In the past you could never subscribe to one thing and get it all. Netflix was great early because you got all the older content and you could watch it anytime. Ie, you want to watch a particular older movie and Netflix would have it whereas the cable service might have it in rotation once every two or three years. Sure, TV Land would show older TV shows, but just one episode a day and almost never in order.
These days I see some streaming services still on a schedule - when I tried to watch someting for Adult Swim on the computer, it said "next showing at 11:00pm", making me wonder what was the point of even streaming? It's even worse than being on cable with a DVR or VCR. Other streaming services seem to offer only a subset of what they normally have, and dole it out a little bit at a time (ie even paid CBS service won't let you see an entire season at once). They just don't seem to see the value of what Netflix offers and aren't attempting to replicate it.
Follow-on here. I saw this same thing with DirecTV. Some channels would demand a big price increase and DirecTV would refuse, and there'd be a standoff. Most of the time the content provider would relent though. Now they're playing sort of the same game with streaming services.
I don't consider Hulu or Amazon Prime, because I already have Netflix. It goes both ways, don't assume everyone is a cult member and already has Amazon so that Netflix is the add-on. Amazon and Hulu still have fewer offerings overall, and Amazon charges *extra* for the few programs I do want to see.
But if you've got all three then drop at least one (probably hulu, it seems amazingly redundant except for a tiny handful of things).
I think the issue is that content owners want their own piece of the pie by offering their own service. They were perfectly happy to license all the content to cable and satellite providers. But they see Netflix profits and popularity and they try to get in on that, often with overpriced and underwhelming services (ie CBS).
Trying to gain exclusive access to content, or grant it to a single party, is ultimately going to bring in fewer profits to the content owner.
Netflix after the price increase will still be very inexpensive, probably the best value out there for streaming. I give a larger amount per month to NPR. It's just a fraction of the cost of my ISP, a fraction of the cost of my phone service, and a very small fraction of a typical cable or satellite subscription.
But I have learned that the less expensive something is, the more people complain if the price jumps marginally. If something is free and then later they ask for a few cents, people will complain the loudest. But if a cable subscription goes from $120/mo up to $125/mo, most subscribers won't even blink. Certainly the media won't be notified about that $5 increase and it won't be a Slashdot story. But a $0.99 increase on Netflix and people are talking...
It's till the best value for the dollar by far if you don't count ISP cost. These days the ISP is taken for granted. Even with a trivial price increase it still remains the cheapest legal service. Better offerings overall than other streaming services, minimal buffering delays because of adaptive streaming, and high quality of its own shows (I know they push these hard, but they're a tiny fraction of why people subscribe).
Many of those casinos are not on actual reservations and would fall under US jurisdiction. You just need to be pickier about where you go to dispose of your extra cash.
Gifting to native American tribes because they're sovereign doesn't make sense. If the US can't so them, then they can't sue the US for patent infringement either. It's the same as if the patents were gifted to Tonga.
But almost no one buys a speaker for $400 unless they're either giving a public concert or they're one of those crazy audiophiles, neither of which would be satisfied with a Google speaker.
I still don't know what it is, or what the Apple competitor is. I don't think I want to find out, I'm afraid it will remove the rest of my hope for humanity.
One of the older translations, but definitely not one of the most accurate.
Although 666 is indeed the number in most texts, the various translations are all going to agree. But there is an old manuscript and a papyrus fragment that list 616. Not all that important, as with hand made copies there were lots of variations, sometimes mistakes, some added text, some missing verses, etc.
Generally, I see people that like to splurge in one area also splurge in many places. Individually the purchases may be affordable, but they're also an indicator that there may be larger financial problems lurking.
I have a friend like this; he thinks I'm being silly about his extra purchases of electronic gadgets that he doesn't need, or overtipping at restaurants, and so forth. He buys DVDs for something he's only ever going to watch once. He's very much an impulse buyer. But then he'll also find it frustrating that he's having to stretch the paycheck at the end of the month. He doesn't seem to make the connection between spending up front and being short of cash later on.
I don't drink coffee, saving me a ton of money. I am honestly baffled by how much these things cost. Sometimes I get dragged along to some cafe by friends and even a cup of tea made with a bag is a few dollars, and the cheapest baked good to go with it is at least 10 times the cost than if you bought it at the grocery store.
