Well, it is a pretty dumb topic for slashdot. More appropriate to a blog or the old usenet. There's no news here and all the nerd stuff is implausible handwaving.
Don't like his work either. It's science fiction without the science, and the fiction that's left over isn't that good. He would be better as a surrealist painter.
It's $10/month for me, no big deal. And broadcast really doesn't have that much. Ie, Doctor Who, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and so forth. Sure, wait long enough on broadcast and stuff shows up in syndication, and you will get "edited for content/time" movies as well.
If I didn't have internet then your argument might make sense as adding in the boradband capable ISP is by far the bulk of the cost for streaming.
Of course, you could be like where my mother is; the internet is terrible and digital TV can't be received except for one lousy channel. So paying for the lowest tier of satellite is needed to get the local television stations.
And the drawbacks to cable/DVR - no on-demand shows (except a few curated ones), a limited selection of shows at any time, amazingly overpriced subscription fees, and terrible service.
I don't like commercials, but compared to cable/DVR I'd rather have Hulu with commercials. And Hulu has the option to pay more for no commercials anyway, same price as Netflix. The super-cheap option is subsidized by commercials.
And I do think the "subsidized by commercials" is a bad deal. If they make enough money on broadcast TV with commercials to build and maintain thousands of transmitters across the country with local staff and local programming, then someone should be able to offer a free streaming service paid for 100% with commercials.
(I suspect there is Hollywood's finger in the mix here; for broadcast TV you get a lower quality signal; but with streaming there's a high quality signal and there's a morbid dread in Hollywood that someone might be able to make a copy for free. So Hollywood is going to charge more money for HDTV shows than broadcast quality shows.)
And it only applies to the lowest tier. The normal version without any commercials is same as Netflix price. The more expensive "live TV" version is kind of useless without a DVR like feature (we've had DVRs and VCRs so long now that few people watch TV live anymore except for sports).
Agreed, deprecating the old version in preference for the new version is not a good way to retain either developers or customers.
When Windows 8 came out, the metro apps were just horrible. It was pretty obvious that they got the summer interns to write them before W8 released in the fall, because I can't imagine anyone professional standing behind those. I know Microsoft is not very good at development, but for something they were pushing that hard they could have shuffled around all the resources they had and put some good people on it.
The Windows Phone worst enemy was Microsoft itself. It wasn't a bad UI, what feels stupid on a desktop computer works well on a phone. But Microsoft added a burden to it that it must be Windows compatible, and vice versa. No one liked those Windows Metro apps, they were of very low quality, and overall the whole feel is about trying to copy and catchup to the competition instead of being its own concept. The reason Windows became popular was the amount of backwards compatibility it had; you could run older applications on newer versions and didn't need to repurchase all your old software. Windows Phone broke that idea in some ways.
If it had been a phone designed to be a good phone, it could have succeeded. Instead if was designed to grab a slice of the mobile apps market.
Well, I don't have such a button, and Netflix so far seems to do what it does very well. But don't worry, there is plenty of competition still. I also see the top three plus youtube present on buttons for some players.
It's sort of like a radio alarm clock, only it's the cost of 10 radio alarm clocks in one device. Instead of the radio it uses the internet. You can put it in your kitchen too. Best of all you can yell at it!
For example, when the alarm goes off in the morning and you too sleepy to reach over and turn it off: You: googferl shna mrp GH: You said "buy all new Google products, is this correct?" You: gogfap ufa peeu nowa GH: You said "turn on the blender now, is this correct?" You: Uu fah ken boks shuup GH: You seem to be in distress; contacting emergency services now!
Do you want to fly on an airplane designed, built, and maintained, by a single person? I certainly don't. A one person coding shop should not be taking on projects of that scale. If someone without a strong security background is asked to design and build security, that person should either reject the contract or hire an expert. If I'm asked to perform surgery on a patient as an outsourced contractor, it is my ethical duty to refuse no matter how many episodes of E.R. I have watched.
I'm not approving of MD5. I'm saying that if someone uses MD5 out of laziness or ignorance, then they better be on an application or system where there is no need for security. If anyone read that who uses MD5 then they should be shamed into doing something else.
On the other hand, I can barely understand how anyone dumb enough to use MD5 gets put into a position where they get to make critical security choices. Except... startups or other companies who think it's a waste of money to deal with security; if their goal is to get bought out quickly then quality is an unnecessary speedbump in their fantasy.
