the police man was just enforcing the laws written by the legislature.
The police have the ability in most cases to be selective in what they enforce, understanding that situations require judgement and society doesn't want an oppressive police force.
Such as getting a warning for a speeding infraction, rather than a ticket.
If you have police that selectively enforce the law you will have the problem of selective enforcement.
We already have that, and so long as it isn't based on the person (age, gender, color, creed, etc.), then it is a good thing.
Forgot about the miniscule amount of energy for a minute. Would it be ok to run an extension cord from an outlet on your porch to power my fan when I get overheated riding my bike near your house?
Yes, that would be fine with me.
My home has several outlets outside, if someone needed to use one for 20 min to charge their phone or run a fan, I couldn't care less.
A knock on the door to ask would be nice, but if I'm not home, I don't care.
The amount of power is trivial and not worth caring about.
There is a principle involved here.
Perhaps, but there is also what is reasonable and polite society to consider.
We're not Vulcan, we're human, and being considerate to each other is a good thing.
So was doing it during the Cuban missile crisis to Russian transports, that doesn't mean people start shooting.
Iran has the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz
Yes they do, for a little while. How long would it take us to open it back up, at great cost to them? I have no doubt they have given that a lot of through, as I imagine we have as well.
Oh sure the US could use that as an excuse to launch an invasion of Iran but Russia would not sit idly by and allow that.
And they would do what? Go to war with the US over Iran? Maybe, but they have their own problems in Ukraine at the moment, their economy is a mess due to their own sanctions.
Besides, a deal is easily done there. Trade Iran for Ukraine. Putin wants a free hand in the Ukraine, we'd want one in Iran. There is a deal to be made there.
In addition Iran is currently what is holding ISIS in check.
Saudi Arabia needs to step up to the plate and use their money and military to deal with ISIS. Jordan wouldn't be far behind quite frankly.
You smash Iran and you will cause the entire region to disintegrate into a cluster fuck.
I think you over state it. No one in the middle east likes Iran at the moment. If Israel decides to attack, Saudi Arabia would provide them with airspace passage and refueling bases. There has been quite a bit of talk that Israel already has an airfield built in northern Saudi Arabia for just this purpose.
You also assume that "smashing Iran" is a requirement. Cranking up the sanctions to the point where it hurts enough for them to cry uncle may well be enough.
Also your belief that you could actually isolate Iran to that degree is sadly mistaken. Push that hard and China and Russia will be there to support Iran for their own benefit. China will buy the oil for peanuts supercharging their own economy while the west suffers oil price shocks the likes of which make the 70s shocks look like blips. Russia will do the same. They will purchase Iranian oil for peanuts and sell their own supplies onto the now hyper-inflated western market, you will see an even more resurgent Russia with a huge competitive advantage.
Your information about the oil market is out of date. The US has quite a bit of capacity that isn't being pumped because the price has dropped so much as of late. In addition, this isn't the 70s, China is now highly dependent on the US market, there is only so far they would push us. Their stock market is in a free fall at the moment and their economy is cooling off quickly.
Iran is not nearly as important to China as good relations with the US are.
Russia could buy the oil, but they already have more than they can use, and their exports are under controls at the moment.
They're like any rational actor trying to get the best deal possible (and trying to get something that's fair).
Fair is in the eye of the beholder.:)
On the topic of missiles they actually have a very understandable point. The US has talked about attacking Iran
It is worth noting that in return for the removal of missiles from Cuba, the US promised to not attack or invade Cuba.
We kept that promise. If Iran were to commit to the total removal of offensive missiles and nuclear technology, a guarantee that the US would never attack them strikes me as fair. Of course part of that is they would have to stop supporting terrorists, which they don't want to stop doing.
Thus we come back to, "Iran can't be trusted".
It's possible, though risky, it's a lot easier for them to get a bomb without inspections.
Maybe, but I'd suggest it would be a lot harder to get a bomb if they were blockaded outright.
