I'd like to read a study that has not been sponsored by the industry hawking the product. I want an objective study.
I can't promise you an objective study, but if this ever actually takes off, there will be lots of "studies" from the existing meat industry about how horrible this is. This is currently in the experimental stage. The actual meat industry sells more meat in a day than the total money so far spent on every vat meat experiment combined. The actual meat industry will likely try to introduce FUD and likely won't have much problem getting people afraid of it as many people already are.
FOMO is a myth. The world is just too big. True Polymaths can't exist either for the same reason. If you learn to be an expert water surfer then chances are you are not going to be an expert hockey player and even if you are an expert water surfer, when you are surfing waves in one location, there are always going to be great waves you are missing out on somewhere in the world. It doesn't matter how smart you are, how skilled you are, or how much money you have you are constantly missing out on *WAY* more than you are experiencing. You are much better off to figure out what small domain makes you happy and spend your time there than burning out trying to take it all in.
They'll want to get as many families with kids hooked then rely on the kiddies screaming blue murder if it's taken away when the prices go up.
Kids that use netflix are already used to stuff disappearing. It would be easy enough to tell kids "this is the new service" or if they are a little bit older, give them a budget of $10/month and let them pick the service to switch to.
Disney movies, Star Wars, Pixar, Marvel, everything on the Disney channel?
Disney wins. Netflix loses. We're done here.
If it's their full catalog and they did away with the vault then yeah, $5 per month is a very good deal. My kids would be very content with only watching Pixar, Marvel, and Disney movies but considering that $5/month is cheaper than what it costs to add just the Disney Channel to most cable packages, I very seriously doubt it will be the full catalog. HBO charges $15/month for its content and doesn't have near the depth of Disney.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if they did offer their entire IP for $5/month. I don't subscribe to any streaming services at the moment but I would pay for that and plenty of other parents would too.
The free market may create a self-rectifying problem. The more expensive it becomes to fish (because there are less fish) the quicker people will develop sustainable fish repositories to raise fish.
This does work to a certain extent. When commercial fishing becomes unprofitable or more expensive than farmed fishing then it will stop. The problem with this approach is that it requires a depletion of fish to a level where they may go extinct. It's not enough to stop when there are no more fish. You need to stop *BEFORE* there are no more fish unless you really think that having an ocean devoid of fish is a good thing. Passenger pigeons were once so plentiful that they darkened the sky. Humans didn't kill every last one of them but they killed enough that the numbers couldn't recover. Another example would be corn. A single stalk of corn can't survive on its own. It needs enough other corn stalks around so that it overpowers its predators. Every species has a minimal viable number that is required for the species to survive. If you cross below that level, even if you stop killing them, they will still die out.
The idea that you can beat the differential equations describing large population dynamics with trying to convince individuals is preposterous to begin with.
No, but conservation efforts do work. Deer and Turkey in the USA are a perfect example. At one point they were practically extinct but regulating seasons has helped them come back in record numbers. On the extreme side, outlawing fish consumption in the USA would certainly reduce the global fish demand. Much more moderate options like outlawing wild caught fish, certain species, certain species from certain countries, etc... would also likely work to some extent.
But I agree that trusting consumers to always do the right thing is likely not going to work. Although everyone thinks they want to save the environment, it's much harder for an individual to pay $10/pound for sustainable fish each week when they can get unsustainable fish for $5/pound.
There are dozens of breakout clones that have shown up over the years.
This isn't even a clone. It is a generated video of an imaginary clone. Likely a real game doesn't even exist so anyone who wants to play breakout needs to use the original game (or one of its clones)
"fair use" arguments seem to fall flat in a purely commercial context.
But what does that even mean? Does it mean I need permission to eat dorritos in a movie? What about if I'm filming a movie and walk thru a grocery store or drive thru a town where hundreds of logos are present? Do I need permission from every logo that happens to be on screen? In this case, it is obviously front and center so it would have likely have been a good idea to get permission first but even in the commercial context there needs to be some allowance for fair use or you would need the sink manufacturer's permission to film a scene in the kitchen. Also, in most cases, including this case, this should actually benefit the copyright holder with free exposure. I think you should need to actually show harm or loss of revenue to sue someone. In this case, it should have been a net benefit to breakout.
