I think you do have an "option" to quit cable, you just have to hit your pain point. Ie, if you paid $40 for a cup of coffee then maybe you decide you don't need coffee that badly. And if over time that high quality $40 espresso made by grass-fed barristas from Italy starts becoming a lot of Folger's Instant made by high school dropouts, the pain goes up. Eventually you decide it isn't worth the price.
Netflix is not like cable, it will never replace replace cable exactly, but it is also not a subset of what cable has either. Cable has a wide variety of shows, but only a small number at any particular time. My DirecTV had a 'wishlist' so that I could have it watch for a particular movie and when it appeared anywhere it would record it for me, and some things took over a couple of years to finally appear. Netflix lets you see anything it has at any time, but it doesn't have everything. But it is also only a small fraction of the price of the average mid-tier cable subscription.
Did you see the Gillette commercial? Stopping bullying is not demasculating. Treating women with respect is not demasculating. Acting in a civilized manner should not be a rarity. None of the men shown acting badly in the ad would have been considered good role models, and all the commercial was doing was trying to raise the bar in behavior by showing different role models.
I think what happened is that some people saw the Gillette commercial and were triggered by it.
I don't see anything for me. I disabled the option to target ads based on data from partners and such. The "Your interests" section just wants me to select things I am interested to see ads for (hah!). The "Advertisers" shows a list of auto dealers that are more than 1000 miles from me, and the other two tabs there are empty.
I have known for a couple decades that at least one person gives out my email address as a spam blocker, in that I get the spam instead of him. So I get regular reminders to bring in my truck for service even though I don't live in that town or own a truck.
Small business maybe. But startup as a term refers to a particular type of new small business. Funded by venture capitalists based on flimsy proposals, business plans that focus on getting bought out soon rather than on long term profitability, workers given valueless equity to offset their lower than average pay, etc.
Most small businesses plan to stay in business, yet the majority of startups fail without any analysis by the investors of why they failed or how to improve in the future.
The problem with Trump, like most candidates, making campaign promises is that there is an unfounded assumption that he will have the capability of carrying through on the promise. Most of these promises assume that the office holder has unlimited power to do things, whether president, or merely a mayor. Most voters understand this also, so when candidates make promises we realize that we're not to take these as sincere promises that will be kept at any cost, instead we know that they're indicators that the candidate will probably make a good faith effort to do something slightly ineffectual about the issue.
The office of the president is not a dictatorship. The entire US system of government is built around the concept of not giving the government unlimited power, and most certainly it prevents giving any one person or office too much power. The president is highly limited in what can be done. Unlike some parliamentary systems where the chief executive is elected by the legislature which often gives that executive far too much power. In the US it's a good thing when congress and the president disagree, it's a not a bug in the system but a feature, since it forces them to compromise and reduces the tendency to rule by popular poll.
A president with limited power who can't accomplish all the campaign promises is a good thing! And people who don't understand this need to step back and imagine if someone they don't like was in office instead. Ie, would they still want an authoritarian president and a congress that would rubber-stamp everything if Hillary was in charge?
Well, Pai should have said "I can't respond to your enquiries because I am not being paid." Or did he somehow get classified as an essential worker who's allowed to go politicking?
In the past when this happened the senators would come to a compromise, like rational adults. Compromise is good, it prevents big radical ideas from being implemented just because of a small majority. It maintains stability. But today compromise has become a bad word. The true believer partisans will curse and scream when the opposite side takes any action unilaterally but when their side is in power they demand fast action without any consultation with the opponents.
In the grand experiment of American democracy, take notes because we're seeing the roots of a systemic failure start to appear. And what is the cause of this; does the system promote intransigent partisanship by rewarding those who campaign on negativity?
