Thinking 1000 people is a small sample size shows that you should study math more.
Assuming that 1000 people could not be bought and sold shows you should study the world more, for the problem has little to do with math. Statistical results are used and abused to do anything from sway public opinion to establish legal precedent, proving that statistical manipulation is often worth the effort. Given the amount of corruption and collusion we're finding in the world today, perhaps it's time to mitigate the risks.
Reputable studies show their margin of error anyway. It's not like you have to work very hard to figure out how big it is.
Facebook alone has over 200 million American users. It's not like you have to work very hard to increase the sample size considerably to increase accuracy exponentially. Needless to say, my confidence level with smaller samples is not high based on my previous statements.
Speaking of manipulating results, it's almost time for the world to tune into the testimony of Mr. Comey...
Yes. I also understand why statistical results are often dismissed and mocked as bullshit and hype too.
Watering down statistical analysis with such an obscenely small sample size tends to showcase its capability to assume which provides little or no real value, especially when polling about something that does affect the majority of the population.
And in the day and age of social media, it's pretty fucking easy to get a poll in front of the actual majority, making any and all excuses to not do so rather lame. Perhaps surveys like this should put for the effort to create accurate results so it can stop being the butt of analysis jokes.
"We polled approximately 1,000 American adults across the U.S., a sample that included 354 Democrats, 344 Republicans, and 224 Independents."
Apparently polling 1,000 citizens out of a population of 330 million now tells us how the majority of Americans feel.
I guess the sample size makes sense, since the other 99.9999% of the population doesn't have a fucking clue what Net Neutrality is, nor do they give a shit.
At least now we can add titles worthy of being called fake news to the infamous tool we use to manipulate the masses. Why even bother polling? Just cut straight to the bullshit next time.
Yes. The only reason it is legal today is because addiction demands it should be.
I am Greek that, like -almost- all Greeks, consumes alcohol in a moderate way (Greece has few alcohol addicts) - alcohol is legal in Greece since... i guess from the invention of alcohol! Theoretically, if some authority implements an alcohol prohibition tomorrow, few people -the few alcohol addicts- will be effected severely, but -almost- all Greeks will rebel. So, who is the stupid now dear mister stupid?
But i admit that your stupid reasoning may be valid in the case of tobacco smoking - yes, i am an addict that demands tobacco smoking to remain legal until the sun freezes...
The irony of a tobacco addict attempting to defend alcohol legalization by labeling it stupid. Sound logic.
I'm reminded of a quote that describes the rebellious masses: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
> Alcohol is a poison to the human body regardless of amount consumed
True, but what's your point?
Uh, that is exactly my point. Many want to attempt to argue otherwise.
To each their own in the end. Risk vs. reward. People like the feeling of alcohol in their body. People also like the feeling of sex without a condom. Doesn't mean having unprotected sex in an environment that has a high risk of STDs is not stupid behavior just because a lot of other people are doing it.
To your point, many in society still believe that marijuana is deadly, including a government that still wants to denounce any medical benefit. Common sense, has never been common.
The health effects of alcohol are unproven. A long-term study with a few tens of thousands of participants was reported on Slashdot a couple of years back that showed that, statistically, the people who died first are the ones that give up drinking, then the ones that never drink. The ones that regularly drink alcohol live longest. Alcohol in the blood stream dissolves fatty deposits in blood vessels and reduces the risk of blood clots blocking them, for example. The risk is nowhere near as simple as you seem to think.
Arguably our #1 killer right now is cardiovascular heart disease.
If you're not managing your health properly enough to prevent fatty deposits from building up in your blood stream, then you might as well drink alcohol. You've already proven your health is not a priority.
The risk is very simple to manage. The true problem is 90% of society views a life of proper exercise, good healthy diet, and eliminating the intake of poisons into your body as some kind of impossible challenge that's "no fun." To each their own.
By comparison, there is no amount of alcohol that has been proven to be of benefit, even with moderation. It is quite clearly, a poison.
Stop lying. You're basing your statements on one flawed study. Notice the amounts consumed by the participants. They're way over what any reasonable person would call "moderate".
The only lie is thinking there has only been one damn study done on the effects of alcohol consumption over the last half century. I wasn't even talking about the flawed study in TFS, which is quite obviously showcasing more of an excessive or high consumption.
As I stated, newer evidence tends to highlight the fact that even moderation is not good for you when consuming a poison.
