Yet people can't wait to jump to ios which does the same and worse. Google cutting out windows platform from their app development which seems like its more intentions than just cost cutting. Microsoft is doing everything it can these days and all people do is talk smack about their past.
VLC hasn't done much to improve picture quality. An mpc and madvr combination easily trumps it and yet you want to donate to this cookie cutter program to only maintain but not make it better? MPC was on the verge of being stopped of development until few people made the effort to volunteer and contribute to code.
I assume you're not talking about the mpd command line client of that name? At least I wouldn't know how it relates to video quality, though it plays music quite nicely. The other mpc I can easily get to does multi-precision arithmetic on the complex numbers. Also unlikely to be a match.
So there's your problem. Your software is hard to use and hard to find out about. Get it into distros so that installing it and trying it out is as painless as possible.
If I don't know it exists or have to hunt around the web for a copy, I'm unlikely to donate to it.
There's still a difference between legal and ethical. There's also a difference between innocent now and slander later. The potential for abuse is real.
I don't think this is how businesses work. Its like trying to get a teacher to not teach a certain lesson because you don't want to learn it. Aren't they paying you to do a job? Not the other way around. If you have problems adapting they might consider someone else who'd do your job instead, is it worth putting your career at risk because youre not comfortable with change?
You completely missed the point of the post. In no way shape or form do our dev's, including I feel like we couldn't use C# if we had to. The problem is the having to part seems abnormal, and against our company culture, and counterintuitive. We deal with change on a constant basis, so no, I am fine with change. I want the change to be rational, however.
Its a pay per view for the broadcasters in the form of subscriptions. While I don't support this kind of activity I can see the damages done to a business if they are robbed of their audience. Broadcasters pay to have the show on their channel, why should they not be bothered when they are about to lose potential numbers because people have already seen the show before they air it? Viewers count is very important in this business.
Of course, they might have grounds to sue the leaker, but the fact that the police are interceding on the side of the broadcaster is what I find disturbing.
the police are involved because they have been asked to be involved. Do you think police only act on their own all the time? They provide a service and this one involves people violating law