There are a lot of people who don't really understand evolution and try to shoehorn in a lot of ideas about evolution that don't fit. Such as "what is the evolutionary purpose of grandparents", or other silly things. They assume evolution is about a progression from lesser organisms towards higher organisms and eventually towards perfection, as if evolution is just intelligent design with more science. Also there is often the incorrect assumption that as humans we are at the endpoint of evolution; or that we are "more evolved".
Are humans adapted to their environment? Yes. Does the presence of skin cancer and other biological flaws negate that assertion? No.
Quite a lot of Reagan's detractors also liked Reagan. He and Tip O'Neill were friends. They worked together despite being opposites on most issues. This was in the days when politicians knew the difference between "I don't agree with you" and "I don't like you."
Also, Reagan had a completely different personality from Trump.
You know who doesn't use a spray-on, it's clear from the pattern of pale around his eyes that he's using a tanning booth with tanning bed goggles.
Compare to Boehner, who in some photos seems to have that same shade that seems somewhat unnatural in some lighting conditions. But he doesn't have the tanning lines around the eyes because he gets it from behind outside a lot. You-know-who golfs a lot, more than his predecessors so I wonder why he doesn't have a more natural looking tan from it. Maybe he has sunglasses when outside, or he's always touching up with the tanning booth every day...
Anyway this isn't an approval or disapproval of you-know-who. But you have to admit that no matter your feelings about him, he does have a distinctly odd look that seems to shout out "narcissist".
Except that healthy tans are not healthy. We've known this for a long time. Standards of beauty change over time and across culture, there is almost no beauty characteristic that is universal, except for appearing young and appearing wealthy. There is far more culture involved than biology.
Even if biology was a factor, do not fall into the trap of assuming instincts are always right. Evolution does not work that way, most of the time evolution does not lead to more advanced organisms or even organisms that are always well adapted to their environment.
Maybe the research is with low gravity. In the ISS they grew some plants with zero gravity, similar but not really the same thing. Probably a sure thing that it will grow, but what's unknown is how well it grows, does germination work the same way, etc.
But don't worry, they didn't go to the moon just to do this one experiment.
Technically much of this is not 'rape', however something might not be 'rape' while still being illegal. And definitely not something that the industry should be condoning, and nothing wrong with the industry trying to correct things.
Wha'ts funny is that I get internet through AT&T. Occasionally services that require a subscription allow me access because they think that I have a U-Verse television service...
The problem with your logic is that most people cut the cord to cable in order to save money. Most cable services are very expensive, probably averaging $100/month in many locales. Whereas you can get a lot of useful content with only one service, or go with two services if you want to splurge. Going for 18 different services is too many.
Part of the tasks one does when cutting the cord is to also cut back on the amount of television they watch. Don't expect to cut the cord and get exactly the same content that you used to get. You will actually get more content over all, it just won't necessarily have all the shows you previously watched on a regular basis. The easiest way to do this is to realize that you can afford to wait a year to see the next season of your favorite show. Otherwise if you need the same content then you'll find yourself justifying paying the extra $90 just for some silly sitcom you like.
There are/were hundreds of streaming options already. The snag is that when you analyze them there really are only about 5 of potential interest to any one person. So Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, which cover most everything. Anything beyond that is typically for more specialty content - pbs, Acorn for british stuff, Crunchy Roll for Anime, etc.
But honey, the helicopter was half-price today only! Although with Netflix you get tons more content than Network TV, the only snag is that it's not as current. Not having advertisements is just the frosting on the top.
Agreed. So much piracy is justified in these ways, with an implication that because the cost is high that they must find other ways to get it. That rational works for food, but not for optional luxury activities like watching Game of Thrones.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you do have an "option" to quit cable, you just have to hit your pain point. Ie, if you paid $40 for a cup of coffee then maybe you decide you don't need coffee that badly. And if over time that high quality $40 espresso made by grass-fed barristas from Italy starts becoming a lot of Folger's Instant made by high school dropouts, the pain goes up. Eventually you decide it isn't worth the price.