Alcohol is a poison to the human body regardless of amount consumed, and there is no longer a point in debating it. Stupidity attempts to dismiss this fact in favor of a number of ignorant excuses to consume it.
So because one study shows that it may be dangerous to drink to the maximum recommended limit, all alcohol consumption is inherently dangerous, and there is absolutely no need to debate it?
Over the course of the last century, there has been far more than one study done on alcohol, with many trying to convince us of the benefits. Recent studies have dispelled with the illusions. No, a beer a day will not keep the doctor away.
Is a moderate amount of alcohol any worse for you than other habits? Likely not. Risk vs. reward. My point was more centered around dispelling the illusions that even moderation will eliminate risk. Put simply, it does not.
Looking at the aggregate, is alcohol in general good for society? Likely not. This is also the same society who legalizes a product like tobacco, which has proven to be one of the deadliest products ever created. Logic does not always follow capitalism. Greed does.
Fuck yeah. And get rid of refined sugar, candies, and deep fried foods. Those, too, are poisons that are consumed by stupid people to make themselves feel better while destroying their bodies.
Ironically, this behavior is quite evident to be by design when reviewing the ingredients used to create McFood.
Yeast extracts and hydrolyzed proteins are considered excitotoxins, and are added to create that feel-good effect, and also make you crave it again.
Just another day in the land of Greed and Capitalism.
Yes. The only reason it is legal today is because addiction demands it should be.
Could it be that a lot of people enjoy alcohol because it tastes good, and that we happen to enjoy a light buzz, without feeling the urge to get totally plastered?
Alcohol is a poison to the human body regardless of amount consumed, and there is no longer a point in debating it. Stupidity attempts to dismiss this fact in favor of a number of ignorant excuses to consume it.
No, that's supply and demand, a concept which while assumed to be a virtually ironclad economic law by capitalist thought is not actually capitalist.
Selling something that is not worth nearly the asking price tends to capitalize on the gullibility of a society who has been convinced that the cost is worth it.
Perhaps we ask the "gig" work graduates who are forced to move back in with Mom and Dad about supply and demand. I'm sure they'll have a few choice words to say about capitalism as they struggle to find how $100K worth of educational debt was worth it.
Humans have a no-bullshit psychological need for entertainment. Depression is a real condition that can be life-threatening, and entertainment is part of any mental health maintenance plan.
It's rather difficult for me to grasp what the fidget-spinner society of reality TV addicts defines as "entertainment" these days, since most of it is rather mindless and pointless, to include professional sports. The innocent fans that have lost their lives due to alcohol-fueled rioting after a game or match. The diehard fans who become so depressed due to sports gambling debts that they take their own lives. The players who have paid the ultimate price. Something as simple as meditation can be used to create that break or rest humans need in their lives to relax and mentally reset to remain healthy, and without a negative impact.
The advancement of human knowledge is an important and valuable contribution...but such contributions are impossible if there isn't a thriving economy present to fund the research. Sports are an important component of such an economy, and without them the economy would not function nearly as well.
One could also argue that tobacco helps feed a thriving economy, and without tobacco the economy would not function nearly as well. That doesn't mean a product that kills over 450,000 Americans every single year should be considered a good thing. Same goes for the billions spent and lives lost due to pointless warmongering. The advancement of human knowledge has sustained itself for thousands of years, even in the absence of funding. Humans tend to have a no-bullshit need to learn.
There are plenty of people working on a cancer cure, and there have been massive advances over the last couple years. If anything, capitalism hampers something like cancer research because treating it is more profitable than curing it and longer treatments are more profitable than short ones.
This is basically exactly my point.
Fortunately we have donation and tax driven organizations such as the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Health working on it.
Working on it only describes yet another method of securing millions in funding. The true test has yet to be performed; what will they actually do when they find a cure for a disease that generates hundreds of billions of dollars in recurring annual revenue, along with creating hundreds of thousands of deaths every year? (which the latter can be oddly measured as a benefit by government)
Perhaps that test has already happened. In that case, we already know the answer.
Since copulate has never been classified as "colorful language", I'd say there's a very strong chance that the person in question here literally said Go Fuck Yourself.
Not even sure why editors chose to go all PC describing an event that was far from PC. Hell of a lot easier to call a horse a horse.
At least one chairman who has balls to say what he actually thinks instead of hiding behind insincere excuses. On the other hand I hope he won't cry when his critics start using stronger language as well.
What you call "balls" I define as Corporate Arrogance, and quite frankly, I'm sick and fucking tired of it.