I don't see the problem. They aren't publishing a game. They decided to use a clever modification of the breakout game but they could have had people sitting around playing the actual breakout game or Mario for that matter. Taking a video of someone playing the actual breakout game should fall under fair use and playing a parody of it should also fall under fair use.
Without offering evidence we are in the past, the sim argument is nonsense.
If we are living in a simulation, there is no reason to assume that the base reality is even the same as our reality. The base reality could have a different number of dimensions, a different type of matter, basically it could be anything. And as far as being mutually exclusive with strong AI, that's stupid. The AI could have killed all humans (assuming they ever existed) and are now the ones running the simulator. This is actually much more plausible. If we are living in a simulation then it makes sense that whatever created it is likely vastly more intelligent than we are.
Just as 1 in every 10,000 Toyotas, Mercedes Benzes or Teslas is going to be a lemon, 1 in 10,000 vaccinations can "go wrong". This is just the nature of such things. That said, it really sucks if YOU buy that specific Toyota, Mercedes Benz or Tesla. And more so if YOUR kid is that ONE in 10,000. You can dump the car lemon, you have the child until they die. I personally know of one such extremely tragic case, so the pro-vaxxers should just shut up and admit to the reality of the stats.
Yes, the reality is every once in a while a child has a really bad reaction from a vaccine but the reality of the flip side is A LOT worse. I don't know how accurate your 1 in 10000 number is but that sounds like REALLY good odds to me. Before vaccines, 1 in 3 kids didn't make it to adulthood. Which odds would you rather have for your kid? A 1 in 10000 chance of dying from a vaccine or a 1 in 3 chance of dying from not getting a vaccine? Sure, because most people are vaccinated today, your odds are a little better than 1 in 3 even if you don't get a vaccine but it's still not as good as with getting the vaccine. When the odds of complications exceed the odds of catching the disease, that's when we discontinue the vaccine. That's why no one gets vaccinated for smallpox anymore except for a few soldiers going to a few high risk areas.
As a data person, the one thing I wish that the pro-vaccine people would start doing is listing the odds of complications of the vaccine right next to the estimated odds of catching the disease. I think some antivaxers might respond to that if you said "odds of bad reaction 1/10000, current odds of catching disease 1/1000, historical odds of catching the disease 1/100, odds of dying if you catch the disease 1/3"
This is interesting. What do the people you describe like about what Trump is doing? What do they think he is actually doing? So far, this government hasn't achieved all that much, or is that the point?
Most Trump supporters I talk to blame congress for the inaction. Their opinion seems to be that he's doing as much as he can by himself if only congress would get behind him. I read a similar article recently saying about the same. That he's basically done as much as anyone possibly can without congressional approval. He's trying to be a one man show and spinning his wheels because there is only so much a president can do by himself.
This is the opposite of plan 2, this is consolidation under Amazon. If Amazon were pursuing plan 2 then they'd open their API to allow other services to include Amazon content. (probably with a requirement for reciprocation)
Yes, Amazon is pursuing plan 2 with it at the top. It would be much better if there was either a neutral party or competing parties at the top but there is no incentive at the moment for Amazon to do this. Best case scenerio at the moment would be if someone else starts following in Amazon's footsteps and then starz/disney/hbo/etc make their channels float. i.e. If I paid for starz on amazon then I get it for free on netflix.
There is no question in my mind now rural users are better served by cellular internet. You can choose providers (unlike DSL or cable). You have faster speeds than any poorly maintained last mile out in the hinterlands will ever grant you. The ONLY downside is data caps but that is where the government could mandate relief if it so chose, and I would be in agreement with anyone living outside of a major metro area getting mandatory larger data caps for internet from mobile tethering or a hotspot (even if your plan has no limits they often have limits on allowed tethering data per month - usually the same as the hotspot maximums).
The major carriers *almost* got it right this last time. They now have unlimited on the phones with network management after 23G but unfortunately they all decided to change to 10G for hotspot and even worse instead of network management, they actually throttle the speed for tethering after 10G. Network management would likely never be an issue for rural users. If they would just remove the throttling for hotspot and only throttle when congested then cellular likely would be a good option for a good chunk of rural users.