Netflix is not like cable, it will never replace replace cable exactly, but it is also not a subset of what cable has either. Cable has a wide variety of shows, but only a small number at any particular time. My DirecTV had a 'wishlist' so that I could have it watch for a particular movie and when it appeared anywhere it would record it for me, and some things took over a couple of years to finally appear. Netflix lets you see anything it has at any time, but it doesn't have everything. But it is also only a small fraction of the price of the average mid-tier cable subscription.
But they taste like quinoa.
Did you see the Gillette commercial? Stopping bullying is not demasculating. Treating women with respect is not demasculating. Acting in a civilized manner should not be a rarity. None of the men shown acting badly in the ad would have been considered good role models, and all the commercial was doing was trying to raise the bar in behavior by showing different role models.
I think what happened is that some people saw the Gillette commercial and were triggered by it.
I dunno. It works with Apple TV, Roku, Firestick, Chromecast, web browers, etc. It probably works on more things than youtube.
I don't see anything for me. I disabled the option to target ads based on data from partners and such. The "Your interests" section just wants me to select things I am interested to see ads for (hah!). The "Advertisers" shows a list of auto dealers that are more than 1000 miles from me, and the other two tabs there are empty.
I have known for a couple decades that at least one person gives out my email address as a spam blocker, in that I get the spam instead of him. So I get regular reminders to bring in my truck for service even though I don't live in that town or own a truck.
Or we could admit that these hyper agressive men are not the normal and we shouldn't tolerate frat boy behavior in a modern society.
Small business maybe. But startup as a term refers to a particular type of new small business. Funded by venture capitalists based on flimsy proposals, business plans that focus on getting bought out soon rather than on long term profitability, workers given valueless equity to offset their lower than average pay, etc.
Most small businesses plan to stay in business, yet the majority of startups fail without any analysis by the investors of why they failed or how to improve in the future.
The problem with Trump, like most candidates, making campaign promises is that there is an unfounded assumption that he will have the capability of carrying through on the promise. Most of these promises assume that the office holder has unlimited power to do things, whether president, or merely a mayor. Most voters understand this also, so when candidates make promises we realize that we're not to take these as sincere promises that will be kept at any cost, instead we know that they're indicators that the candidate will probably make a good faith effort to do something slightly ineffectual about the issue.
The office of the president is not a dictatorship. The entire US system of government is built around the concept of not giving the government unlimited power, and most certainly it prevents giving any one person or office too much power. The president is highly limited in what can be done. Unlike some parliamentary systems where the chief executive is elected by the legislature which often gives that executive far too much power. In the US it's a good thing when congress and the president disagree, it's a not a bug in the system but a feature, since it forces them to compromise and reduces the tendency to rule by popular poll.
A president with limited power who can't accomplish all the campaign promises is a good thing! And people who don't understand this need to step back and imagine if someone they don't like was in office instead. Ie, would they still want an authoritarian president and a congress that would rubber-stamp everything if Hillary was in charge?
Well, Pai should have said "I can't respond to your enquiries because I am not being paid." Or did he somehow get classified as an essential worker who's allowed to go politicking?
If Congress has the will, they could end this.
And don't forget that if the president has the will, he could end this too. When there is an impasse the fault never lies solely with one side.
In the past when this happened the senators would come to a compromise, like rational adults. Compromise is good, it prevents big radical ideas from being implemented just because of a small majority. It maintains stability. But today compromise has become a bad word. The true believer partisans will curse and scream when the opposite side takes any action unilaterally but when their side is in power they demand fast action without any consultation with the opponents.
In the grand experiment of American democracy, take notes because we're seeing the roots of a systemic failure start to appear. And what is the cause of this; does the system promote intransigent partisanship by rewarding those who campaign on negativity?