Has the US apologized for overthrowing Iran's democratically elected government leading to the 1979 revolution?
No, but we should...
Or for entering Iranian waters and shooting down Iran Air Flight 655?
Yes, we did, and we paid reparations to the families of those who died.
Has Israel promised not to attack Iran? And insisting on recognition of Israel is a shaming tactic, a symbolic foreign policy capitulation, that's just a poison pill for an agreement.
Israel has been attacked 4 times by other nations during its brief existence. It is small and the nations around it are big.
The insistence isn't a shame thing, Iran would do well to stop supporting the terrorists who attack Israel on a daily basis. In short, Iran needs to grow up and join the world of civilized nations if they wish to be treated as such. South Africa gave up apartheid and joined the world of civil nations, Iran can too.
firing the Iraqi army
Don't even get me started on how stupid that was. Same thing happened to some extent in Germany after WWII and it was a mess for awhile. Patton was famous for emplying ex-Nazis to run Bavaria, because he knew he needed them to run the day to day functions. He even allowed the Germany Army forces there to remain in uniform and under the command of their own officers, who reported to him. The majority of the Germany Army understood the situation and respected the new chain of command. They were put to work repairing the county to prepare it for the winter of 1945.
What did Patton get for that? He was fired. The stupid civilian leadership refuse to accept that you can't just fire the whole damm government when you take over a country, you need the workers to... keep working... Nazi ID cards or not, they had jobs to do to keep the lights on and the water running.
The other problem with the second gulf war is we didn't take NEARLY enough troops to secure the country. We took about 125,000 troops to secure a country the size of California, with about 25 million people living in it. If 125,000 troops invaded the state of California tomorrow, they would get lost just in LA alone, much less the whole state.
We took 500k troops into Kuwait in 1991, we probably needed a million or more the second time around, but of course our "planes and drones and tanks can do anything". Nonsense, you need boots on the ground. You don't need those troops to fight, we had plenty of that. What you need is a clear show of force that allows you to be everywhere you need to be so that anyone thinking you're weak doesn't even get the idea of trying anything stupid. It becomes obvious who is the new boss and you can secure the borders and maintain order.
As for the issue of the minority oppressing the majority, that is true and there was going to be backlash for that. One consideration would be to split Iraq u
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal.
You and I see the world very differently.:)
That's ok, there are many viewpoints in the world, we are each entitled to our own.
But in my opinion, if Iran were serious, they would understand their place in this deal, and it sounds like they don't.
A deal with Iran that stops their nuclear program and starts creating an friendly power strikes me as a very good idea.
Sure, if the deal would do that. You seem to assume that if we do a deal, then all is well in the world. What happens if they ignore it and go after a bomb anyway? You don't seem to consider that as a possibility, or you think the inspections will catch it. Iran is not a small nation, they are much larger and better positioned to cheat on the deal without getting caught than Iraq could have ever dreamed of.
So you might ask, what would I, as an American, have to see to start believing Iran? Some humble pie would be a nice start. An apology for the hostages in 1979 would be another. Announcing Israel's right to exist and promising to never attack them would be another.
You think they are offering a decent deal? You must be joking, they are miles and miles and miles from a decent deal.
Frankly it is a shame that the invasion of Iraq was so poorly handled by people who didn't know what they were doing. The first gulf war was run beautifully, the second, not so much. But that is a failure of leadership, not of our military.
Does that mean there's no point in trying to negotiate one?
Yes, it does... until both sides actually believe the other side will stick to a deal, it is pointless to engage in one.
In this case, the onus is on Iran to show they are serious. As of now, they clearly aren't. What they SHOULD do is follow South Africa's lead... Give up all their nukes and related technology on their own. The world will drop the sanctions in rather short order if they do that.
Thus the problem. If Iran was serious about not building a bomb, then they'd just give it up. We don't attack nations that don't threaten our interests. When is the last time we bombed Australia? South Africa? Chili?
Don't piss in our cheerios, we won't bomb you. It really is that simple.
But if they are at the table talking now why not make a deal?
