanning the room to see who is watching.
> >> >
> >> > Invite a buddy over to watch episodes of ST:TNG? You'll be
> >> > charged for _two_ "tickits" and if you try to disable the spying
> >> > device in your tv, the stream won't play.
> >>
> >> Uhhhhhhhhh...yeah. What about those black helicopters they send as
> >> backup just in case somebody in the room is hiding under a blanket but
> >> secretly watching? I'm worried--but not about what you're worried.
> >

> >Microsoft Patents TV That Watches Back, Counts Heads, Charges Admission
> >
> >Here's a scenario for you: at some point in the the near future, you sit
> >down in front of your Xbox 720/960/1080 and queue up a little
> >video-on-demand from the Live Arcade selection of movies. You select a
> >film from the menu and, before you can press the "Play" button, you are
> >greeted with another menu giving you several price points, depending on
> >how many people will be watching.
> >
> >It sounds ridiculous, but Microsoft has applied for a patent covering a
> >method that could make this a reality. Geekwire (via Slashdot) has the
> >details on a patent application utilizing the Kinect (or its successor)
> >to count noses for content providers.
>
> Microsoft's top management has lost contact with their customers, as
> evidenced by the Windows 8 debacle.

Actually, to be fair about top management, *they're* the ones forcing
the return of the Start button on the Windows 8 development team. The
latter was still arrogant and condescending enough to think that it
didn't have to account for any of the wishes of the customers/users and
would have continued to ignore user demand on something this basic and
universally requested. Hell, if I'd been upper management, I would have
fired anyone who, as of a few weeks ago, was still adamant about *not*
bringing back that button. Talk about tone-deaf...

> If they seriously think that people are going to let them put a sensor
> in their home to count how many people are watching a show, they are
> going to get their fingers burned again.

The scary thing is that companies like MS and Apple and Google don't
exactly always ask for permission first...

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Can you and your stupid hair let us in?" -- Carlton Lassiter, PSYCH

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:lue5o8ptijtd128es...@4ax.com...

Side note: Have you seen the latest Bing.com TV ad where they encourage
people to go to the
scroogled.com website? That has to be a new height in non-political
negative ad campaigning.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>>I liked the first season of Luther quite a bit. I thought the interaction
>>between Luther and Alice was the best part of the show and made it somewhat
>>unique at the time.

>>This isn't a plot spoiler or anything but, in my opinion, season 2 wasn't
>>nearly as good because Alice is barely a part of it.

>Wasn't she busy doing the worst remake of THE PRISONER imaginable?

I'd forgotten; she was the doctor. But no, that show was 2009.

Luther series 1 was 2010; Ruth Wilson was in two episodes of series 2 2011.
Would Anna Karenina have been shooting in 2011, which was ready for
Toronto September 7, 2012?

[Tom]

On May 1, 11:49 pm, anim8rFSK <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article

> <b845b7e9-aa57-4403-9c57-2c8a7c2e2...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

Fuck off piss ant... you posted a spoiler and are either too
chickenshit to admit it.


Tom

[David Johnston]

On 5/1/2013 7:58 PM, RichA wrote:
> On May 1, 9:36 am, Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net> wrote:
>>> Obveeus

>>
>>> 50 gazillion movies to choose from and people want to throw
>>> a fit if 1% of them are out of circulation for awhile?
>>

>> If some of those 1% are flicks or tv shows you want to see, it's
>> a valid complaint and they could be tied up in copyright limbo
>> for years due to economic, business or social pressures as
>> RichA mentioned.
>>
>> But I'd say the real issue with streaming is that the copyright
>> holders charge per viewing while with a physical DVD, you can
>> of course rewatch it over and over for the one-time purchase
>> price.
>>
>

> That's another issue, apart from Jesus freaks or others pulling movies
> at some point. America is headed to a service-rental economy, which
> the socialists would LOVE.

I can't think of a single reason why socialists would give a shit. Also
rental was always the dominant way that people watched most of their VCR
and DVD movies.