There are a lot of people who don't really understand evolution and try to shoehorn in a lot of ideas about evolution that don't fit. Such as "what is the evolutionary purpose of grandparents", or other silly things. They assume evolution is about a progression from lesser organisms towards higher organisms and eventually towards perfection, as if evolution is just intelligent design with more science. Also there is often the incorrect assumption that as humans we are at the endpoint of evolution; or that we are "more evolved".
Are humans adapted to their environment? Yes. Does the presence of skin cancer and other biological flaws negate that assertion? No.
Quite a lot of Reagan's detractors also liked Reagan. He and Tip O'Neill were friends. They worked together despite being opposites on most issues. This was in the days when politicians knew the difference between "I don't agree with you" and "I don't like you."
Also, Reagan had a completely different personality from Trump.
"Tan" is also a color. Like saying "spray-on beige".
You know who doesn't use a spray-on, it's clear from the pattern of pale around his eyes that he's using a tanning booth with tanning bed goggles.
Compare to Boehner, who in some photos seems to have that same shade that seems somewhat unnatural in some lighting conditions. But he doesn't have the tanning lines around the eyes because he gets it from behind outside a lot. You-know-who golfs a lot, more than his predecessors so I wonder why he doesn't have a more natural looking tan from it. Maybe he has sunglasses when outside, or he's always touching up with the tanning booth every day...
Anyway this isn't an approval or disapproval of you-know-who. But you have to admit that no matter your feelings about him, he does have a distinctly odd look that seems to shout out "narcissist".
Except that healthy tans are not healthy. We've known this for a long time. Standards of beauty change over time and across culture, there is almost no beauty characteristic that is universal, except for appearing young and appearing wealthy. There is far more culture involved than biology.
Even if biology was a factor, do not fall into the trap of assuming instincts are always right. Evolution does not work that way, most of the time evolution does not lead to more advanced organisms or even organisms that are always well adapted to their environment.
Maybe the research is with low gravity. In the ISS they grew some plants with zero gravity, similar but not really the same thing. Probably a sure thing that it will grow, but what's unknown is how well it grows, does germination work the same way, etc.
But don't worry, they didn't go to the moon just to do this one experiment.
Doesn't sound so great actually. It would be more amazing if they learned to wean themselves off of the smart phones.
Technically much of this is not 'rape', however something might not be 'rape' while still being illegal. And definitely not something that the industry should be condoning, and nothing wrong with the industry trying to correct things.
Wha'ts funny is that I get internet through AT&T. Occasionally services that require a subscription allow me access because they think that I have a U-Verse television service...
The problem with your logic is that most people cut the cord to cable in order to save money. Most cable services are very expensive, probably averaging $100/month in many locales. Whereas you can get a lot of useful content with only one service, or go with two services if you want to splurge. Going for 18 different services is too many.
Part of the tasks one does when cutting the cord is to also cut back on the amount of television they watch. Don't expect to cut the cord and get exactly the same content that you used to get. You will actually get more content over all, it just won't necessarily have all the shows you previously watched on a regular basis. The easiest way to do this is to realize that you can afford to wait a year to see the next season of your favorite show. Otherwise if you need the same content then you'll find yourself justifying paying the extra $90 just for some silly sitcom you like.
There are/were hundreds of streaming options already. The snag is that when you analyze them there really are only about 5 of potential interest to any one person. So Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, which cover most everything. Anything beyond that is typically for more specialty content - pbs, Acorn for british stuff, Crunchy Roll for Anime, etc.
But honey, the helicopter was half-price today only! Although with Netflix you get tons more content than Network TV, the only snag is that it's not as current. Not having advertisements is just the frosting on the top.
Agreed. So much piracy is justified in these ways, with an implication that because the cost is high that they must find other ways to get it. That rational works for food, but not for optional luxury activities like watching Game of Thrones.
Which is still against the law in most countries and comes with criminal penalties. Saying it's not "stealing" is disingenuous.
But Netflix, even at the new $13/mo price, is still a great bargain. Compare to a typical $100/mo cable bill.