It's amazing how we have anti-monopoly laws on the books, and yet we don't really do a damn thing from stopping mega-corps from buying 90% of the market, and colluding with the remaining 10% that comprise the remaining mega-corps. True competition is dead or dying, and the arrogant attitudes demonstrated by the worlds largest corporations prove it.
I can only hope that 10 companies worth of real competition are birthed from this cocksuckers arrogance to compete directly against the EpiPen, and he's forced to eat his words standing in front of the shareholders explaining why revenue has tanked.
Capitalism and Greed does not justify this kind of shit attitude that has created Corporate Arrogance. And it's high time consumers stop bending over and simply taking it when it happens.
...Greed is good. Yes, even when it motivates employers to choose the least expensive workers who can do the job adequately.
History has shown that greed can often create good things. Yes, this is true.
However, I want you to remember your statement as Greed drives to change history forever, replacing the human workforce with automation, because it's cheaper.
In the next half century, Greed will look to destroy the concept of human employment completely with the creation of AI. Note that it won't even take true AI to replace 80% of human workers. Near-AI solutions will be all it takes to prove a machine can do anything you can do in the workplace better, faster, and most importantly, cheaper.
Humanity has used and abused Greed throughout history. But unless we Solve for Greed, I do feel it will ultimately lead to our demise.
People will need to present secure documents (the classic slide show), edit movies, edit images, send text back. It really depends on the occupation and why the powerful or secure laptop is needed.
Middle management trying to do a presentation in another nation? Collecting secure data from a factory production line or supplier in a distant nation?
A VPN gives some time limit and security. Better than having airport staff clone the data or the clandestine services add malware during a few hours of "questions" at some airport.
Full encryption might be ok, but what was done to the hardware?
I think the idea of just sending a person will get more consideration too.
The anomaly of interest is now anyone who travels a lot for their company or for work.
I don't disagree with your suggestions to maximize privacy and security in an ever-growing threatscape. The larger issue is convincing a society who doesn't give a shit about security. At all.
In the average US business, a security manager would likely be fired before successfully demanding and implementing such extreme measures upon the entire traveling community of executives, engineers, and marketeers. People despise this level of effort to secure themselves, and go to great measures to avoid it. It's so prolific that even after something like identity theft or corporate hacking occurs, users don't change behavior.
It's hard to explain that behavior, but it is the reality of the consumer base today. It's odd that when someone's physical life is threatened, they're quick to go out and buy a gun and arm themselves, but when their virtual life is threatened, they seemingly shrug it off and don't give a shit much about it.
Reality TV and bullshit program quality is the problem. People can find better quality shows online for the same price or cheaper. The learning channel is now the shit reality TV channel. Same with all of them. Provide a decent product and people will buy it...
The proliferation of Reality TV is driven by ratings.
When looking for a decent product start demanding society favor an intelligent audience instead of catering to the Honey Boo Boo generation of Kartrashians demanding shit content today.
I seriously struggle to understand the value-add of commercials these days, with all of the (commercial-free) cord cutting going on, as well as a large majority of consumers watching time-shifted content in order to fast forward through the damn commercials they now despise. Where and how exactly is revenue still being generated from commercials to justify the effort or the cost involved?
Personally, I can't wait until the industry gets a financial gut-check from this consumer shift, and broadcasters understand that they no longer have the power or justification to charge insane amounts of money for air time, which could cut costs considerably for all involved.
...the only way people will pay for that is a la carte, but neither the content owners nor the cable companies want that. Therefore they will kick and scream right up until the point they get thrown out the door.
Adapt or Die. Greed refuses to budge, so fuck 'em. They get what they deserve.
Slashdot Mirror
Thinking 1000 people is a small sample size shows that you should study math more.
Assuming that 1000 people could not be bought and sold shows you should study the world more, for the problem has little to do with math. Statistical results are used and abused to do anything from sway public opinion to establish legal precedent, proving that statistical manipulation is often worth the effort. Given the amount of corruption and collusion we're finding in the world today, perhaps it's time to mitigate the risks.
Reputable studies show their margin of error anyway. It's not like you have to work very hard to figure out how big it is.
Facebook alone has over 200 million American users. It's not like you have to work very hard to increase the sample size considerably to increase accuracy exponentially. Needless to say, my confidence level with smaller samples is not high based on my previous statements.
Speaking of manipulating results, it's almost time for the world to tune into the testimony of Mr. Comey...
Do you honestly not know how surveys work?
Yes. I also understand why statistical results are often dismissed and mocked as bullshit and hype too.