[David Johnston]

On 5/1/2013 8:02 PM, RichA wrote:
> On May 1, 12:32 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:

>> On 5/1/2013 1:44 AM, RichA wrote:
>>
>>> You leave the ownership in the hands of companies, relying on

>>> "streaming or downloads" you can see movies and TV shows evaporate due
>>> to economic, business or social pressures.
>>
>> Not if you actually downloaded them. Streaming is just an update of
>> video rental.
>
> IF you download them when they are available.

How much sense would it make to download them when they're not available?

[gtr]

Jesus christ I can't even die right!

[gtr]

On 2013-05-02 21:31:34 +0000, David Johnston said:

>> America is headed to a service-rental economy, which the socialists would LOVE.
>
> I can't think of a single reason why socialists would give a shit.

Because it's bad. "Bad" is socialist, no matter the underlying
political rationale. A passing dog shit in my yard: That dog is a
socialist. At the local 7-11 they were out of my favorite beer: That
store, that clerk and that corporation are socialist. See how it works?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Sure. I wrote several reviews of series 2 episodes when they aired here
in America. Series 3, four episodes, began shooting last November. BBC hasn't
scheduled them to air yet, nor have they stated if Ruth Wilson is in the cast.

moviePig isn't a regular r.a.t reader, as far as I know, so your Mrs. Pucci
comment wouldn't have meant anything to him anyway, given that it's about
an unrelated series. What if I said Doctor Who got punched? Would that
spoil anything?

[Mason Barge]

Well, that's interesting. But arrogance and talking down to the
audience has really plagued Microsoft for a long time. It seems to me
to have become as much a part of the corporate culture as being "cool"
is at Apple.

You don't realize how much web developers hate Microsoft, because of
the entire web browser debacle. Take, for example, javascript, which
is the scripting language that runs on your computer to make a website
interactive. It's the reason you can resize a Google map or move it
around without having to load a new page (remember Mapquest?). Anytime
a webpage changes without reloading, it's javascript doing the work.

Anyway, their is a giant consortium with input from the development
community that developed javascript, the ECAC.

Then, along comes MS with Internet Explorer. Do they follow the ECAC
guidelines? Nooooo. You now have to write one set of instructions
for valid javascript under the ECAC rules, then figure out someway to
do an "if" clause that will tell you if the user is using IE (by
trying something that works in every other browser), and then write a
complete different code so that your javascript will work in Internet
Explorer.

So, instead of just writing:

e.preventDefault();

to stop a link from working (if you want the click to trigger a
javascript program under some conditions), you have to write something
like:

if (!e) {
e = window.event;
}
if (e.preventDefault) {
e.preventDefault();
} else {
e.returnValue = false;
}

That's because what every other browser does, which is represent a
window event as "e", Microsoft only recognizes "window.event",and
instead of having a built-in function called "preventDefault()" like
every other browser, Microsoft requires you to look for a variable
named "returnValue" and set it to true or false.

Don't get me started. Internet Explorer did the same freaking thing
with CSS, the language used to style webpages. You have one set of
rules for all browsers, written by the Worldwide Web Consortium, and
then you have to detect if a user is using IE and write a different
set of rules for them. Because Microsoft think they're the bloody
Tsar of Russia and will decree to the world how to write CSS.

That's why web developers HATE Microsoft. It's why Firefox even
exists -- it's an open source browser built, for free, by volunteers
who hated Internet Explorer.

<rant="off">

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 18:58:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 1, 9:36�am, Ed Stasiak <estas...@att.net> wrote:
>> > Obveeus
>>
>> > 50 gazillion movies to choose from and people want to throw
>> > a fit if 1% of them are out of circulation for awhile?
>>
>> If some of those 1% are flicks or tv shows you want to see, it's
>> a valid complaint and they could be tied up in copyright limbo
>> for years due to economic, business or social pressures as
>> RichA mentioned.
>>
>> But I'd say the real issue with streaming is that the copyright
>> holders charge per viewing while with a physical DVD, you can
>> of course rewatch it over and over for the one-time purchase
>> price.
>>
>

>That's another issue, apart from Jesus freaks or others pulling movies

>at some point. America is headed to a service-rental economy, which
>the socialists would LOVE.

