|
Sander Rossel wrote: With your logic you can't go to the movies or concerts either because you won't be able to see or listen to it later.
I sure can (and do)! Especially concerts. A live concert is a very different experiencer from hearing the same music from a CD. You argue as if going on a safari in Africa is a waste of money because you can buy a National Geographic DVD with scenes from the same region.
For movies, it depends. In a movie theater, most people shut up during the movie. Play the same movie on your TV screen, and they do not. I've got a projector and a two meter wide screen in a darkened room; that makes most people shut up. So I go to movie theaters a lot less than before. If I were limited to living-room everybody-continuing-their-chatting viewing, I would still be going a lot to the movies.
As you say: A major reason for not caring for streaming services is that if your musical/movie taste lies a few steps to the side of the mainstream, there is a great risk that they don't provide what you are after anyway.
Some years ago, every few months media published lists showing that from this and that streaming service from the next month, they would no longer offer this movie, and that, and that, and ... I don't know if the reason was lack of disk space or lack of rights - it really doesn't matter, when I read through the list, nodding "But that one I still have available on my bookshelf, and that one, and that one...
I use to ask my friends with several streaming subscriptions about some of the movies I remember from the old days, if they are available. In the majority of the cases, they are not. It is the same with music. Most stuff available over the streaming services is also available on DVD/BD - and a lot more. Then I prefer to buy it on physical media, to make sure I still have access to it when the streaming service decides that they no longer can waste disk space, or possibly licensing fees, on that piece of music/movie.
Or maybe some political leader puts a creator/artist into a "false news" category. Charlie Chaplin movies was totally banned from US media for many years, due to Chaplin's thoughts about how a society should be managed. Thinking that no movie, music, nor other artistic impression would be censored today, on comparable grounds, is naive, to say the least. I do not want that censorship.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: In a movie theater, most people shut up during the movie. Play the same movie on your TV screen, and they do not.
My experience is the complete opposite, but I live alone 
Member 7989122 wrote: there is a great risk that they don't provide what you are after anyway.
I spent the last few years buying Studio Ghibli films.
Most of them aren't available in the Netherlands, so I've always paid good (import) money and got them with English subtitles (I think Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle have Dutch subs).
They all recently became available on Netflix with Dutch subs
At one time, Netflix had Serenity, the movie that came after Firefly.
I decided to buy the series on Blu-ray (because I've always wanted to see it) and then watch the movie on Netflix.
I finished the only season within a week and then got ready to watch the movie on Saturday night... Only to find out they pulled it from Netflix that very day
Again, had to order some second hand import which turned out to be a special edition with Dutch subs (did not expect that), but I ultimately got to watch it a few days later
If I REALLY want to see something, I buy it.
For everything else, Netflix.
Also, there's a lot of stuff I wouldn't buy, but now still get to see/listen 
Member 7989122 wrote: Thinking that no movie, music, nor other artistic impression would be censored today, on comparable grounds, is naive, to say the least. I do not want that censorship.
I recently watched Community on Netflix.
In one episode, one of the best actually, they play Dungeons & Dragons with this kid because they think he has suicidal tendencies.
Then someone shows up, dressed as a dark elf, complete with a... Black face (yes, dark elf is dark)!
Guess which episode got pulled for racism?
A friend of mine is watching it now and has to miss this amazing and funny episode about bullying and helping others.
He actually really wanted to see this episode because of the D&D part, which he likes.
I agree that we should not want that, certainly not on the grounds of a character being dressed up as a fantasy figure 
Member 7989122 wrote: Charlie Chaplin movies was totally banned from US media for many years
The movies are silent and they still manage to offend people
I think streaming and buying are both great and compliment each other 
|
|
|
|
|
Because it used to be something I owned. Like the big box of Coreldraw 9 I have.
I get it. It wasn't fun to hope that I'll upgrade so we'll get you to give us money once a month that will be better.
Nope.
Yeah I pay for cable when TV for what it was worth was free but wasn't even as bad as it is today.
I have it off most of the time now that there is no sports on anymore. So if it weren't for my wife I'd kick it to the curb.
