My guess is they live in the US and they're making their argument under the assumption that the treatment will be enormously expensive and you will have to pay out of pocket for it. In that case you're caught between a rock and a hard place: will I die a slow and painful death due to genetical disease X, or do I go bankrupt paying for it.
In many countries this is a genuine concern I guess. Even in multiple European countries with great healthcare and (nearly) free health insurance, "novel" (and often very expensive) treatments are not always covered.
This meme of becoming bankrupt to pay for drugs doesn't hold water, especially in the long term.
Look at HIV medications. It used to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to stay afloat in the 90's, when the drugs were cutting edge.
Fast forward 30 years, and you can find generic antivirals for $110/month. As patents expire, medicines become more affordable. HIV is slowly approaching "cured disease" status in the western world for new infections, and is an increasingly manageable disease for existing infections.
It's better that some people could get the drug in the early days, funding the research that would save millions in the coming generation, even if others couldn't afford it.
The logic in this thread is just flummoxing. So many people irrationally hate companies that make lots of money so vehemently, even if the companies profit by saving lives that would be guaranteed to suffer/die without that company's profit-seeking efforts.
> Really shows how ill the "App Store" model is when a company like Nintendo who has an entire hardware empire off selling high quality non-exploitative games can't make money on it without resorting to gambling industry tactics like the other low quality apps/games on there.
Or they're just greedy. They make tons of money running their own walled gardens.
Emby, a (somewhat) open source C# project, is not a fork of Plex Media Server, a closed source C/C++ project. Emby was forked as Jellyfin however, as a reaction to Emby becoming more and more of a closed source project.
Plex was forked from XBMC which is renamed to KODI an open source project. Think the fork was around version 8 or 9. KODI is up to 20. Downside to KODI is it does not have streaming built in like Plex. But has built in emulation again like earlier version of XBMC.
what do you mean by "KODI ... does not have streaming"? I have rpi with KODI on my son's TV and it streams everything over CIFS from my NAS - the NAS doesn't transcode or otherwise do anything but host the cifs share.
Plex can act as a 'head unit' and do format transform and metadata management. Then stream it to a secondary plex client. KODI does not do that. That is the one killer feature Plex has over KODI. In all ways KODI is better except in that use case. Picking data from a CIFS is basic XBMC/KODI/Plex functionality and has been in there for a long time going back to the original xbox days. Jellyfin is similar with its ability to transcode and stream that to a client. In some cases they let you stream it thru a web client (which is kinda cool).
It is a nice feature for low bandwidth applications. Say a VPN to your phone, or a friends house who has crappy internet. If I remember correctly there were a lot of clients also for TV's which have absolute rubbish CPU power and no local storage (for holding metadata). Also the centrally managed metadata is nice when you have more than one client. You can get the same effect with KODI and using a DB like mysql or mariadb. But it is sort of finicky to setup correctly.
I personally use KODI as I do not need that particular streaming feature. Also it is broken with ISO's which is one of my major use cases.
Does Kodi serve up files? e.g. Can I install Kodi on my PC with all my media, then watch that stuff on my phone when I'm away from the house, or grant a friend access to my library?
That's what Plex does: it has server apps and client apps.
No they shouldn't, because such laws will just open the door to even more abuse. Imagine you are raped by someone. You go to the police to report the crime, but unfortunately, they deny, and you can't provide any real evidence. They can now countersue because you've made a "false allegation" which ruined their life.
Presumably for a "false accusation" conviction one would have to prove that (1) the accusations are false, and (2) the accuser was aware that the accusations were false. Merely failing to prove accusations (such as when there is insufficient evidence) would be insufficient for a false accusation conviction, as neither of these requirements are satisfied.
Typically from what I’ve seen, Umbrella blocks new domains automatically, but then after a few days or weeks it’ll stop blocking it. That’s my guess, but it isn’t blocked for me
Using both Windows and macOS I feel that Windows has only recently started to catch up with Finder.