Actually that is bass-ackwards. It's large corporations that are
trying to force us to accept a "license only" paradigm for
entertainment.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <klukqp$4vm$1...@news.albasani.net>,

No clew. Google only provides foundationless speculation. It does
claim she's going to be in Luther series 3, and they're writing a
spin-off for Alice. Sheesh.

[David Johnston]

Rich thinks large corporations are socialists.

[Tony Calguire]

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jmr5o8pru6qqd8g39...@4ax.com:

>
> Then, along comes MS with Internet Explorer. Do they follow the ECAC
> guidelines? Nooooo. You now have to write one set of instructions
> for valid javascript under the ECAC rules, then figure out someway to
> do an "if" clause that will tell you if the user is using IE (by
> trying something that works in every other browser), and then write a
> complete different code so that your javascript will work in Internet
> Explorer.
>

Ummm, no you don't. The only way to enforce standards compliance is if
there are consequences for non-compliance. If you write special code for
IE, you're giving Microsoft permission to continue. Write your code
according to the standard, and tell IE users that they need to get a
standards-compliant browser.

Who still uses IE, anyway?

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>>>>I liked the first season of Luther quite a bit. I thought the interaction
>>>>between Luther and Alice was the best part of the show and made it somewhat
>>>>unique at the time.

>>>>This isn't a plot spoiler or anything but, in my opinion, season 2 wasn't
>>>>nearly as good because Alice is barely a part of it.

>>>Wasn't she busy doing the worst remake of THE PRISONER imaginable?

>>I'd forgotten; she was the doctor. But no, that show was 2009.

>>Luther series 1 was 2010; Ruth Wilson was in two episodes of series 2 2011.
>>Would Anna Karenina have been shooting in 2011, which was ready for
>>Toronto September 7, 2012?

>No clew. Google only provides foundationless speculation. It does
>claim she's going to be in Luther series 3, and they're writing a
>spin-off for Alice. Sheesh.

That sucks.

[RichA]

Most movie enthusiasts I know owned dozens if not hundreds of movies
on VHS and DVD.

[Obveeus]

Did they buy them or just make copies from the VHS/DVD rentals or torrents
they downloaded?

I know, there are people that love to collect things and amass those things
in big piles so they can bask at the size of the collection. Anyone still
scrounging around for working VCRs so they can keep their collection of
movies on VHS viable should probably have learned that expiration dates on
streaming contracts is not 'the problem'.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <klupjd$ltd$3...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

Just don't say anything about his name.

[Tom]

>
> > > > > I still haven't made it through Luther 2 though.  It's going to be hard
> > > > > to top the happy ending MRS. PUCCI DIES of the first.
>
> > > > Please tell me that's not a spoiler.  As far as I've been able to
> > > > Google, 'Luther' episodes aren't named...
>
> > > Don't do any kind of search for the name Mrs. Pucci. If you do, it
> > > will be spoiled for you.
>
> > > What a dope for writing that...
>
> Eat shit and die, Tom.  No wonder your betters have you killfiled.

Does that mean you're not my better?

Be a man and admit you posted a spoiler, however unintentional, and
move on.

Don't blame me because you're a dope.


Tom

[Adam H. Kerman]

The Doctor's true name is Barney the purple brain suck. Oh, and Charleton
Heston learns that humans destroyed the Earth.

[Dano]

"David Johnston" wrote in message news:klulpa$tjc$1...@dont-email.me...

===============================================

I can't think of a single reason why anyone would pay attention to a word
RichA has to say about anything.

[trotsky]

On 5/2/13 4:37 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 8:02 PM, RichA wrote:
>> On May 1, 12:32 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2013 1:44 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>> You leave the ownership in the hands of companies, relying on
>>>> "streaming or downloads" you can see movies and TV shows evaporate due
>>>> to economic, business or social pressures.
>>>
>>> Not if you actually downloaded them. Streaming is just an update of
>>> video rental.
>>
>> IF you download them when they are available.
>
> How much sense would it make to download them when they're not available?