That example is good. The whole question is wrong, Stack Overflow shouldn't be a site for brand new programmers. Spend some time learning the language before you ask how to do something that anyone with one month's experience can do. In the early days of Stack Overflow the questions were very interesting questions, about subtleties in a language, mysterious problems to overcome, and so forth. Now the questions are "help me do my homework!"
This is why if feels so wrong. Any idiot can answer, but you have to grind the point before you can comment. Newcomers will be confused and likely look at the answers first. But over time even the commenters have become clueless, so you can't trust the comments either anymore. The only way to use it is to not trust it; read all the answers and comments, if it feels off then follow the "related questions" instead, and soon you may be at an older question answered back when people who actually knew things participated.
Add a link to the markdown info page. Many people browse with noscript, which makes some of these blog/forum oriented sites extremely vague (and no, they do not all use the same mark up/down syntax and the syntax will likely change in a couple of years anyway).
It's a bit like Yelp. The overwhelming urge to pretend to be a serious critic and post nonsense immediately. Is anyone spending a few days to research a correct answer and provide legitimate references to back it up, or do they just have a rush to get an answer in sooner and thus get more points?
I see answers that have no resemblance to the actual questions. The reason the questions are usually asked is because they're not simple questions that can be answered with a quick google search. And yet the people who answer seem to start answering with the obvious responses. Even if the question says "I already tried using X.y.z, but it didn' work", you will see the first or second answer say "you need to use X.y.z" It's down to the 10th answer with 1 or 0 votes before you see some sign of an intelligent answer that understood the question.
And yet the rules have resulted in extremely low quality answers, many of which are utterly wrong and unable to be corrected according to the rules. Stack overflow has become a cesspool of bad advice; albeit a cesspool with a set of rigid rules.
It's a bit like the US Congress, only without the high minded sense of cooperation, duty, and high mindedness that Congress has.
Rules such as "All C questions must be answered in the form only suitable for C++", or "For a question about a programming language, always give an answer from the Visual Studio manual in preference to a language's official published standard."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it is a pretty dumb topic for slashdot. More appropriate to a blog or the old usenet. There's no news here and all the nerd stuff is implausible handwaving.
Don't like his work either. It's science fiction without the science, and the fiction that's left over isn't that good. He would be better as a surrealist painter.
Holy crap. Broadcast TV doesn't even show that many ads at the breaks.
If the amount of money they say my watching commcercials can earn companies, they owe me $10/month as the very least.
It's $10/month for me, no big deal. And broadcast really doesn't have that much. Ie, Doctor Who, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and so forth. Sure, wait long enough on broadcast and stuff shows up in syndication, and you will get "edited for content/time" movies as well.
If I didn't have internet then your argument might make sense as adding in the boradband capable ISP is by far the bulk of the cost for streaming.
Of course, you could be like where my mother is; the internet is terrible and digital TV can't be received except for one lousy channel. So paying for the lowest tier of satellite is needed to get the local television stations.
Netflix also got there by having streaming early on that was better than Hulu and without commercials.
And the drawbacks to cable/DVR - no on-demand shows (except a few curated ones), a limited selection of shows at any time, amazingly overpriced subscription fees, and terrible service.
I don't like commercials, but compared to cable/DVR I'd rather have Hulu with commercials. And Hulu has the option to pay more for no commercials anyway, same price as Netflix. The super-cheap option is subsidized by commercials.
And I do think the "subsidized by commercials" is a bad deal. If they make enough money on broadcast TV with commercials to build and maintain thousands of transmitters across the country with local staff and local programming, then someone should be able to offer a free streaming service paid for 100% with commercials.
(I suspect there is Hollywood's finger in the mix here; for broadcast TV you get a lower quality signal; but with streaming there's a high quality signal and there's a morbid dread in Hollywood that someone might be able to make a copy for free. So Hollywood is going to charge more money for HDTV shows than broadcast quality shows.)
Wasn't their old model free with ads, and monthly fee with ads? This definitely caused a lot of people to prefer Netflix at the time.
And it only applies to the lowest tier. The normal version without any commercials is same as Netflix price. The more expensive "live TV" version is kind of useless without a DVR like feature (we've had DVRs and VCRs so long now that few people watch TV live anymore except for sports).
Agreed, deprecating the old version in preference for the new version is not a good way to retain either developers or customers.
When Windows 8 came out, the metro apps were just horrible. It was pretty obvious that they got the summer interns to write them before W8 released in the fall, because I can't imagine anyone professional standing behind those. I know Microsoft is not very good at development, but for something they were pushing that hard they could have shuffled around all the resources they had and put some good people on it.