Sure, by all means, make a deal if you can.
But it takes two people (or nations) to make a deal, and it appears that Iran is not yet serious about this.
Under what pretext?
Nations like Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Your next question might be, what gives the US the right to say that... Simple... We're in charge, they aren't. You might not think that is "right", but it is the truth.
If they want to be in charge, they can have the largest GDP, the world's reserve currency, and the world's most powerful military. Until then, we're in charge and they aren't.
It isn't very diplomatic to say that, but when you cut the crust off the bread, that is what you'll find in the middle.
I'm not saying we should implicitly trust the Iranians. However, we can at least trust them to act in their own best interests. Those interests (e.g., lifting sanctions) can be leveraged into a deal that contains their nuclear program, but only if you negotiate such a deal.
The deal is worthless if Iran doesn't stick to it.
Leave the sanctions in place, they are clearly working or Iran wouldn't be at the table talking.
Perhaps increase them, isolate Iran to the point that it becomes quite hard to do business anywhere in the world. Make their oil worthless by intercepting it on the high seas, forbid them to ship it anywhere.
Invading and attacking them may not be required, they might cry uncle when the pain becomes great enough.
Or not, North Korea is the other way it goes I suppose.
Funny, that's exactly what contractors do. I was a contractor for 4 years at a desk where I had to show up in exact hours, attend OIG presentations about sexual harassment and child pornography on business systems, and of course was not allowed to post on Facebook where I work.
You weren't a contractor, you were an employee.
If you did that for 4 years, it may be worth your time to open a complaint with the IRS, the company owes you SS contributions and tax payments. You might be shocked how much money it ends up being.
"The employees like it, the customers like it" By that reasoning, it should be legal to sell narcotics on the street.
Yes, it probably should be... and I don't like that either, but our current war on drugs is stupid, expensive, and isn't remotely preventing it anyway...
And you can't see your backlit phone screen in a darkened room? I could see people complaining that the typical phone screen is too bright, but not too dim.
Sure I can, but you missed the point... I don't WANT to see it, I want to feel it.
Touch screens are not the solution to everything.:)
Matricom's stuff gives you full rooted Android with Miracast/DLNA/Airplay etc.. plus you can run all of your Android apps on it.
Given the mess that is Windows and malware, the average customer really shouldn't have, doesn't need, and won't use a "fully rooted" device.
Locked devices are a PITA for techies, but for average customers, they are a good thing.
The suggestions you made are nice ideas for people who are already technical in nature, but even then they are overkill.
I'm one of those people, I have a dozen computers in my home of various types, my home is wired for ethernet, I love techie stuff.
You know what? I use a Fire TV for watching TV, because it just works. It is so much easier to use than the complicated solutions, and it is by far good enough to cover almost everything that is needed. The wife and kids use it and love it. I do have a HTPC on the main TV and I'll turn it on from time to time, but no one else in my house would.
Normal people just don't do that, and aren't going to start tomorrow.:)
Don't underestimate convenience - that extra $45 cost will pay itself off in an hour for many people who actually value their free time and don't feel like fighting with a Chromecast.
This is worth quoting...
People who like to tinker with technology often don't see this as a "cost", but the reality is your average person just wants stuff to work.
I used to use the Roku 3, we had 2 of them, one for the adult's TV and one for the kid's. Fast, dependable, always work... The only reason we replaced them was because we bought a pair of Amazon Fire TVs, and for people who live in the Amazon ecosystem, nothing is better than those.
But if other services are your thing, by all means, get a Roku 3 and be happy with it.
I had to look up what Kodi was, never heard of it before...
It appears to be mostly designed for people who have collections of movies stored locally, or on a NAS. If I'm missing something, let me know, but that is what I saw.
I don't have a local media library, my HTPC is only for the web, YouTube, etc. There are also some things that can be watched for free online, but only with a PC. For example, we watch Shark Tank on ABC.com for free, we just have to wait one week after it airs. Otherwise we have to pay $3 per episode to buy them via Amazon.