One would have to implant cobweb's into one's mind to understand that
statement. It reminds me of Monty Python's Twit of the Year competition:

"It's the jump of a lifetime that only his father could understand!"


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[trotsky]

On 5/2/13 4:47 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2013-05-02 18:27:03 +0000, Obveeus said:
>
>> "gtr" <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote in message
>> news:2013050211102043522-xxx@yyyzzz...
>>> On 2013-05-02 13:59:50 +0000, Dano said:
>>>
>>>> "Dire"? Really?
>>>
>>> Seems you don't get it. it's "DIRE", not "Dire". Only all caps can
>>> emphasize the whatzit of it all. In any case I've sold all my worldly
>>> belongings and am curled in fetal position in my garage, just me and
>>> my computer and internet connection.
>>>
>>> Goodbye cruel world.
>>
>> I think you missed the point. You were supposed to sell all your
>> worldly possessions and then use the money to by a hard copy DVD of
>> every film/TV series ever made. Then curl up in the fetal position in
>> your garage with all those DVDs so that you will be ready for the DIRE
>> end of days scenario foretold in this thread.
>
> Jesus christ I can't even die right!


Jesus Christ said the same thing when he was resurrected.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <klvdov$vqm$3...@news.albasani.net>,

Actually it was the apes that destroyed civilization. Damn, dirty apes.

[gtr]

On 2013-05-03 04:28:02 +0000, Dano said:

> I can't think of a single reason why anyone would pay attention to a
> word RichA has to say about anything.

Outrage. See--he tries to be offensive enough to get some outrage. If
he says anything that pisses someone off maybe they'll spank him till
he jizzes. This is what motivates him. Puerile attention. Mommy mommy
look at me!

There's always one or two of these types around, but it takes at least
3 or 4 nurses to make them secure. No hand-jobs and they go away.
Which means he'll have a comfortable time here for some time to come.

Now the mindset of the handjobbers I can't quite get. Yelling at Fox TV
can't possibly provide any satisfaction. And why someone who isn't a
Fox ditto-head would watch Fox, even more incomprehensible.

[Dano]

"gtr" wrote in message news:2013050308461343382-xxx@yyyzzz...

========================================

Just as I don't watch Fox News...I don't read Rich's posts. The only time I
hear about either is when someone else mocks them, or otherwise takes them
to task.

If I never heard or saw another thing from either I would feel no sense of
loss.

[gtr]

On 2013-05-03 16:13:30 +0000, Dano said:

> Just as I don't watch Fox News...I don't read Rich's posts. The only
> time I hear about either is when someone else mocks them, or otherwise
> takes them to task.

Nor I. I just note the diligent hand-jobber's going about their daily duties.

[BTR1701]

On May 3 2013 8:46 AM, gtr wrote:

> Now the mindset of the handjobbers I can't quite get. Yelling at Fox TV
> can't possibly provide any satisfaction. And why someone who isn't a
> Fox ditto-head would watch Fox, even more incomprehensible.

Fox Television and Fox News are two entirely different companies.

[Mason Barge]

On Thu, 2 May 2013 23:45:20 +0000 (UTC), Tony Calguire
<tc...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:

>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:jmr5o8pru6qqd8g39...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> Then, along comes MS with Internet Explorer. Do they follow the ECAC
>> guidelines? Nooooo. You now have to write one set of instructions
>> for valid javascript under the ECAC rules, then figure out someway to
>> do an "if" clause that will tell you if the user is using IE (by
>> trying something that works in every other browser), and then write a
>> complete different code so that your javascript will work in Internet
>> Explorer.
>>
>
>
>Ummm, no you don't. The only way to enforce standards compliance is if
>there are consequences for non-compliance. If you write special code for
>IE, you're giving Microsoft permission to continue. Write your code
>according to the standard, and tell IE users that they need to get a
>standards-compliant browser.

Easy for you to say. "Sure, Mr. Online sales, I will build you a
website, but 30% of the people who want to buy from you will be unable
to use the site because I refuse to write javascript that IE can use."

>Who still uses IE, anyway?

As above, about 30% of the U.S. market.