Welll if fucktards waste their money on entertainment instead of food/education it is their problem. Government doesn't need to regulate access to entertainment. All they are trying to do is ensure access to essential services and what is needed to work. For the vast majority of jobs 10Mbps will be fine because you can easily VPN/RDP into your work computer have a teleconference etc.
It's not about the speed. It's not even about the cost. Currently cell phone companies even though they now have unlimited plans, they cap tethering at 10G/month. A family could easily burn thru this on a home computer just doing school work especially if that school work included any educational videos. Having internet for only part of the month each month is not an acceptable solution. Until cellular hotspots have a much higher monthly cap, it is not a good alternative.
2) All these fragmented little services realize that even though they're competing, they're also pissing off the consumer by lacking the basic interoperability you got by changing channels on a remote control and make some kind of broad, open joint effort to offer different subscriptions through the same interface.
I think the latter is the best solution for the long run, you don't want to make Netflix or Amazon be the new gatekeeper.
Amazon is working on plan 2. They have recently started adding a bunch of add on subscriptions to their video offerings. They also have one of the broadest selection of on demand titles of any service. Their on demand is overpriced but it's nice to be able to have an almost one stop shop for movies.
while more subscription services, with separate exclusive offerings , can increase costs, they can also reduce costs. they increase competition for none exclusive material, under competition, from others and "piracy". they may offer plans based on actual quantity of downloads than duration of subscription(removing injustice of people with non very active subscriptions subsidizing more active ones), etc.
Competition is good but that same "none exclusive material" means that most people are not going to subscribe to multiple channels. I think amazon probably has the winning strategy right now. Give away some titles for free to get people using your platform, allow you to add on additional channels for a small upcharge, and make almost everything available for a price. My only problem with amazon at the moment is their on demand price is still way too high. They have $4 rentals on movies that you can buy the physical dvd for $5. 10% of retail is probably a fair price. I use redbox constantly. It's a little more than $1 for a $20 movie. I always check redbox first and if it's not there then I look for other more costly and/or more questionable channels. I don't watch much movies so paying $8/month for a subscription to a bunch of B movies is not appealing to me. I would much rather pay $1/hour and watch exactly what I want. There are likely a ton of other low use / high quality users like me out there if someone would actually create a decent service for A movies.
Heck, a recent poll showed only 25% of America trusted our president but 33% approved of him. Those numbers don't add up...
I'm actually surprised that it's that close. I'm assuming you think that it's impossible to approve of someone you don't trust. I live in the bible belt and I know a ton of religious people who held their nose and voted for Trump. They don't trust him and think he's disgusting but they trusted Hillary even less and for the most part even though they still don't trust him, they mostly approve of what he's doing. From what I've seen, I would say 75% of the people I know who voted for Trump approve of what he's doing while less than 25% of them actually trust him.
All it takes is for mom to move out of the area and there is no possibility of shared custody.
It doesn't work that way. I know multiple women with practically full custody that are unable to move. Generally the person moving is the one who loses custody regardless of gender. Depending on the state, there is usually a certain mile radius where you are allowed to move but basically both parties require permission to move outside that area unless they want to risk losing custody.
The article does note a very big uptick in suicide rates. Such a striking uptick needs an explanation. The correlated beginning of widespread smartphone ownership provides an explanation, and unlike many other correlational things, this explanation comes with plausible stories about the alleged causal mechanism. Of course, maybe there is another, better explanation that fits this and the other data. But that explanation needs to be offered if one is to block an inference you the best explanation argument that cellphone use is the culprit.
Other just as plausible explanations: increase in sugar consumption, increase in artificial sugar consumption, increase in pesticide use, decrease in sunlight exposure via both more indoor activities and/or sunscreen, increase in single parent homes, decrease in religion, increase in both parents working, increase in standardized testing at school, etc... All of these also have happened around the same time as well. Yes, saying people are less social and therefore more suicide prone is a nice package but you need more evidence than "it sounds nice". "It sounds nice" is what got us the stupid "fat makes you fat" craze of the past 50 years that created all the "low fat" products loaded with sugar that is killing us when there is plenty of evidence that no, fat is actually relatively good for you and it's actually the sugar that is killing us.
