I think in today's first world societies, the scary diseases of the past don't seem that scary now. Measles sounds like chicken pox, German measles sounds like just a variant, whooping cough sounds like just a cough, etc. The fear of these diseases has shrunk. In the meantime a lot of other things seem scarier than they used to in the past - parents have a dread about autism now.
Affluence often causes a person to think that they're special as well. As in, they're not a part of the herd so they don't need herd immunity. There's also the extra free time affluence brings, time to hang out and read about conspiracy theories, time to join causes, etc.
A lot though probably is just based on social groups. Conspiracies often tend to spread by word of mouth.
A lot of people just assume this stuff is safe because there are smart people who worked on them and in any case they wouldn't push this stuff out to the public unless it was well thought out and didn't have security bugs. Those people are wrong of course. Those people who have been working on computers for decades however realize just how dysfunctional everything is behind the scenes.
Consumers are now the alpha testers, and we have continuous roll-out of changes without spending any time running through full regression tests because that would cut into profits. The goal is to extract as much money from customers as you can before they head off to a newer fad.
Ha, some games on my ipad require constant internet connection despite not actually needing this if you're not engaged in a silly pvp side-game. I have noticed some mobile games now state if they don't need a network connection.
People actually care about their games, so they are more upset when games are disrupted as opposed to being unable to get to Office 365 to do work for a few hours.
Well, shove stuff in the cloud and you expect to have major problems when you can't get to the cloud. What's amazing is that even if you're playing a single-player game on an xbox or playstation that you still must be connected to the internet, and that you must pay a subscription fee in order to get patches or updates. If this was tried on the PC the players would revolt, but on consoles it's treated as "normal". Ie, remember the near universal rejection of Games-For-Windows-Live, but an even more intrusive system is treated as normal on consoles. I used to think perhaps this was due to age differences in the average players, but I see many players in their 50s not caring about this on their consoles.
Why should a criminal or illegal migrant get privacy in a state?
Because the constitution presumably grants these rights under the ninth amendment. Also the fourth amendment would seemingly require warrants.
This is the USA, we should not become a police state. It is better that some criminals remain uncaught than to restrict the rights of citizens or residents (all persons within the US borders have rights). That doesn't mean private businesses can't use CCTVs, but the police should not have a carte blanche on surveillance without significant oversight to prevent abuse. And history has shown that government abuse is likely.
This is why we say that terrorists have won, because the US citizens have had their rights removed or diminished (with only sporadic objection), all because we're scared of terrorists. Never mind that drunk drivers and cancer kill vastly more people. The flaming wreckage may as well have landed on the National Archives because the constitution was severely wounded.
I think you don't find most of them unless you do the manual searches. It should have the option to filter only those included with Prime though, I felt I got burned too much when stuff on my watch list turned out to be premium. That said, I stopped my subscription before the first free month was out, I ran out of stuff to see.
Why not just no extra fee for premium shows? If Netflix started offering shows where you had to pay extra beyond the subscription cost that the subscribers would be up in arms. But Prime users don't seem to mind, possibly because they're mistakenly assuming that the Prime Video is "free" as it comes with their "free shipping" subscription.
Most of the good stuff I saw on prime required the extra fee. The movie rental is nice, but you can do the rental even without being a Prime member, and get the same rentals from other streaming services as well. For a television series though I think the extra fee is not worth the cost per episode.
Prime is like Apple TV, it mostly appeals to those who are already part of the parent company's ecosystem. If Prime Video users had to pay the additional cost separately from their "free shipping" yearly subscription then it would drastically drop in popularity.
I think it would be good for television in general if more customers just started watching less. The content creators are still under the impression that they have a captive audience who will watch whatever they offer, and who are willing to subscribe to multiple streaming services. Also less time in front of the television is a good thing overall.
I can't recall many Netflix originals with sex and nudity. The ones I do remember weren't at all trashy and would be considered prudish by premium cable standards.
And being part of the Prime subscription is the sole reason Amazon is even a player in the streaming field. For those who aren't already Prime members it's not worth the hassle.
There were a few Amazon exclusive that might have been interesting, but I'm not going to sub to a second streaming service for that. I can make better use of my money. I didn't even go to Netflix for their exclusives but because they had a lot of content originally. I have enough on the Netflix list that can last me for years. In the meantime the number of hours that I watch TV has been steadily declining.
None of this is the problem with Netflix, the problem was the BBC yanking Doctor Who off of every single streaming service for a couple of years, then later granting access to only one service outside of the UK. Sure, with DNS you could probably get hooked into the BBC iplayer, but that's a bit of a pain for the average user.
I would greatly prefer if the content owners spread the stuff around, which should theoretically also increase their income since it would cover more users. Possibly Amazon is offering kickbacks to the Beeb?
It did have a lot of movies, but they were a lot of older movies. The general middle of the road stuff. I think a lot of content owners give their collections out as exclusives, meaning that Prime may get a lot of movies that no one else gets, and Netflix may get movies that no one else gets, and not just the new stuff.
I also think that many of the movies that Prime has now used to be on Netflix until their older contracts expired. A lot of content owners seem to want to punish Netflix for being too popular or affordable.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya, they should probably measure temperature in Java instead.
I think in today's first world societies, the scary diseases of the past don't seem that scary now. Measles sounds like chicken pox, German measles sounds like just a variant, whooping cough sounds like just a cough, etc. The fear of these diseases has shrunk. In the meantime a lot of other things seem scarier than they used to in the past - parents have a dread about autism now.