I don't see how I could own the internet so I'll pay for that - that's ok.
It's essentially extortion. I try to keep it to a minimum in my world.
You tube would like to charge for youtubeTV . - nah.
The internet put US in charge of what we want to see. Any attempt to switch it back to central control is forbidden with me.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Anders wrote: The internet put US in charge of what we want to see.
For a moment I thought you meant the Unites States 
Ron Anders wrote: It's essentially extortion.
Well, you get a product and you're paying money.
Just instead of paying once, you pay monthly/yearly.
And when you stop paying you lose the product.
You could call it extortion, you could call it capitalism.
I get trying to keep it to a minimum though.
On the one hand, it's not the way we're used to paying and consuming for products, like Netflix or Spotify.
On the other hand, back in the day I just didn't have so much music to listen to and movies to watch
I guess with O365, you pay for a bit of cloud space and service costs that come with keeping your data online (and a hefty margin, no doubt).
Ron Anders wrote: You tube would like to charge for youtubeTV . - nah.
Nah for me too, but when you think about it, it's weird that we get to use all these services like Google and YouTube, which costs billions, and never (want to) pay for it.
I know, when it's free YOU are the product, but I can't blame them for that either
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: For a moment I thought you meant the Unites States
Lots of young Europeans have more or less blindly accepted US "morals" (hangups) as their own, ignorant of the traditions of their own culture.
E.g. up until Internet, one of the essential marks of summer was newspapers bringing beach reports with photos where naked preschool kids could be seen. Noone expected a swimsuit on a preschooler (and a few years ago, kid around here didn't start school until the year they turned seven). When those beach pictures were let out on the Internet, they had to be censored: The US public is so tender that they can't handle it. Alternately: They have such a vivid fantasy that they cannot handle it...
Nowadays, newspapers cannot bring the same kind of photos that they used to. Several videos on YouTube, e.g. sex education for kids, have been censored from YouTube because the US public is too tender to handle it.
If you are in that young "americanized" generation, you mmay say: But it is wrong to show stuff like that ... And you may be right, by US norms and morals.
You may argue that in principle, you may publish whatever content somewhere else. That is true, but who would then see it? If you can't publidsh it on Facebook (even in closed fora), Flicker, YouTube nor any other widespread social media channel, then we are down to underground, more or less secret communication channels.
Your morals may indicate that "If you really insist on publishing a picture of your naked three-year-old on the beach, then you should do it in restricted forums who want such pictures". But before the Internet and the US cultural dominance, noone thought of these as anything but ordinary family pictures.
US culture has forced the rest of the world to sexualize a lot of things that were never sexualized before. Based on that, a lot of "but think of the children!" arguments are raised in favor of internet censorship. As US "moral" influence spreads, we may pretend that is doesn't have a US origin - but it does!
|
|
|
|
|
That's a lot of text, but I was simply referring to his capitalization of the word "us" (as in, you and me) for emphasis
Agreed on all your points though.
|
|
|
|
|
I’m using it, as I have free subscription through my company. For a personal user I don’t see any advantages. It’s design for a corporate users, Azure integration etc.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I use it.
I currently got a personal license, which I really need for my business.
I used to have Open Office back in school, but it was always a hassle sharing documents because everyone else used Word which uses another file format.
It was possible to convert to the Word format, but that didn't always work perfectly, or sometimes I forgot.
Also, it just didn't have all the features Word has, or at least I couldn't find them.
Stuff like templates and pre-defined styles, which I sometimes needed.
Anyway, I currently use Office 365 for my business, mostly Outlook, Word and Excel and the OneDrive storage.
Once my license expires I'll switch to a business subscription for Exchange, which I currently miss, but can do without for now.
I'm using a lot of Google Docs too, mainly because a client uses it, but also sometimes for personal documents.
Before this, I always had a license from work, so I never paid it myself.
If a license is worth it depends on what you want to do with it and how often.
For me, it's totally worth it, but if you just make some personal notes from time to time you may be better off with a free solution like Google Docs (free as in you pay with your privacy) or the ones you mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
I do, I currently use it over 4 personal machines. couple of the children, mine and my mothers.
