Well, $100 is a little exaggerated, at least in my area. I think we're paying around $40/month for basic cable, if you exclude the cost of internet service.
For Netflix, you've gotta include the cost of internet service if you use streaming. So that's ~$40 for internet + $23 for 2 Blurays & Streaming.
So when you look at it that way, it's $63/month for Netflix vs. $40/month for cable.
Of course, most of the stuff on cable is crap so Netflix's quality makes up for the higher cost I suppose.
Actually, while this may not apply to all cable providers, Time Warner's DVR service lets you pause and rewind live TV.
They also have a "Start From the Beginning" option in case you don't get to your TV 'til the show is almost over.
It's pretty handy, really. Though obviously it's no comparison to Netflix price-wise.
I'd argue that satire *is* serious discussion and constructive contribution.
When Johnathan Swift made his "Modest Proposal", he not only pointed out the biggest problem-causers of the Irish economy at the time, but he also presented a number of actual, achievable solutions in contrary to the famous "the rich should eat the poor's children" solution.
In other words, while satire is, at face value, generally a crude and offensive joke, the there is often an underlying message which is very real and poignant.
Keep in mind that the name is atheism, not antitheism. Thus, atheists are not opposed to religion, they are without religion.
Agnostics, on the other hand, are unconvinced in either direction. If religion did not exist, there would be nothing for them to be unconvinced about. Thus, without religion, there would be only atheists.
Earth was designed to let you kill, steal, ect. That doesn't mean you go around doing it though, does it?
GTA4 has plenty of non-illegal methods to enjoy yourself. You can drive a taxi, bust criminals, date women (and men), shoot pool, throw darts, go bowling, race your car in tournaments, and plenty of other things.
My wife dislikes the violence of the series, but she enjoys driving around the city taking in the sights. GTA4, more than its predecessors, allows you to do just that.
I don't have time to make my response as long as yours, but I'm curious -- if you're a software developer, but you don't charge anyone to use your software, how do you earn an income? Is software development just a hobby that you do in addition to a non-IP-related job? Or are the donations from fans of your software enough that you can support a family from them? The question isn't meant to be rhetorical. I'm honestly just curious.
Myself, I am both a writer and a parent. If I had a way in which I could get my writing out to anyone interested without charging them, but still be able to afford to buy food and clothing for my kids, then I would be all for it. Should I sacrifice my passion for writing just because I'm producing words rather than, say, chairs or bananas? Should all artistic and cultural endeavors be pursued only as hobbies?
Ultimately, it may just be a stream of data that you're spreading from person to person, but without someone devoting a huge chunk of their time into arranging that data into an enjoyable form, you would be left reading a bunch of gibberish. Of course, you're reading my post, so maybe that's not entirely an unappealing idea to you.;)
"It is true that the free duplication of this data means that the original creator may not get paid for every copy duplicated...but I submit that the expectation that he is entitled to receive money for every copy made is unnatural, unreasonable, needless, and ultimately harmful (as it encourages the deprivation of people's control over their own actions and over their own hardware which they have paid for)."
Would you be alright, then, if your boss came up to you tomorrow and told you that you would only be paid for 35 of the 40 hours you work each week? Or do you have the expectation that you are entitled to receive money for every hour's worth of labor that you have committed?
Quite correct. But what does make their points invalid is that they are spewing a bunch of unverified and highly debatable statistics, and presenting them as fact.
I'd like to think that I'm reasonable and open-minded... if they had presented data from a reputable, neutral source, I would definitely take it to heart -- and I might even be convinced to change positions, should the argument be strong enough. But when the opposition to universal health care can only produce baseless opinions and bogeymen, well, I have better ways to spend my time.
And by your logic, apples cows frogs potatoes moose.
It's not like modding you down makes a man in a black SUV show up at your front door to make you disappear. Being modded down simply means that popular opinion disagrees with you, and if that's fascism, then the entire country is made up of fascists, because there's a whole hell of a lot of things that popular opinion disagrees with -- for better or worse.
Right, I'm sure opinion articles from a Libertarian website are completely honest without a shred of bias. I can't help but notice that not a single one of those articles cites any sources.
Would you take me seriously if I started linking to Michael Moore's thoughts on health care, too?
Well, I can't speak about insurance as I don't know a whole lot about it. But I, for one, am quite pleased that drug companies have safety regulations. Even with the regulations, products like Vioxx are released into the market, and even the "safe" drugs have a list of side-effects (like "may cause diarrhea, heart attack, or death") as long as my arm. If that's how the industry is with regulations, what would it be like without them?
Also, drug companies in other countries (Bayer, for example) have substantially lower costs than their American-based counterparts (like Pfizer). Yet countries like Germany, where Bayer is based, have some form of universal health care -- which means, as the popular argument claims, much more red tape to go through.
In other words, non-US drug companies have higher regulation, yet lower costs -- which is a direct contradiction of your statement.
So, you would prefer to have the chance to feel warm and loving for yourself, rather than to let other people have the chance to be warm and healthy? That sure sounds a lot like the definition of greedy to me.
At what point did I, a parent, surrender the decision on how to appropriately raise my children to an unnamed minimum-wage store clerk?
I agree that flunking children shouldn't be playing games, but it's up to *me* to make that decision, not the local branch of a corporate entity, thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
If they were pretty, they probably wouldn't need the ego-boost they get from beauty pageants.
Well, $100 is a little exaggerated, at least in my area. I think we're paying around $40/month for basic cable, if you exclude the cost of internet service.
For Netflix, you've gotta include the cost of internet service if you use streaming. So that's ~$40 for internet + $23 for 2 Blurays & Streaming.
So when you look at it that way, it's $63/month for Netflix vs. $40/month for cable.