You can't watch them for free on a "device" like a Fire TV or a PS4, but you can on your PC, that is why it is there.
It was, I think, a decent deal. Bought it a few months ago, it is a refurbished Acer minitower, Core i5 Haswell CPU with 4 GB of RAM and a 1TB HD, $309 I think it cost, plus tax. Uses the built in Intel video, but that's fine for that purpose, I don't play games with it, just browse the web and watch videos and it does both perfectly.
Well, I honestly don't know if it does that... the idea of "casting" whatever is on my phone never seemed to be something I want to do.
As I sit here and think about it, I still don't care to do that, so frankly, I don't know if it does that.
What I do know is that the Amazon remote works really well, the voice search is spot on the money, and the box itself is very quick.
Paid full price for one of them ($99), paid $69 for the second one, and got the stick for $19 when it launched.
Frankly, I don't use the stick very much, but it does come with a remote and it works fine, just lacking the voice search which is fine for how rarely it gets used.
Of course, it does help that we're a heavy Amazon Prime house, we watch video mostly on Amazon and we buy our videos and movies with them as well. We do have a Hulu and Netflix sub, but don't use those as much. Probably should drop Netflix, now that I think about it. Hulu is useful for stuff like America's Got Talent, that we watch as a family, but never would want to buy (I'm not even sure you can).
---
BTW, re: YouTube, Amazon has a nice app for that, but frankly I usually turn the HTPC on that is on the big TV. Why? Better overall experience, and having a keyboard to type on makes it nice. Plus sometimes I surf the web from the couch.:)
The one app that is not on Amazon is Vudu, and we don't use it much. We started a collection there a year or two ago, but stopped when we decided to go all in on Amazon. Vudu did have a great offer to convert DVD and BR to digital for as little as $1 per movie, that got us about 300 or so movies in that collection, and I bought a few of their sales and deals, but we often forget it is there. So much to watch, so little time.:)
I will say that ease of use and simple interface are strong benefits of the Amazon Fire TV, but having not used a Chromecast, I have no idea how it compares.
Slashdot Mirror
Bush, who was an idiot. Right up there with Obama, who is also an idiot.
Way too many people are rooting for one side or the other, as if these are sports teams. Both sides are idiots.
ISIS...
As bad as ISIS is, they are not really a threat to world peace. Iran is...
Now imagine your outlets are in a room filled with 500 people all day long. Still willing to let passers-by plug in?
If there are 500 people on my property every day, then I have a business of some sort, or I'm crazy wealthy.
In both cases, I'm still fine with it. It is a trivial amount of power compared to whatever I'm doing with 500 people a day.
You sure like to troll a lot, don't you? You have replied to a lot of my posts, mostly with nonsense answers like that one.
Carry on, it is a free country.
the police man was just enforcing the laws written by the legislature.
The police have the ability in most cases to be selective in what they enforce, understanding that situations require judgement and society doesn't want an oppressive police force.
Such as getting a warning for a speeding infraction, rather than a ticket.
If you have police that selectively enforce the law you will have the problem of selective enforcement.
We already have that, and so long as it isn't based on the person (age, gender, color, creed, etc.), then it is a good thing.
Forgot about the miniscule amount of energy for a minute. Would it be ok to run an extension cord from an outlet on your porch to power my fan when I get overheated riding my bike near your house?
Yes, that would be fine with me.
My home has several outlets outside, if someone needed to use one for 20 min to charge their phone or run a fan, I couldn't care less.
A knock on the door to ask would be nice, but if I'm not home, I don't care.
The amount of power is trivial and not worth caring about.
There is a principle involved here.
Perhaps, but there is also what is reasonable and polite society to consider.
We're not Vulcan, we're human, and being considerate to each other is a good thing.
Intercepting their ships would be an act of war.
So was doing it during the Cuban missile crisis to Russian transports, that doesn't mean people start shooting.