And even if it is cell phone use, are we sure it is the *kids* use of cell phones. It could just as plausibly be the *parents* constant use of cell phones, working 24/7 and not being there for their kids that is causing the problem.
If you think that (Wycliffe) you are wrong. I know of women that can lift close to 200kg in weight. This is about training and always has been about training. It is easy to claim that women can't do x, y, z, p, d and so on if you don't offer them the training and the chance to do the job they are interested in.
You're crazy. Yes some exceptional women can out perform some average men but it's not all about training. Just compare the Olympic scores of women versus men in a variety of sports. Both men and women are training at their maximum but in many sports the men have substantially better scores. In many cases, it's not hard for an average or slightly above average male to beat the woman's Olympic record. It's the reason that they sometimes do genetic testing on the female side to make sure that the female is not biologically a male because being a male is a competitive advantage in a lot of sports. Just like with affirmative action, instead of trying to make a quota, you should set up a guideline of what is required for a job and if a woman, black, etc.. is the best for the job then by all means hire them but saying that the average woman and the average man are equally suited for any job is idiotic. And it goes both ways. There are plenty of jobs (even jobs that are traditionally male like doctor and salesperson) that women are better at.
Women are physically weaker than men. This puts them at a disadvantage in jobs like police officer and soldier. I have a good friend who was hired as a resident assistant. She was blind. So they hired a blind person to be in charge of making sure that nobody was sneaking in booze, that there were no unsafe living conditions, etc... It doesn't make sense. As far as programming goes, men tend to prefer that type of solo work and more importantly, google already hire percentage of women than are actually graduating as do most other Silicon Valley firms so if we want more diversity, we are going to have to start a lot younger and figure out why men are more attracted to programming. We can start with a similar field and try to figure out why boys play video games significantly more than girls. Until we "solve" that problem the bandaids at adulthood are a joke.
There are varying degrees of drug addiction - from caffeine all the way to alcohol, opiates, cocaine, and the even stronger addiction to nicotine. Withdrawal symptoms vary too, from mild, to uncomfortable, to excruciating, to deadly. Previous posters in this thread have noted, (perhaps tongue in cheek, but there's truth there nonetheless), that 'anything can be addictive'. Anything that causes a pronounced, consistent, repeatable physiological and / or psychological response has addictive potential - all the way from 'healthy' things like meditation and running, to life-destroying hard drugs. Smartphones, TV, and the like fall somewhere between the two extremes.
I would also argue that just like a psychological disorder, it should only count as an addiction if it interferes with your life. If someone plays video games 4 hours a day but is happy with their life and is still able to pay their bills and takes care of what needs to be done, how is that different than someone who likes to take long walks in the evening or even someone who works a second job. There are plenty of people "addicted" to their job so much that it affects their life whether it is divorce or something else. On the other hand, if you're content working 2 jobs, working out at the gym 4 hours a day, or playing video games 4 hours a day, other people might not agree with your choice but it doesn't matter if you are fine with it.
I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad. I think they are both equally biased in opposite directions.
Bullshit False Equivalency. CNN and Fox are not equally biased. Fox, along with right wing radio that started in the 90s, has been extremely biased and fake-newsy for a lonnnnnng time. Your assertions are ridiculous.
I'm a libertarian leaning independent. I know dozens of people who voted for Bernie in the primaries and Trump in the general. I also have tons of friends on both the far right and the far left. The right thinks that CNN is just as bad as the left thinks Fox is and vice/versa. Most of the independents like myself tend to see them as equally biased in opposite directions. If your on the left, you have a hard time believing this but people on the right think that CNN is a joke and is also full of fake news. It goes back to the original problem with this thread. Who defines neutral? Definitely not the people on the right or the left. Maybe the people who switch sides regularly but that's also flawed.
Most courts now days are very open to shared custody. Unless the mother is total crap, it's hard to get Full custody but 50-50 custody significantly drops the amount of money you have to pay and could even go the other direction if your ex-wife makes more than you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to read a study that has not been sponsored by the industry hawking the product. I want an objective study.