Watering down statistical analysis with such an obscenely small sample size tends to showcase its capability to assume which provides little or no real value, especially when polling about something that does affect the majority of the population.
And in the day and age of social media, it's pretty fucking easy to get a poll in front of the actual majority, making any and all excuses to not do so rather lame. Perhaps surveys like this should put for the effort to create accurate results so it can stop being the butt of analysis jokes.
"We polled approximately 1,000 American adults across the U.S., a sample that included 354 Democrats, 344 Republicans, and 224 Independents."
Apparently polling 1,000 citizens out of a population of 330 million now tells us how the majority of Americans feel.
I guess the sample size makes sense, since the other 99.9999% of the population doesn't have a fucking clue what Net Neutrality is, nor do they give a shit.
At least now we can add titles worthy of being called fake news to the infamous tool we use to manipulate the masses. Why even bother polling? Just cut straight to the bullshit next time.
Arguably our #1 killer right now is cardiovascular heart disease
And moderate alcohol intake has been shown to reduce this risk. Did you have a point somewhere, or are you just on a puritan rant?
Yes I do have a point.
Even one drink a day can harm you.
One of the benefits of continued studies is finding where we were wrong in the past to better educate ourselves, which defines progress.
So consumption of alcohol is simply stupid?
Yes. The only reason it is legal today is because addiction demands it should be.
I am Greek that, like -almost- all Greeks, consumes alcohol in a moderate way (Greece has few alcohol addicts) - alcohol is legal in Greece since... i guess from the invention of alcohol! Theoretically, if some authority implements an alcohol prohibition tomorrow, few people -the few alcohol addicts- will be effected severely, but -almost- all Greeks will rebel. So, who is the stupid now dear mister stupid?
But i admit that your stupid reasoning may be valid in the case of tobacco smoking - yes, i am an addict that demands tobacco smoking to remain legal until the sun freezes...
The irony of a tobacco addict attempting to defend alcohol legalization by labeling it stupid. Sound logic.
I'm reminded of a quote that describes the rebellious masses: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
> Alcohol is a poison to the human body regardless of amount consumed
True, but what's your point?
Uh, that is exactly my point. Many want to attempt to argue otherwise.
To each their own in the end. Risk vs. reward. People like the feeling of alcohol in their body. People also like the feeling of sex without a condom. Doesn't mean having unprotected sex in an environment that has a high risk of STDs is not stupid behavior just because a lot of other people are doing it.
To your point, many in society still believe that marijuana is deadly, including a government that still wants to denounce any medical benefit. Common sense, has never been common.
The health effects of alcohol are unproven. A long-term study with a few tens of thousands of participants was reported on Slashdot a couple of years back that showed that, statistically, the people who died first are the ones that give up drinking, then the ones that never drink. The ones that regularly drink alcohol live longest. Alcohol in the blood stream dissolves fatty deposits in blood vessels and reduces the risk of blood clots blocking them, for example. The risk is nowhere near as simple as you seem to think.
Arguably our #1 killer right now is cardiovascular heart disease.
If you're not managing your health properly enough to prevent fatty deposits from building up in your blood stream, then you might as well drink alcohol. You've already proven your health is not a priority.
The risk is very simple to manage. The true problem is 90% of society views a life of proper exercise, good healthy diet, and eliminating the intake of poisons into your body as some kind of impossible challenge that's "no fun." To each their own.
By comparison, there is no amount of alcohol that has been proven to be of benefit, even with moderation. It is quite clearly, a poison.
Stop lying. You're basing your statements on one flawed study. Notice the amounts consumed by the participants. They're way over what any reasonable person would call "moderate".
Also, this: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...
The only lie is thinking there has only been one damn study done on the effects of alcohol consumption over the last half century. I wasn't even talking about the flawed study in TFS, which is quite obviously showcasing more of an excessive or high consumption.
As I stated, newer evidence tends to highlight the fact that even moderation is not good for you when consuming a poison.
Even one drink a day can harm you.
Alcohol is a poison to the human body regardless of amount consumed, and there is no longer a point in debating it. Stupidity attempts to dismiss this fact in favor of a number of ignorant excuses to consume it.
So because one study shows that it may be dangerous to drink to the maximum recommended limit, all alcohol consumption is inherently dangerous, and there is absolutely no need to debate it?
Over the course of the last century, there has been far more than one study done on alcohol, with many trying to convince us of the benefits. Recent studies have dispelled with the illusions. No, a beer a day will not keep the doctor away.