Iran has the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz
Yes they do, for a little while. How long would it take us to open it back up, at great cost to them? I have no doubt they have given that a lot of through, as I imagine we have as well.
Oh sure the US could use that as an excuse to launch an invasion of Iran but Russia would not sit idly by and allow that.
And they would do what? Go to war with the US over Iran? Maybe, but they have their own problems in Ukraine at the moment, their economy is a mess due to their own sanctions.
Besides, a deal is easily done there. Trade Iran for Ukraine. Putin wants a free hand in the Ukraine, we'd want one in Iran. There is a deal to be made there.
In addition Iran is currently what is holding ISIS in check.
Saudi Arabia needs to step up to the plate and use their money and military to deal with ISIS. Jordan wouldn't be far behind quite frankly.
You smash Iran and you will cause the entire region to disintegrate into a cluster fuck.
I think you over state it. No one in the middle east likes Iran at the moment. If Israel decides to attack, Saudi Arabia would provide them with airspace passage and refueling bases. There has been quite a bit of talk that Israel already has an airfield built in northern Saudi Arabia for just this purpose.
You also assume that "smashing Iran" is a requirement. Cranking up the sanctions to the point where it hurts enough for them to cry uncle may well be enough.
Also your belief that you could actually isolate Iran to that degree is sadly mistaken. Push that hard and China and Russia will be there to support Iran for their own benefit. China will buy the oil for peanuts supercharging their own economy while the west suffers oil price shocks the likes of which make the 70s shocks look like blips. Russia will do the same. They will purchase Iranian oil for peanuts and sell their own supplies onto the now hyper-inflated western market, you will see an even more resurgent Russia with a huge competitive advantage.
Your information about the oil market is out of date. The US has quite a bit of capacity that isn't being pumped because the price has dropped so much as of late. In addition, this isn't the 70s, China is now highly dependent on the US market, there is only so far they would push us. Their stock market is in a free fall at the moment and their economy is cooling off quickly.
Iran is not nearly as important to China as good relations with the US are.
Russia could buy the oil, but they already have more than they can use, and their exports are under controls at the moment.
They're like any rational actor trying to get the best deal possible (and trying to get something that's fair).
Fair is in the eye of the beholder. :)
On the topic of missiles they actually have a very understandable point. The US has talked about attacking Iran
It is worth noting that in return for the removal of missiles from Cuba, the US promised to not attack or invade Cuba.
We kept that promise. If Iran were to commit to the total removal of offensive missiles and nuclear technology, a guarantee that the US would never attack them strikes me as fair. Of course part of that is they would have to stop supporting terrorists, which they don't want to stop doing.
Thus we come back to, "Iran can't be trusted".
It's possible, though risky, it's a lot easier for them to get a bomb without inspections.
Maybe, but I'd suggest it would be a lot harder to get a bomb if they were blockaded outright.
Has the US apologized for overthrowing Iran's democratically elected government leading to the 1979 revolution?
No, but we should...
Or for entering Iranian waters and shooting down Iran Air Flight 655?
Yes, we did, and we paid reparations to the families of those who died.
Has Israel promised not to attack Iran? And insisting on recognition of Israel is a shaming tactic, a symbolic foreign policy capitulation, that's just a poison pill for an agreement.
Israel has been attacked 4 times by other nations during its brief existence. It is small and the nations around it are big.
The insistence isn't a shame thing, Iran would do well to stop supporting the terrorists who attack Israel on a daily basis. In short, Iran needs to grow up and join the world of civilized nations if they wish to be treated as such. South Africa gave up apartheid and joined the world of civil nations, Iran can too.
firing the Iraqi army
Don't even get me started on how stupid that was. Same thing happened to some extent in Germany after WWII and it was a mess for awhile. Patton was famous for emplying ex-Nazis to run Bavaria, because he knew he needed them to run the day to day functions. He even allowed the Germany Army forces there to remain in uniform and under the command of their own officers, who reported to him. The majority of the Germany Army understood the situation and respected the new chain of command. They were put to work repairing the county to prepare it for the winter of 1945.