The person I know who's a windows phone fan hates Microsoft, he's a Linux guy.
The Windows Phone worst enemy was Microsoft itself. It wasn't a bad UI, what feels stupid on a desktop computer works well on a phone. But Microsoft added a burden to it that it must be Windows compatible, and vice versa. No one liked those Windows Metro apps, they were of very low quality, and overall the whole feel is about trying to copy and catchup to the competition instead of being its own concept. The reason Windows became popular was the amount of backwards compatibility it had; you could run older applications on newer versions and didn't need to repurchase all your old software. Windows Phone broke that idea in some ways.
If it had been a phone designed to be a good phone, it could have succeeded. Instead if was designed to grab a slice of the mobile apps market.
Well, I don't have such a button, and Netflix so far seems to do what it does very well. But don't worry, there is plenty of competition still. I also see the top three plus youtube present on buttons for some players.
No, the two states are crashing and rebooting.
It's sort of like a radio alarm clock, only it's the cost of 10 radio alarm clocks in one device. Instead of the radio it uses the internet. You can put it in your kitchen too. Best of all you can yell at it!
For example, when the alarm goes off in the morning and you too sleepy to reach over and turn it off:
You: googferl shna mrp
GH: You said "buy all new Google products, is this correct?"
You: gogfap ufa peeu nowa
GH: You said "turn on the blender now, is this correct?"
You: Uu fah ken boks shuup
GH: You seem to be in distress; contacting emergency services now!
Do you want to fly on an airplane designed, built, and maintained, by a single person? I certainly don't. A one person coding shop should not be taking on projects of that scale. If someone without a strong security background is asked to design and build security, that person should either reject the contract or hire an expert. If I'm asked to perform surgery on a patient as an outsourced contractor, it is my ethical duty to refuse no matter how many episodes of E.R. I have watched.
I'm not approving of MD5. I'm saying that if someone uses MD5 out of laziness or ignorance, then they better be on an application or system where there is no need for security. If anyone read that who uses MD5 then they should be shamed into doing something else.
On the other hand, I can barely understand how anyone dumb enough to use MD5 gets put into a position where they get to make critical security choices. Except... startups or other companies who think it's a waste of money to deal with security; if their goal is to get bought out quickly then quality is an unnecessary speedbump in their fantasy.
That example is good. The whole question is wrong, Stack Overflow shouldn't be a site for brand new programmers. Spend some time learning the language before you ask how to do something that anyone with one month's experience can do. In the early days of Stack Overflow the questions were very interesting questions, about subtleties in a language, mysterious problems to overcome, and so forth. Now the questions are "help me do my homework!"
Yup, I rarely find quality answers on stack overflow, but I do find links to other sources of information that lead to good answers.
This is why if feels so wrong. Any idiot can answer, but you have to grind the point before you can comment. Newcomers will be confused and likely look at the answers first. But over time even the commenters have become clueless, so you can't trust the comments either anymore. The only way to use it is to not trust it; read all the answers and comments, if it feels off then follow the "related questions" instead, and soon you may be at an older question answered back when people who actually knew things participated.
Add a link to the markdown info page. Many people browse with noscript, which makes some of these blog/forum oriented sites extremely vague (and no, they do not all use the same mark up/down syntax and the syntax will likely change in a couple of years anyway).
It's a bit like Yelp. The overwhelming urge to pretend to be a serious critic and post nonsense immediately. Is anyone spending a few days to research a correct answer and provide legitimate references to back it up, or do they just have a rush to get an answer in sooner and thus get more points?
I see answers that have no resemblance to the actual questions. The reason the questions are usually asked is because they're not simple questions that can be answered with a quick google search. And yet the people who answer seem to start answering with the obvious responses. Even if the question says "I already tried using X.y.z, but it didn' work", you will see the first or second answer say "you need to use X.y.z" It's down to the 10th answer with 1 or 0 votes before you see some sign of an intelligent answer that understood the question.
And yet the rules have resulted in extremely low quality answers, many of which are utterly wrong and unable to be corrected according to the rules. Stack overflow has become a cesspool of bad advice; albeit a cesspool with a set of rigid rules.
It's a bit like the US Congress, only without the high minded sense of cooperation, duty, and high mindedness that Congress has.
Rules such as "All C questions must be answered in the form only suitable for C++", or "For a question about a programming language, always give an answer from the Visual Studio manual in preference to a language's official published standard."
"I'm sorry, you can't flag this post until you earn 374 more credits."