Is a moderate amount of alcohol any worse for you than other habits? Likely not. Risk vs. reward. My point was more centered around dispelling the illusions that even moderation will eliminate risk. Put simply, it does not.
Looking at the aggregate, is alcohol in general good for society? Likely not. This is also the same society who legalizes a product like tobacco, which has proven to be one of the deadliest products ever created. Logic does not always follow capitalism. Greed does.
Red meat is a poison too, but I always see you stuffing a burger in your face.
The risk of consuming certain foods is often reduced or eliminated by simply adopting the concept of moderation.
By comparison, there is no amount of alcohol that has been proven to be of benefit, even with moderation. It is quite clearly, a poison.
Fuck yeah. And get rid of refined sugar, candies, and deep fried foods. Those, too, are poisons that are consumed by stupid people to make themselves feel better while destroying their bodies.
Ironically, this behavior is quite evident to be by design when reviewing the ingredients used to create McFood.
Yeast extracts and hydrolyzed proteins are considered excitotoxins, and are added to create that feel-good effect, and also make you crave it again.
Just another day in the land of Greed and Capitalism.
hardware randomize the time the LEDs stay on... Either a LFSR or a noise source hooked up to a comparator. That'll slow things down tremendously.
Or we could just stop using LEDs for every damn indicator on devices like this.
This is why I own electrical tape.
So consumption of alcohol is simply stupid?
Yes. The only reason it is legal today is because addiction demands it should be.
Could it be that a lot of people enjoy alcohol because it tastes good, and that we happen to enjoy a light buzz, without feeling the urge to get totally plastered?
Alcohol is a poison to the human body regardless of amount consumed, and there is no longer a point in debating it. Stupidity attempts to dismiss this fact in favor of a number of ignorant excuses to consume it.
No, that's supply and demand, a concept which while assumed to be a virtually ironclad economic law by capitalist thought is not actually capitalist.
Selling something that is not worth nearly the asking price tends to capitalize on the gullibility of a society who has been convinced that the cost is worth it.
Perhaps we ask the "gig" work graduates who are forced to move back in with Mom and Dad about supply and demand. I'm sure they'll have a few choice words to say about capitalism as they struggle to find how $100K worth of educational debt was worth it.
Humans have a no-bullshit psychological need for entertainment. Depression is a real condition that can be life-threatening, and entertainment is part of any mental health maintenance plan.
It's rather difficult for me to grasp what the fidget-spinner society of reality TV addicts defines as "entertainment" these days, since most of it is rather mindless and pointless, to include professional sports. The innocent fans that have lost their lives due to alcohol-fueled rioting after a game or match. The diehard fans who become so depressed due to sports gambling debts that they take their own lives. The players who have paid the ultimate price. Something as simple as meditation can be used to create that break or rest humans need in their lives to relax and mentally reset to remain healthy, and without a negative impact.
The advancement of human knowledge is an important and valuable contribution...but such contributions are impossible if there isn't a thriving economy present to fund the research. Sports are an important component of such an economy, and without them the economy would not function nearly as well.
One could also argue that tobacco helps feed a thriving economy, and without tobacco the economy would not function nearly as well. That doesn't mean a product that kills over 450,000 Americans every single year should be considered a good thing. Same goes for the billions spent and lives lost due to pointless warmongering. The advancement of human knowledge has sustained itself for thousands of years, even in the absence of funding. Humans tend to have a no-bullshit need to learn.
There are plenty of people working on a cancer cure, and there have been massive advances over the last couple years. If anything, capitalism hampers something like cancer research because treating it is more profitable than curing it and longer treatments are more profitable than short ones.
This is basically exactly my point.
Fortunately we have donation and tax driven organizations such as the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Health working on it.
Working on it only describes yet another method of securing millions in funding. The true test has yet to be performed; what will they actually do when they find a cure for a disease that generates hundreds of billions of dollars in recurring annual revenue, along with creating hundreds of thousands of deaths every year? (which the latter can be oddly measured as a benefit by government)
Perhaps that test has already happened. In that case, we already know the answer.
Nah, as they became more the norm bachelor degrees have transitioned to be closer to the job market instead of preparation for masters & doctorates.
Translation: The quality of the bachelors degree is defined by the fact that it is now the new high school diploma.
Oh, you wanted a quality education instead of just a piece of paper to hang on the wall? Then shell out another $100K for the masters degree.
Gotta love capitalism.