I can't promise you an objective study, but if this ever actually takes off, there will be lots of "studies" from the existing meat industry about how horrible this is. This is currently in the experimental stage. The actual meat industry sells more meat in a day than the total money so far spent on every vat meat experiment combined. The actual meat industry will likely try to introduce FUD and likely won't have much problem getting people afraid of it as many people already are.
FOMO is a myth. The world is just too big. True Polymaths can't exist either for the same reason. If you learn to be an expert water surfer then chances are you are not going to be an expert hockey player and even if you are an expert water surfer, when you are surfing waves in one location, there are always going to be great waves you are missing out on somewhere in the world. It doesn't matter how smart you are, how skilled you are, or how much money you have you are constantly missing out on *WAY* more than you are experiencing. You are much better off to figure out what small domain makes you happy and spend your time there than burning out trying to take it all in.
They'll want to get as many families with kids hooked then rely on the kiddies screaming blue murder if it's taken away when the prices go up.
Kids that use netflix are already used to stuff disappearing. It would be easy enough to tell kids "this is the new service" or if they are a little bit older, give them a budget of $10/month and let them pick the service to switch to.
Disney movies, Star Wars, Pixar, Marvel, everything on the Disney channel?
Disney wins. Netflix loses. We're done here.
If it's their full catalog and they did away with the vault then yeah, $5 per month is a very good deal. My kids would be very content with only watching Pixar, Marvel, and Disney movies but considering that $5/month is cheaper than what it costs to add just the Disney Channel to most cable packages, I very seriously doubt it will be the full catalog. HBO charges $15/month for its content and doesn't have near the depth of Disney.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if they did offer their entire IP for $5/month. I don't subscribe to any streaming services at the moment but I would pay for that and plenty of other parents would too.
The free market may create a self-rectifying problem. The more expensive it becomes to fish (because there are less fish) the quicker people will develop sustainable fish repositories to raise fish.
This does work to a certain extent. When commercial fishing becomes unprofitable or more expensive than farmed fishing then it will stop. The problem with this approach is that it requires a depletion of fish to a level where they may go extinct. It's not enough to stop when there are no more fish. You need to stop *BEFORE* there are no more fish unless you really think that having an ocean devoid of fish is a good thing. Passenger pigeons were once so plentiful that they darkened the sky. Humans didn't kill every last one of them but they killed enough that the numbers couldn't recover. Another example would be corn. A single stalk of corn can't survive on its own. It needs enough other corn stalks around so that it overpowers its predators. Every species has a minimal viable number that is required for the species to survive. If you cross below that level, even if you stop killing them, they will still die out.
The idea that you can beat the differential equations describing large population dynamics with trying to convince individuals is preposterous to begin with.
No, but conservation efforts do work. Deer and Turkey in the USA are a perfect example. At one point they were practically extinct but regulating seasons has helped them come back in record numbers. On the extreme side, outlawing fish consumption in the USA would certainly reduce the global fish demand. Much more moderate options like outlawing wild caught fish, certain species, certain species from certain countries, etc... would also likely work to some extent.
But I agree that trusting consumers to always do the right thing is likely not going to work. Although everyone thinks they want to save the environment, it's much harder for an individual to pay $10/pound for sustainable fish each week when they can get unsustainable fish for $5/pound.
There are dozens of breakout clones that have shown up over the years.
This isn't even a clone. It is a generated video of an imaginary clone. Likely a real game doesn't even exist so anyone who wants to play breakout needs to use the original game (or one of its clones)
"fair use" arguments seem to fall flat in a purely commercial context.
But what does that even mean? Does it mean I need permission to eat dorritos in a movie? What about if I'm filming a movie and walk thru a grocery store or drive thru a town where hundreds of logos are present? Do I need permission from every logo that happens to be on screen? In this case, it is obviously front and center so it would have likely have been a good idea to get permission first but even in the commercial context there needs to be some allowance for fair use or you would need the sink manufacturer's permission to film a scene in the kitchen. Also, in most cases, including this case, this should actually benefit the copyright holder with free exposure. I think you should need to actually show harm or loss of revenue to sue someone. In this case, it should have been a net benefit to breakout.
that's where they screwed up.
