People are surprisingly bad at handling subscriptions. There are probably millions, or even tens of millions, of Netflix subscribers who haven't watched anything in months.
As you imply, the correct way to think about it isn't as a subscription that you 'just have', but as you buying another month of the service each time payment day comes round. Strictly, the rational thing would be to habitually cancel at the end of each subscription month, and only re-subscribe when you next sit down to watch something. Few people seem able (or bothered) to do this, though.
As "sims 2" already pointed out, they're in a different world in terms of price point, even just to rent. It's true that good movies are made available to rent a la carte long before they hit the subscription services' libraries, but the difference in price is enormous.
If you only watch one or two movies a month, maybe it would be a reasonable alternative.
You're assuming a selection bias. Combat can cause mental health issues. No reason to assume the military is a magnet for people with pre-existing mental health trouble.
Completely agree. Firefox should just focus on being a really good 'core browser'. I don't want frills and extras for social bookmarking, file-sharing, or note-taking. I don't want them continually dumbing-down the UI, either. (Remember when you could disable image loading without jumping into about:config?)
Chrome is kicking their ass, and it's not because Chrome has lots of pointless extra features. It just works really well.
My favourite form of this is the old Fruit found to escalate risk of cancer, according to local blogger. This sort of deliberately obtuse order is bordering on being deliberately misleading, but I suppose it doesn't quite count.
That something is 'in public' doesn't mean you're free to copy it.
Walk around a city and you might see countless TVs. That doesn't mean you're allowed to record them and sell the videos - that's still copyright infringement.
I agree it's a shame to lose access to old Flash content, but really, some mythical "security" unicorn? Are you denying that we improve security by banning Flash, or are you just being snarky?
Well apparently not, no. Slashdot might care about this stuff (myself included), but as far as I can tell no-one else really does.
Alternative architectures like ARM exist, and projects like RISC-V exist, and I think they're great, but I don't see them having a big impact on the CPUs that real people buy for day-to-day workstations and servers. Maybe that's cynical, but here we are.
seriously, you are stupid
Try arguing like an adult, rather than a petulant toddler.
Slashdot Mirror
People are surprisingly bad at handling subscriptions. There are probably millions, or even tens of millions, of Netflix subscribers who haven't watched anything in months.
As you imply, the correct way to think about it isn't as a subscription that you 'just have', but as you buying another month of the service each time payment day comes round. Strictly, the rational thing would be to habitually cancel at the end of each subscription month, and only re-subscribe when you next sit down to watch something. Few people seem able (or bothered) to do this, though.
As "sims 2" already pointed out, they're in a different world in terms of price point, even just to rent. It's true that good movies are made available to rent a la carte long before they hit the subscription services' libraries, but the difference in price is enormous.
If you only watch one or two movies a month, maybe it would be a reasonable alternative.
Probably come out cheaper
I sincerely doubt it.
One of the main reasons so many people are dropping cable in favour of streaming subscriptions, is the price.
Reminds me of a line from The Mythical Man Month.
It is a very humbling experience to make a multimillion-dollar mistake, but it is also very memorable.
I was still holding only my anti-Intel angst from my Amiga days
Right, I mean, only a moron would blindly hold a grudge against a CPU company for years and years, right?
Presumably the same sort of moron who lacks the ability to regulate their own emotions, or use paragraphs.
Really now, Mozilla. Who on Earth wants VR support in their browser?
Stop dumbing it down. Stop adding useless garbage bloat. Make the damn browser better.
Who cares if it works? It's infuriating, insulting, and doesn't belong on Slashdot.
You're assuming a selection bias. Combat can cause mental health issues. No reason to assume the military is a magnet for people with pre-existing mental health trouble.
exactly half
Depends on adoption, no?
If I made a WooteryCoin fork, and everyone rightly ignored it, it wouldn't impact the value of BitCoin at all, right?
Ah, the old vote for the worst guy because things will have to get worse before they get better.
Always been wrong in the past, and still wrong now.
Last I checked, a Bitcoin address can't be convicted of a crime.
There's this bitcoin thing based on that concept.
Except of course that Bitcoin wallets don't say your name.
Completely agree. Firefox should just focus on being a really good 'core browser'. I don't want frills and extras for social bookmarking, file-sharing, or note-taking. I don't want them continually dumbing-down the UI, either. (Remember when you could disable image loading without jumping into about:config?)
Chrome is kicking their ass, and it's not because Chrome has lots of pointless extra features. It just works really well.
My favourite form of this is the old Fruit found to escalate risk of cancer, according to local blogger. This sort of deliberately obtuse order is bordering on being deliberately misleading, but I suppose it doesn't quite count.
I feel you're avoiding my point. Making Flash unavailable in ordinary browsers does improve security. There are no unicorns involved.
Disagree. Flash was a pile of crap, far less secure than, say, Chrome. Eliminating that easy attack surface makes things harder for the bad guys.
It also enabled cross-OS, cross-browser exploits.
That something is 'in public' doesn't mean you're free to copy it.
Walk around a city and you might see countless TVs. That doesn't mean you're allowed to record them and sell the videos - that's still copyright infringement.
Yep, clickbait horseshit. Deliberately thin on information.
A good title should be as informative as possible given the space constraint.
Dalvik/ART and Java-on-server still need to be purged off the face of the Earth.
Well, let's have it then. Why?
I agree it's a shame to lose access to old Flash content, but really, some mythical "security" unicorn? Are you denying that we improve security by banning Flash, or are you just being snarky?
Talking this way is why people think libertarians are crazy.
A good amount of righteous outrage, but just enough bitterness and blustering to be worthy of the AC name. Nicely done.
they don't care about their secrets?
Well apparently not, no. Slashdot might care about this stuff (myself included), but as far as I can tell no-one else really does.
Alternative architectures like ARM exist, and projects like RISC-V exist, and I think they're great, but I don't see them having a big impact on the CPUs that real people buy for day-to-day workstations and servers. Maybe that's cynical, but here we are.
seriously, you are stupid
Try arguing like an adult, rather than a petulant toddler.
they could get an edge over intel if they would open source theirs when intel never would
But like I said, very few people really seem to care. You explanation isn't proof, it's one possible explanation.
PS you're fucking stupid
What a compelling argument!
No, don't be absurd.
The 9/11 truthers? Just as stupid today as they were yesterday.