Re: In today's news...
Then I'll pick no content at all and just not use any website that pulls that
If they have to put DRM like that in, then chances are it's not worth watching/getting the content anyway
And if it is, there's plenty of people like me, but then some with actual computer skills who will pirate it and then share
Out of principle, I completely refuse allowing any DRM in browsers I use
Yeah, I found that one looking for open source browsers. I'll wait until Firefox actually puts in the DRM stuff before I switch over though
Also, some more news:
NSA puts Israel's safety above the US' safety
You must be registered to see the links
This after Israel has already done enough to the US that a US war declaration and invasion would be considered merciful
And
Enjoy your capped internet, USA
You must be registered to see the links
Sure, they're high caps...For our current standards. As technology moves on, files get bigger, and eventually these caps will be too low to properly function with them
I admit, I'm still partly confused about the DRM thing. From what I saw in the article it's some required thing to allow people to connect to, say, Hulu or Netflix. I get what DRM itself is, but is it gonna be like that for FF? Maybe I'm not reading things right here.
For the second thing about capped internet, I'm actually interested in discussing this.
First off, ISPs can be way worse than that depending on where you live. I once knew a guy who had all the money he could want or need but he lived in an area where the best ISP was a place that had dial-up tier speeds. Had to leave his Xbox 360 on overnight to download an add-on for a game, stuff like that. Where I live you will find that Century Link and Comcast are the best ISPs you can get. Every other ISP in this area is a satellite internet provider with allotted bandwidth ranging from 20-50 GB a month, and you can(and I have...)get people on the phone that sound like you're literally talking to a stereotypical foreign indonesian type guy out in a straw hut in the middle of nowhere.
But even Century Link had a problem. The thing is, I used to think terribly of Comcast because a friend of mine once told me how he regularly got messages over the net from them or letters and whatnot to stop illegal downloads. I thought they'd be strict and controlling, whereas CL never gave a crap about anything I did.
The problem was that even though CL provided me with unlimited bandwidth, they gave me a max of 1.5 MB in speeds, which I usually didn't even reach unless under the most optimal network conditions at a given time, and the bill fluctuated every month. Some it would be in the area of sixty something dollars, others it'd be almost $80. And all those extra charges were literally labeled on the bills as "Extra Services" that we weren't told anything about. Comcast doesn't pull that shit and they give me faster speeds at the cost of sticking with a 300 GB a month bandwidth cap for around what I paid CL monthly on average. But again, that's infinitely more preferable in my book than paying around $90 to an ISP for satellite internet with a 40 GB monthly cap that they assure me is probably not going to run any online MMOs well on beforehand. And I've yet to have any conflict with them over anything.
As far as the cap goes, right now 300 GB a month is quite sufficient for me. To be honest, I can't think of any person that wouldn't be able to put up with that as enough on a monthly basis unless we're talking someone who downloads massive stuff through torrents 24/7 or a large family that runs everything, including TV through Netflix, on their internet. Granted, he was old, but I once talked about this very thing with a pretty old guy who worked as an apartment manager for some guy down south of me. Said he uses one of those decent cost but low bandwidth ISPs and all he really uses it for is email.
Granted, I acknowledge that this is all me shoving my personal experiences and opinions into it, but I just don't think it's too big a deal. I heard that some branches of Comcast elsewhere in the U.S. provide unlimited bandwidth monthly, but just as well there are branches that currently provide less bandwidth than what that article is describing. Looking at the article, again bringing in personal experiences, $10 for fifty gigs is actually pretty excellent a deal because some satellite providers will charge you a dollar a gig(no seriously, I looked into them before deciding on Comcast...they flatout described this asinine token thing to me that was a dollar a gig).
In short, this'll be a minor blow at best to the areas that have unlimited bandwidth(PLEASE do not quote me on this, this is just what I heard from a good friend of mine out of state, he said they never had a cap for him and his family), yet a major improvement for the areas that have 300 GB monthly or maybe even less(I'm assuming that, depending on where one lives here).
And while I'm whoring out my own personal stories, I don't even hit the 300 GB a month cap myself despite regular, just not constant, large downloads.