I don't see the problem. They aren't publishing a game. They decided to use a clever modification of the breakout game but they could have had people sitting around playing the actual breakout game or Mario for that matter. Taking a video of someone playing the actual breakout game should fall under fair use and playing a parody of it should also fall under fair use.
Without offering evidence we are in the past, the sim argument is nonsense.
If we are living in a simulation, there is no reason to assume that the base reality is even the same as our reality. The base reality could have a different number of dimensions, a different type of matter, basically it could be anything. And as far as being mutually exclusive with strong AI, that's stupid. The AI could have killed all humans (assuming they ever existed) and are now the ones running the simulator. This is actually much more plausible. If we are living in a simulation then it makes sense that whatever created it is likely vastly more intelligent than we are.
Just as 1 in every 10,000 Toyotas, Mercedes Benzes or Teslas is going to be a lemon, 1 in 10,000 vaccinations can "go wrong". This is just the nature of such things.
That said, it really sucks if YOU buy that specific Toyota, Mercedes Benz or Tesla. And more so if YOUR kid is that ONE in 10,000. You can dump the car lemon, you have the child until they die. I personally know of one such extremely tragic case, so the pro-vaxxers should just shut up and admit to the reality of the stats.
Yes, the reality is every once in a while a child has a really bad reaction from a vaccine but the reality of the flip side is A LOT worse. I don't know how accurate your 1 in 10000 number is but that sounds like REALLY good odds to me. Before vaccines, 1 in 3 kids didn't make it to adulthood. Which odds would you rather have for your kid? A 1 in 10000 chance of dying from a vaccine or a 1 in 3 chance of dying from not getting a vaccine? Sure, because most people are vaccinated today, your odds are a little better than 1 in 3 even if you don't get a vaccine but it's still not as good as with getting the vaccine. When the odds of complications exceed the odds of catching the disease, that's when we discontinue the vaccine. That's why no one gets vaccinated for smallpox anymore except for a few soldiers going to a few high risk areas.
As a data person, the one thing I wish that the pro-vaccine people would start doing is listing the odds of complications of the vaccine right next to the estimated odds of catching the disease. I think some antivaxers might respond to that if you said "odds of bad reaction 1/10000, current odds of catching disease 1/1000, historical odds of catching the disease 1/100, odds of dying if you catch the disease 1/3"
This is interesting. What do the people you describe like about what Trump is doing? What do they think he is actually doing? So far, this government hasn't achieved all that much, or is that the point?
Most Trump supporters I talk to blame congress for the inaction. Their opinion seems to be that he's doing as much as he can by himself if only congress would get behind him. I read a similar article recently saying about the same. That he's basically done as much as anyone possibly can without congressional approval. He's trying to be a one man show and spinning his wheels because there is only so much a president can do by himself.
This is the opposite of plan 2, this is consolidation under Amazon. If Amazon were pursuing plan 2 then they'd open their API to allow other services to include Amazon content. (probably with a requirement for reciprocation)
Yes, Amazon is pursuing plan 2 with it at the top. It would be much better if there was either a neutral party or competing parties at the top but there is no incentive at the moment for Amazon to do this. Best case scenerio at the moment would be if someone else starts following in Amazon's footsteps and then starz/disney/hbo/etc make their channels float. i.e. If I paid for starz on amazon then I get it for free on netflix.
There is no question in my mind now rural users are better served by cellular internet. You can choose providers (unlike DSL or cable). You have faster speeds than any poorly maintained last mile out in the hinterlands will ever grant you. The ONLY downside is data caps but that is where the government could mandate relief if it so chose, and I would be in agreement with anyone living outside of a major metro area getting mandatory larger data caps for internet from mobile tethering or a hotspot (even if your plan has no limits they often have limits on allowed tethering data per month - usually the same as the hotspot maximums).
The major carriers *almost* got it right this last time. They now have unlimited on the phones with network management after 23G but unfortunately they all decided to change to 10G for hotspot and even worse instead of network management, they actually throttle the speed for tethering after 10G. Network management would likely never be an issue for rural users. If they would just remove the throttling for hotspot and only throttle when congested then cellular likely would be a good option for a good chunk of rural users.