The terrabyte storage is useful but isn't what convince me to buy the subscription.
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
I, my wife, and daughters all use my Office 365 subscription. It works out cheaper than buying four Office 2019 subscriptions.
Given Microsoft's recent record, I don't know whether getting the latest updates is a plus or a minus. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Have it through my company. I like Office suite and would prefer to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
If you do, could you help me track down a nasty little bug I can't reproduce?
CPPkg: Create Zips of Your Source Code From Visual Studio[^]
This project is crashing when used inside visual studio on some poor soul's machine, but not on mine, and from all appearances, not on other people's? though I can't be sure on that last score and that's why i need you, gentle reader:
What you need:
A copy of VS2019, and a few minutes to compile and install a small VSIX package, and then use it on one of your projects (it doesn't change anything, it just zips stuff)
What you get:
A cool little utility that will zip your source code (silver prize) - or a crash, and a precious repro (gold prize)
Also my undying gratitude.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
You lost me at "VS2019".
I haven't installed any IDEs on this system. I still have VS 2010 Express on an old tablet-thingy which suffices for my needs now. VS 2010 is the pinnacle of VSness and it's been downhill ever since.
|
|
|
|
|
Same here. I still have this shiny plastic retail box with the VS2010 disk and the SN. Friend in Microsoft both it for me with discount. 
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
I compile and installed the extension... then I tried it on a few project....
(cool extension btw)
It failed on my main (own) home project though... displaying that message box
Illegal characters in path.
though there is lot of stuff in my home project.. lots of normal .NET/.NETCore, some Xamarin (Android & iOS) and a broken Installer project type (not the default MS one, mind you, a WiX VSIX extension) so.. I will give it a pass...
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks!
You didn't repro the problem I was talking about anyway as it would have failed right away, and every time.
Normally I'd love to know how it failed, instrument it with logging and all that, but most everyone on here is busier than I am, so I won't pull you away. Thanks again.
Anyway, I bet I have an idea how it failed but I'm not sure exactly where it would have.
I hope you find it useful in any case.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
yeah it's cool!
I can see myself using that! 
In fact it might the extension I didn't know I needed until I got it! 
|
|
|
|
|
Just here to say I love you.
And your bug is probably related to missing curly braces around an if-statement 
|
|
|
|
|
I've stopped using if statements in my code. If I can't have them braceless, I don't even want them.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Almost 40 years ago, one of the original designers of the product that I was working on said that code shouldn't use if statements, because it meant you didn't know what you were doing. It sounds tongue-in-cheek, but there's also truth in it.
EDIT: The syntax in that language was
IF...THEN...ELSE...ENDIF; so maybe you'd like it: no braces!
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, minimize branching. I believe code should be as simple as it can be, and no simpler.
The "no simpler" part seems to suggest that branching is necessary sometimes. 
I hate end if more than braces.
The only thing I like about python's syntax is you get none of this nonsense:
}
}
}
}
But the cure (significant whitespace) is worse than the disease.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Eventually I thought of it in the same way as what I call "switch Considered Harmful". You sometimes see switch when the code is crying out for a virtual function and polymorphism. Other times, the switch is a just a simple if, but it's still gross. I'll do it when adding the virtual function would be really messy, but even then it makes me hold my nose.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: You sometimes see switch when the code is crying out for a virtual function and polymorphism.
WindowProcs. Top-level WindowProcs! Old school cool! 
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know what a WindowProc was, so I had to investigate. It looks like common practice might have been to switch on a message type.
For many years I worked in a procedural language where the better frameworks centered around creating a struct of function pointers that was subsequently registered against a type. This supported hand-rolled polymorphism:
TypeStructs[type].function(args); Not bad for things designed circa 1980.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: I didn't know what a WindowProc was, so I had to investigate. It looks like common practice might have been to switch on a message type.
Very much so. Like many other people I created a Windows wrapper, and one of the challenges was handling the callback messages. Here's an old (now almost outdated) article if you are interested. Search for winProc, case sensitive. (This article is much better, but doesn't go into as much technical depth.)
Greg Utas wrote: Not bad for things designed circa 1980.
Cool!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