I think it's a pretty good thing we aren't depending on you for a cancer cure.
While this is true, the statements did offer one bit of clarity for the masses.
This describes exactly why there will never be a cancer cure.
Literally
I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means
Since copulate has never been classified as "colorful language", I'd say there's a very strong chance that the person in question here literally said Go Fuck Yourself.
Not even sure why editors chose to go all PC describing an event that was far from PC. Hell of a lot easier to call a horse a horse.
At least one chairman who has balls to say what he actually thinks instead of hiding behind insincere excuses. On the other hand I hope he won't cry when his critics start using stronger language as well.
What you call "balls" I define as Corporate Arrogance, and quite frankly, I'm sick and fucking tired of it.
It's amazing how we have anti-monopoly laws on the books, and yet we don't really do a damn thing from stopping mega-corps from buying 90% of the market, and colluding with the remaining 10% that comprise the remaining mega-corps. True competition is dead or dying, and the arrogant attitudes demonstrated by the worlds largest corporations prove it.
I can only hope that 10 companies worth of real competition are birthed from this cocksuckers arrogance to compete directly against the EpiPen, and he's forced to eat his words standing in front of the shareholders explaining why revenue has tanked.
Capitalism and Greed does not justify this kind of shit attitude that has created Corporate Arrogance. And it's high time consumers stop bending over and simply taking it when it happens.
Who the fuck names their kid "Reality"
The same flavor of idiot who labels that shit on TV "Reality".
...Greed is good. Yes, even when it motivates employers to choose the least expensive workers who can do the job adequately.
History has shown that greed can often create good things. Yes, this is true.
However, I want you to remember your statement as Greed drives to change history forever, replacing the human workforce with automation, because it's cheaper.
In the next half century, Greed will look to destroy the concept of human employment completely with the creation of AI. Note that it won't even take true AI to replace 80% of human workers. Near-AI solutions will be all it takes to prove a machine can do anything you can do in the workplace better, faster, and most importantly, cheaper.
Humanity has used and abused Greed throughout history. But unless we Solve for Greed, I do feel it will ultimately lead to our demise.
People will need to present secure documents (the classic slide show), edit movies, edit images, send text back. It really depends on the occupation and why the powerful or secure laptop is needed. Middle management trying to do a presentation in another nation? Collecting secure data from a factory production line or supplier in a distant nation? A VPN gives some time limit and security. Better than having airport staff clone the data or the clandestine services add malware during a few hours of "questions" at some airport. Full encryption might be ok, but what was done to the hardware? I think the idea of just sending a person will get more consideration too. The anomaly of interest is now anyone who travels a lot for their company or for work.
I don't disagree with your suggestions to maximize privacy and security in an ever-growing threatscape. The larger issue is convincing a society who doesn't give a shit about security. At all.
In the average US business, a security manager would likely be fired before successfully demanding and implementing such extreme measures upon the entire traveling community of executives, engineers, and marketeers. People despise this level of effort to secure themselves, and go to great measures to avoid it. It's so prolific that even after something like identity theft or corporate hacking occurs, users don't change behavior.
It's hard to explain that behavior, but it is the reality of the consumer base today. It's odd that when someone's physical life is threatened, they're quick to go out and buy a gun and arm themselves, but when their virtual life is threatened, they seemingly shrug it off and don't give a shit much about it.
Reality TV and bullshit program quality is the problem. People can find better quality shows online for the same price or cheaper. The learning channel is now the shit reality TV channel. Same with all of them. Provide a decent product and people will buy it...
The proliferation of Reality TV is driven by ratings.
When looking for a decent product start demanding society favor an intelligent audience instead of catering to the Honey Boo Boo generation of Kartrashians demanding shit content today.
TV without commercials would cost more....
Or, it could actually cost less in the long run.
I seriously struggle to understand the value-add of commercials these days, with all of the (commercial-free) cord cutting going on, as well as a large majority of consumers watching time-shifted content in order to fast forward through the damn commercials they now despise. Where and how exactly is revenue still being generated from commercials to justify the effort or the cost involved?
Personally, I can't wait until the industry gets a financial gut-check from this consumer shift, and broadcasters understand that they no longer have the power or justification to charge insane amounts of money for air time, which could cut costs considerably for all involved.
...the only way people will pay for that is a la carte, but neither the content owners nor the cable companies want that. Therefore they will kick and scream right up until the point they get thrown out the door.
Adapt or Die. Greed refuses to budge, so fuck 'em. They get what they deserve.