Welll if fucktards waste their money on entertainment instead of food/education it is their problem. Government doesn't need to regulate access to entertainment. All they are trying to do is ensure access to essential services and what is needed to work. For the vast majority of jobs 10Mbps will be fine because you can easily VPN/RDP into your work computer have a teleconference etc.
It's not about the speed. It's not even about the cost. Currently cell phone companies even though they now have unlimited plans, they cap tethering at 10G/month. A family could easily burn thru this on a home computer just doing school work especially if that school work included any educational videos. Having internet for only part of the month each month is not an acceptable solution. Until cellular hotspots have a much higher monthly cap, it is not a good alternative.
2) All these fragmented little services realize that even though they're competing, they're also pissing off the consumer by lacking the basic interoperability you got by changing channels on a remote control and make some kind of broad, open joint effort to offer different subscriptions through the same interface.
I think the latter is the best solution for the long run, you don't want to make Netflix or Amazon be the new gatekeeper.
Amazon is working on plan 2. They have recently started adding a bunch of add on subscriptions to their video offerings. They also have one of the broadest selection of on demand titles of any service. Their on demand is overpriced but it's nice to be able to have an almost one stop shop for movies.
while more subscription services, with separate exclusive offerings , can increase costs, they can also reduce costs.
they increase competition for none exclusive material, under competition, from others and "piracy".
they may offer plans based on actual quantity of downloads than duration of subscription(removing injustice of people with non very active subscriptions subsidizing more active ones),
etc.
Competition is good but that same "none exclusive material" means that most people are not going to subscribe to multiple channels. I think amazon probably has the winning strategy right now. Give away some titles for free to get people using your platform, allow you to add on additional channels for a small upcharge, and make almost everything available for a price. My only problem with amazon at the moment is their on demand price is still way too high. They have $4 rentals on movies that you can buy the physical dvd for $5. 10% of retail is probably a fair price. I use redbox constantly. It's a little more than $1 for a $20 movie. I always check redbox first and if it's not there then I look for other more costly and/or more questionable channels. I don't watch much movies so paying $8/month for a subscription to a bunch of B movies is not appealing to me. I would much rather pay $1/hour and watch exactly what I want. There are likely a ton of other low use / high quality users like me out there if someone would actually create a decent service for A movies.
Heck, a recent poll showed only 25% of America trusted our president but 33% approved of him. Those numbers don't add up...
I'm actually surprised that it's that close. I'm assuming you think that it's impossible to approve of someone you don't trust. I live in the bible belt and I know a ton of religious people who held their nose and voted for Trump. They don't trust him and think he's disgusting but they trusted Hillary even less and for the most part even though they still don't trust him, they mostly approve of what he's doing. From what I've seen, I would say 75% of the people I know who voted for Trump approve of what he's doing while less than 25% of them actually trust him.
All it takes is for mom to move out of the area and there is no possibility of shared custody.
It doesn't work that way. I know multiple women with practically full custody that are unable to move. Generally the person moving is the one who loses custody regardless of gender. Depending on the state, there is usually a certain mile radius where you are allowed to move but basically both parties require permission to move outside that area unless they want to risk losing custody.
The article does note a very big uptick in suicide rates. Such a striking uptick needs an explanation. The correlated beginning of widespread smartphone ownership provides an explanation, and unlike many other correlational things, this explanation comes with plausible stories about the alleged causal mechanism. Of course, maybe there is another, better explanation that fits this and the other data. But that explanation needs to be offered if one is to block an inference you the best explanation argument that cellphone use is the culprit.
Other just as plausible explanations: increase in sugar consumption, increase in artificial sugar consumption, increase in pesticide use, decrease in sunlight exposure via both more indoor activities and/or sunscreen, increase in single parent homes, decrease in religion, increase in both parents working, increase in standardized testing at school, etc... All of these also have happened around the same time as well. Yes, saying people are less social and therefore more suicide prone is a nice package but you need more evidence than "it sounds nice". "It sounds nice" is what got us the stupid "fat makes you fat" craze of the past 50 years that created all the "low fat" products loaded with sugar that is killing us when there is plenty of evidence that no, fat is actually relatively good for you and it's actually the sugar that is killing us.