Of course, most of the stuff on cable is crap so Netflix's quality makes up for the higher cost I suppose.
Actually, while this may not apply to all cable providers, Time Warner's DVR service lets you pause and rewind live TV. They also have a "Start From the Beginning" option in case you don't get to your TV 'til the show is almost over. It's pretty handy, really. Though obviously it's no comparison to Netflix price-wise.
Au contraire, A.L.F. took the basic formula of Mork & Mindy and improved it several times over.
I hear the Greeks have set up their own team and called it Hieronymus.
I'd argue that satire *is* serious discussion and constructive contribution. When Johnathan Swift made his "Modest Proposal", he not only pointed out the biggest problem-causers of the Irish economy at the time, but he also presented a number of actual, achievable solutions in contrary to the famous "the rich should eat the poor's children" solution. In other words, while satire is, at face value, generally a crude and offensive joke, the there is often an underlying message which is very real and poignant.
Keep in mind that the name is atheism, not antitheism. Thus, atheists are not opposed to religion, they are without religion.
Agnostics, on the other hand, are unconvinced in either direction. If religion did not exist, there would be nothing for them to be unconvinced about. Thus, without religion, there would be only atheists.
Earth was designed to let you kill, steal, ect. That doesn't mean you go around doing it though, does it? GTA4 has plenty of non-illegal methods to enjoy yourself. You can drive a taxi, bust criminals, date women (and men), shoot pool, throw darts, go bowling, race your car in tournaments, and plenty of other things. My wife dislikes the violence of the series, but she enjoys driving around the city taking in the sights. GTA4, more than its predecessors, allows you to do just that.
I don't have time to make my response as long as yours, but I'm curious -- if you're a software developer, but you don't charge anyone to use your software, how do you earn an income? Is software development just a hobby that you do in addition to a non-IP-related job? Or are the donations from fans of your software enough that you can support a family from them? The question isn't meant to be rhetorical. I'm honestly just curious.
;)
Myself, I am both a writer and a parent. If I had a way in which I could get my writing out to anyone interested without charging them, but still be able to afford to buy food and clothing for my kids, then I would be all for it. Should I sacrifice my passion for writing just because I'm producing words rather than, say, chairs or bananas? Should all artistic and cultural endeavors be pursued only as hobbies?
Ultimately, it may just be a stream of data that you're spreading from person to person, but without someone devoting a huge chunk of their time into arranging that data into an enjoyable form, you would be left reading a bunch of gibberish. Of course, you're reading my post, so maybe that's not entirely an unappealing idea to you.
"It is true that the free duplication of this data means that the original creator may not get paid for every copy duplicated...but I submit that the expectation that he is entitled to receive money for every copy made is unnatural, unreasonable, needless, and ultimately harmful (as it encourages the deprivation of people's control over their own actions and over their own hardware which they have paid for)."
Would you be alright, then, if your boss came up to you tomorrow and told you that you would only be paid for 35 of the 40 hours you work each week? Or do you have the expectation that you are entitled to receive money for every hour's worth of labor that you have committed?
Considering the amount of wordspew that makes up the internet, I agree wholeheartedly.
Did anyone else read that as "The thing has 32 hit points"?
Then what function does it serve?
If it wasn't asking for opinions the forum code could just as easily have been programmed to scan for certain words and mod accordingly.
Quite correct. But what does make their points invalid is that they are spewing a bunch of unverified and highly debatable statistics, and presenting them as fact.
I'd like to think that I'm reasonable and open-minded... if they had presented data from a reputable, neutral source, I would definitely take it to heart -- and I might even be convinced to change positions, should the argument be strong enough. But when the opposition to universal health care can only produce baseless opinions and bogeymen, well, I have better ways to spend my time.
And by your logic, apples cows frogs potatoes moose.
It's not like modding you down makes a man in a black SUV show up at your front door to make you disappear. Being modded down simply means that popular opinion disagrees with you, and if that's fascism, then the entire country is made up of fascists, because there's a whole hell of a lot of things that popular opinion disagrees with -- for better or worse.
Do you mean to suggest that voting for one's opinion is an element of fascism? If so, consider me a full-blown fascist.
Right, I'm sure opinion articles from a Libertarian website are completely honest without a shred of bias. I can't help but notice that not a single one of those articles cites any sources.
Would you take me seriously if I started linking to Michael Moore's thoughts on health care, too?
Well, I can't speak about insurance as I don't know a whole lot about it. But I, for one, am quite pleased that drug companies have safety regulations. Even with the regulations, products like Vioxx are released into the market, and even the "safe" drugs have a list of side-effects (like "may cause diarrhea, heart attack, or death") as long as my arm. If that's how the industry is with regulations, what would it be like without them?
Also, drug companies in other countries (Bayer, for example) have substantially lower costs than their American-based counterparts (like Pfizer). Yet countries like Germany, where Bayer is based, have some form of universal health care -- which means, as the popular argument claims, much more red tape to go through.
In other words, non-US drug companies have higher regulation, yet lower costs -- which is a direct contradiction of your statement.
Isn't health insurance in a free market right now? Isn't that the reason that so many people are uninsured?
Yay! I have the CHOICE to not afford Insurance Company A, or to not afford Insurance Company B. Thank god for the free market.
To make money.
So, you would prefer to have the chance to feel warm and loving for yourself, rather than to let other people have the chance to be warm and healthy? That sure sounds a lot like the definition of greedy to me.
So, in other words, it was more efficient?
At what point did I, a parent, surrender the decision on how to appropriately raise my children to an unnamed minimum-wage store clerk?
I agree that flunking children shouldn't be playing games, but it's up to *me* to make that decision, not the local branch of a corporate entity, thank you very much.
8 inches on day 1? What kind of super-freak growth hormones is this woman taking?