That's how people justify spending more than they should. Sure, $1.40 a day, not much broken down. But consider that the people with this way of thinking are applying this thinking to everything in their lives; auto payments, house payments, getting the extra premium cable channels, getting a higher data plan, getting the name brand breakfast cereal, etc. But if they got the phone that was only $0.70 a day, they'd have an extra $500 to save or spend. That phone that costs half as much is just as good in every way except for the brag factor.
Yup, a lot of people think this way too. They look at the cost per month, not the total cost. Then they start seeing a $50/mo vs $55/mo and think it's not so much, and $60/mo is not that much more even... Pretty soon they're spending $250-$1000 more over the life of the product. Even worse if interest is involved.
I think there are a lot of people who think they have disposable income. As in, they see something they want, the checking account isn't empty, so why not buy it? Or worse, the limit on their credit card isn't reached yet, so why not buy it? I see a lot of people who just aren't good at thinking long term.
It's good the Navy does this, but the corporate world is just as bad. Hiring people based on some certificate covering simplistic skills but which don't certify for competence of deep understanding, versus hiring someone with expertise who knows the fundamentals and can build on top of those.
Sure, maybe there were three or four days of people programming this way before someone decided to make it symbolic. It's still somewhat common to at least look at the hexadecimal (or octal if you're on a pdp11). I look at core dumps all the time, I don't have any magical tools that point to where the bug is. It's called problem solving and it's a lot like solving puzzles.
That statement though is typical media ignorance though. People write about what they don't know, and aren't professional enough to actually learn something about the topic first. Professionalism is expensive so these magazines don't want professionals. You see this in Hollywood writers too. Crime shows, superhero shows, historical dramas, medical dramas, and so forth, all have amazing levels of bullshit in all areas. Most of us see the bullshit that applies to stuff we're familiar with but may not notice the other mounds of the stuff piling up.
Writers aim for their audience. If the audience is generally stupid, then the writing level will be stupid too.
Slashdot Mirror
In the past you could never subscribe to one thing and get it all. Netflix was great early because you got all the older content and you could watch it anytime. Ie, you want to watch a particular older movie and Netflix would have it whereas the cable service might have it in rotation once every two or three years. Sure, TV Land would show older TV shows, but just one episode a day and almost never in order.
These days I see some streaming services still on a schedule - when I tried to watch someting for Adult Swim on the computer, it said "next showing at 11:00pm", making me wonder what was the point of even streaming? It's even worse than being on cable with a DVR or VCR. Other streaming services seem to offer only a subset of what they normally have, and dole it out a little bit at a time (ie even paid CBS service won't let you see an entire season at once). They just don't seem to see the value of what Netflix offers and aren't attempting to replicate it.
Follow-on here. I saw this same thing with DirecTV. Some channels would demand a big price increase and DirecTV would refuse, and there'd be a standoff. Most of the time the content provider would relent though. Now they're playing sort of the same game with streaming services.
I don't consider Hulu or Amazon Prime, because I already have Netflix. It goes both ways, don't assume everyone is a cult member and already has Amazon so that Netflix is the add-on. Amazon and Hulu still have fewer offerings overall, and Amazon charges *extra* for the few programs I do want to see.
But if you've got all three then drop at least one (probably hulu, it seems amazingly redundant except for a tiny handful of things).
I think the issue is that content owners want their own piece of the pie by offering their own service. They were perfectly happy to license all the content to cable and satellite providers. But they see Netflix profits and popularity and they try to get in on that, often with overpriced and underwhelming services (ie CBS).
Trying to gain exclusive access to content, or grant it to a single party, is ultimately going to bring in fewer profits to the content owner.
Netflix after the price increase will still be very inexpensive, probably the best value out there for streaming. I give a larger amount per month to NPR. It's just a fraction of the cost of my ISP, a fraction of the cost of my phone service, and a very small fraction of a typical cable or satellite subscription.
But I have learned that the less expensive something is, the more people complain if the price jumps marginally. If something is free and then later they ask for a few cents, people will complain the loudest. But if a cable subscription goes from $120/mo up to $125/mo, most subscribers won't even blink. Certainly the media won't be notified about that $5 increase and it won't be a Slashdot story. But a $0.99 increase on Netflix and people are talking...
Just get a TV?