And even if it is cell phone use, are we sure it is the *kids* use of cell phones. It could just as plausibly be the *parents* constant use of cell phones, working 24/7 and not being there for their kids that is causing the problem.
If you think that (Wycliffe) you are wrong. I know of women that can lift close to 200kg in weight. This is about training and always has been about training. It is easy to claim that women can't do x, y, z, p, d and so on if you don't offer them the training and the chance to do the job they are interested in.
You're crazy. Yes some exceptional women can out perform some average men but it's not all about training. Just compare the Olympic scores of women versus men in a variety of sports. Both men and women are training at their maximum but in many sports the men have substantially better scores. In many cases, it's not hard for an average or slightly above average male to beat the woman's Olympic record. It's the reason that they sometimes do genetic testing on the female side to make sure that the female is not biologically a male because being a male is a competitive advantage in a lot of sports. Just like with affirmative action, instead of trying to make a quota, you should set up a guideline of what is required for a job and if a woman, black, etc.. is the best for the job then by all means hire them but saying that the average woman and the average man are equally suited for any job is idiotic. And it goes both ways. There are plenty of jobs (even jobs that are traditionally male like doctor and salesperson) that women are better at.
Women are physically weaker than men. This puts them at a disadvantage in jobs like police officer and soldier. I have a good friend who was hired as a resident assistant. She was blind. So they hired a blind person to be in charge of making sure that nobody was sneaking in booze, that there were no unsafe living conditions, etc... It doesn't make sense. As far as programming goes, men tend to prefer that type of solo work and more importantly, google already hire percentage of women than are actually graduating as do most other Silicon Valley firms so if we want more diversity, we are going to have to start a lot younger and figure out why men are more attracted to programming. We can start with a similar field and try to figure out why boys play video games significantly more than girls. Until we "solve" that problem the bandaids at adulthood are a joke.
There are varying degrees of drug addiction - from caffeine all the way to alcohol, opiates, cocaine, and the even stronger addiction to nicotine. Withdrawal symptoms vary too, from mild, to uncomfortable, to excruciating, to deadly. Previous posters in this thread have noted, (perhaps tongue in cheek, but there's truth there nonetheless), that 'anything can be addictive'. Anything that causes a pronounced, consistent, repeatable physiological and / or psychological response has addictive potential - all the way from 'healthy' things like meditation and running, to life-destroying hard drugs. Smartphones, TV, and the like fall somewhere between the two extremes.
I would also argue that just like a psychological disorder, it should only count as an addiction if it interferes with your life. If someone plays video games 4 hours a day but is happy with their life and is still able to pay their bills and takes care of what needs to be done, how is that different than someone who likes to take long walks in the evening or even someone who works a second job. There are plenty of people "addicted" to their job so much that it affects their life whether it is divorce or something else. On the other hand, if you're content working 2 jobs, working out at the gym 4 hours a day, or playing video games 4 hours a day, other people might not agree with your choice but it doesn't matter if you are fine with it.
I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad. I think they are both equally biased in opposite directions.
Bullshit False Equivalency. CNN and Fox are not equally biased. Fox, along with right wing radio that started in the 90s, has been extremely biased and fake-newsy for a lonnnnnng time.
Your assertions are ridiculous.
I'm a libertarian leaning independent. I know dozens of people who voted for Bernie in the primaries and Trump in the general. I also have tons of friends on both the far right and the far left. The right thinks that CNN is just as bad as the left thinks Fox is and vice/versa. Most of the independents like myself tend to see them as equally biased in opposite directions. If your on the left, you have a hard time believing this but people on the right think that CNN is a joke and is also full of fake news. It goes back to the original problem with this thread. Who defines neutral? Definitely not the people on the right or the left. Maybe the people who switch sides regularly but that's also flawed.
Most courts now days are very open to shared custody. Unless the mother is total crap, it's hard to get Full custody but 50-50 custody significantly drops the amount of money you have to pay and could even go the other direction if your ex-wife makes more than you.