Their kids aren't going to the schools that the herd goes to. Their kids go to private schools, or they've moved to an affluent school district.
Affluence often causes a person to think that they're special as well. As in, they're not a part of the herd so they don't need herd immunity. There's also the extra free time affluence brings, time to hang out and read about conspiracy theories, time to join causes, etc.
A lot though probably is just based on social groups. Conspiracies often tend to spread by word of mouth.
One can be educated without actually learning anything.
Just like I don't like the pointless Youtube account I was forced to get. The blame is not Google+ so don't bash it, instead bash Google.
But don't say stupid crap.
You must be new to the internet.
Are they getting a salary from a reputable company, or are they putting up whiny youtube videos and begging for views?
A lot of people just assume this stuff is safe because there are smart people who worked on them and in any case they wouldn't push this stuff out to the public unless it was well thought out and didn't have security bugs. Those people are wrong of course. Those people who have been working on computers for decades however realize just how dysfunctional everything is behind the scenes.
Consumers are now the alpha testers, and we have continuous roll-out of changes without spending any time running through full regression tests because that would cut into profits. The goal is to extract as much money from customers as you can before they head off to a newer fad.
Ha, some games on my ipad require constant internet connection despite not actually needing this if you're not engaged in a silly pvp side-game. I have noticed some mobile games now state if they don't need a network connection.
Dude, what the hell man?
People actually care about their games, so they are more upset when games are disrupted as opposed to being unable to get to Office 365 to do work for a few hours.
Well, shove stuff in the cloud and you expect to have major problems when you can't get to the cloud. What's amazing is that even if you're playing a single-player game on an xbox or playstation that you still must be connected to the internet, and that you must pay a subscription fee in order to get patches or updates. If this was tried on the PC the players would revolt, but on consoles it's treated as "normal". Ie, remember the near universal rejection of Games-For-Windows-Live, but an even more intrusive system is treated as normal on consoles. I used to think perhaps this was due to age differences in the average players, but I see many players in their 50s not caring about this on their consoles.
Why should a criminal or illegal migrant get privacy in a state?
Because the constitution presumably grants these rights under the ninth amendment. Also the fourth amendment would seemingly require warrants.
This is the USA, we should not become a police state. It is better that some criminals remain uncaught than to restrict the rights of citizens or residents (all persons within the US borders have rights). That doesn't mean private businesses can't use CCTVs, but the police should not have a carte blanche on surveillance without significant oversight to prevent abuse. And history has shown that government abuse is likely.
This is why we say that terrorists have won, because the US citizens have had their rights removed or diminished (with only sporadic objection), all because we're scared of terrorists. Never mind that drunk drivers and cancer kill vastly more people. The flaming wreckage may as well have landed on the National Archives because the constitution was severely wounded.
I think you don't find most of them unless you do the manual searches. It should have the option to filter only those included with Prime though, I felt I got burned too much when stuff on my watch list turned out to be premium. That said, I stopped my subscription before the first free month was out, I ran out of stuff to see.
Why not just no extra fee for premium shows? If Netflix started offering shows where you had to pay extra beyond the subscription cost that the subscribers would be up in arms. But Prime users don't seem to mind, possibly because they're mistakenly assuming that the Prime Video is "free" as it comes with their "free shipping" subscription.
Most of the good stuff I saw on prime required the extra fee. The movie rental is nice, but you can do the rental even without being a Prime member, and get the same rentals from other streaming services as well. For a television series though I think the extra fee is not worth the cost per episode.
Prime is like Apple TV, it mostly appeals to those who are already part of the parent company's ecosystem. If Prime Video users had to pay the additional cost separately from their "free shipping" yearly subscription then it would drastically drop in popularity.
Amazon has some 10's, but of course you have to pay more cash above and beyond your club entrance fee before you can talk to them.
I think it would be good for television in general if more customers just started watching less. The content creators are still under the impression that they have a captive audience who will watch whatever they offer, and who are willing to subscribe to multiple streaming services. Also less time in front of the television is a good thing overall.
I can't recall many Netflix originals with sex and nudity. The ones I do remember weren't at all trashy and would be considered prudish by premium cable standards.
And being part of the Prime subscription is the sole reason Amazon is even a player in the streaming field. For those who aren't already Prime members it's not worth the hassle.
There were a few Amazon exclusive that might have been interesting, but I'm not going to sub to a second streaming service for that. I can make better use of my money. I didn't even go to Netflix for their exclusives but because they had a lot of content originally. I have enough on the Netflix list that can last me for years. In the meantime the number of hours that I watch TV has been steadily declining.
None of this is the problem with Netflix, the problem was the BBC yanking Doctor Who off of every single streaming service for a couple of years, then later granting access to only one service outside of the UK. Sure, with DNS you could probably get hooked into the BBC iplayer, but that's a bit of a pain for the average user.
I would greatly prefer if the content owners spread the stuff around, which should theoretically also increase their income since it would cover more users. Possibly Amazon is offering kickbacks to the Beeb?
It did have a lot of movies, but they were a lot of older movies. The general middle of the road stuff. I think a lot of content owners give their collections out as exclusives, meaning that Prime may get a lot of movies that no one else gets, and Netflix may get movies that no one else gets, and not just the new stuff.
I also think that many of the movies that Prime has now used to be on Netflix until their older contracts expired. A lot of content owners seem to want to punish Netflix for being too popular or affordable.