It's till the best value for the dollar by far if you don't count ISP cost. These days the ISP is taken for granted. Even with a trivial price increase it still remains the cheapest legal service. Better offerings overall than other streaming services, minimal buffering delays because of adaptive streaming, and high quality of its own shows (I know they push these hard, but they're a tiny fraction of why people subscribe).
I sniffed at the story.
Many of those casinos are not on actual reservations and would fall under US jurisdiction. You just need to be pickier about where you go to dispose of your extra cash.
Gifting to native American tribes because they're sovereign doesn't make sense. If the US can't so them, then they can't sue the US for patent infringement either. It's the same as if the patents were gifted to Tonga.
But almost no one buys a speaker for $400 unless they're either giving a public concert or they're one of those crazy audiophiles, neither of which would be satisfied with a Google speaker.
I still don't know what it is, or what the Apple competitor is. I don't think I want to find out, I'm afraid it will remove the rest of my hope for humanity.
We have an external company that does penetration testing, which definitely find stuff we don't catch in code reviews.
They can take my dynamite when they pry it out of my cold mangled hands.
One of the older translations, but definitely not one of the most accurate.
Although 666 is indeed the number in most texts, the various translations are all going to agree. But there is an old manuscript and a papyrus fragment that list 616. Not all that important, as with hand made copies there were lots of variations, sometimes mistakes, some added text, some missing verses, etc.
Generally, I see people that like to splurge in one area also splurge in many places. Individually the purchases may be affordable, but they're also an indicator that there may be larger financial problems lurking.
I have a friend like this; he thinks I'm being silly about his extra purchases of electronic gadgets that he doesn't need, or overtipping at restaurants, and so forth. He buys DVDs for something he's only ever going to watch once. He's very much an impulse buyer. But then he'll also find it frustrating that he's having to stretch the paycheck at the end of the month. He doesn't seem to make the connection between spending up front and being short of cash later on.
I don't drink coffee, saving me a ton of money. I am honestly baffled by how much these things cost. Sometimes I get dragged along to some cafe by friends and even a cup of tea made with a bag is a few dollars, and the cheapest baked good to go with it is at least 10 times the cost than if you bought it at the grocery store.
That's how people justify spending more than they should. Sure, $1.40 a day, not much broken down. But consider that the people with this way of thinking are applying this thinking to everything in their lives; auto payments, house payments, getting the extra premium cable channels, getting a higher data plan, getting the name brand breakfast cereal, etc. But if they got the phone that was only $0.70 a day, they'd have an extra $500 to save or spend. That phone that costs half as much is just as good in every way except for the brag factor.
Yup, a lot of people think this way too. They look at the cost per month, not the total cost. Then they start seeing a $50/mo vs $55/mo and think it's not so much, and $60/mo is not that much more even... Pretty soon they're spending $250-$1000 more over the life of the product. Even worse if interest is involved.
I think there are a lot of people who think they have disposable income. As in, they see something they want, the checking account isn't empty, so why not buy it? Or worse, the limit on their credit card isn't reached yet, so why not buy it? I see a lot of people who just aren't good at thinking long term.
It's good the Navy does this, but the corporate world is just as bad. Hiring people based on some certificate covering simplistic skills but which don't certify for competence of deep understanding, versus hiring someone with expertise who knows the fundamentals and can build on top of those.
Sure, maybe there were three or four days of people programming this way before someone decided to make it symbolic. It's still somewhat common to at least look at the hexadecimal (or octal if you're on a pdp11). I look at core dumps all the time, I don't have any magical tools that point to where the bug is. It's called problem solving and it's a lot like solving puzzles.
That statement though is typical media ignorance though. People write about what they don't know, and aren't professional enough to actually learn something about the topic first. Professionalism is expensive so these magazines don't want professionals. You see this in Hollywood writers too. Crime shows, superhero shows, historical dramas, medical dramas, and so forth, all have amazing levels of bullshit in all areas. Most of us see the bullshit that applies to stuff we're familiar with but may not notice the other mounds of the stuff piling up.
Writers aim for their audience. If the audience is generally stupid, then the writing level will be stupid too.
If you pay an extra $99 you can join Amazon Prime and have the pizza delivered in 24 hours or less!
I wrote an operating system once. It said "hello world."
This story paid for by Amazon.