What did Patton get for that? He was fired. The stupid civilian leadership refuse to accept that you can't just fire the whole damm government when you take over a country, you need the workers to... keep working... Nazi ID cards or not, they had jobs to do to keep the lights on and the water running.
The other problem with the second gulf war is we didn't take NEARLY enough troops to secure the country. We took about 125,000 troops to secure a country the size of California, with about 25 million people living in it. If 125,000 troops invaded the state of California tomorrow, they would get lost just in LA alone, much less the whole state.
We took 500k troops into Kuwait in 1991, we probably needed a million or more the second time around, but of course our "planes and drones and tanks can do anything". Nonsense, you need boots on the ground. You don't need those troops to fight, we had plenty of that. What you need is a clear show of force that allows you to be everywhere you need to be so that anyone thinking you're weak doesn't even get the idea of trying anything stupid. It becomes obvious who is the new boss and you can secure the borders and maintain order.
As for the issue of the minority oppressing the majority, that is true and there was going to be backlash for that. One consideration would be to split Iraq u
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal.
You and I see the world very differently. :)
That's ok, there are many viewpoints in the world, we are each entitled to our own.
But in my opinion, if Iran were serious, they would understand their place in this deal, and it sounds like they don't.
A deal with Iran that stops their nuclear program and starts creating an friendly power strikes me as a very good idea.
Sure, if the deal would do that. You seem to assume that if we do a deal, then all is well in the world. What happens if they ignore it and go after a bomb anyway? You don't seem to consider that as a possibility, or you think the inspections will catch it. Iran is not a small nation, they are much larger and better positioned to cheat on the deal without getting caught than Iraq could have ever dreamed of.
So you might ask, what would I, as an American, have to see to start believing Iran? Some humble pie would be a nice start. An apology for the hostages in 1979 would be another. Announcing Israel's right to exist and promising to never attack them would be another.
You think they are offering a decent deal? You must be joking, they are miles and miles and miles from a decent deal.
Frankly it is a shame that the invasion of Iraq was so poorly handled by people who didn't know what they were doing. The first gulf war was run beautifully, the second, not so much. But that is a failure of leadership, not of our military.
Does that mean there's no point in trying to negotiate one?
Yes, it does... until both sides actually believe the other side will stick to a deal, it is pointless to engage in one.
In this case, the onus is on Iran to show they are serious. As of now, they clearly aren't. What they SHOULD do is follow South Africa's lead... Give up all their nukes and related technology on their own. The world will drop the sanctions in rather short order if they do that.
Thus the problem. If Iran was serious about not building a bomb, then they'd just give it up. We don't attack nations that don't threaten our interests. When is the last time we bombed Australia? South Africa? Chili?
Don't piss in our cheerios, we won't bomb you. It really is that simple.
But if they are at the table talking now why not make a deal?
Sure, by all means, make a deal if you can.
But it takes two people (or nations) to make a deal, and it appears that Iran is not yet serious about this.
Under what pretext?
Nations like Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Your next question might be, what gives the US the right to say that... Simple... We're in charge, they aren't. You might not think that is "right", but it is the truth.
If they want to be in charge, they can have the largest GDP, the world's reserve currency, and the world's most powerful military. Until then, we're in charge and they aren't.
It isn't very diplomatic to say that, but when you cut the crust off the bread, that is what you'll find in the middle.
I'm not saying we should implicitly trust the Iranians. However, we can at least trust them to act in their own best interests. Those interests (e.g., lifting sanctions) can be leveraged into a deal that contains their nuclear program, but only if you negotiate such a deal.
The deal is worthless if Iran doesn't stick to it.
What's your alternative suggestion?
Leave the sanctions in place, they are clearly working or Iran wouldn't be at the table talking.
Perhaps increase them, isolate Iran to the point that it becomes quite hard to do business anywhere in the world. Make their oil worthless by intercepting it on the high seas, forbid them to ship it anywhere.
Invading and attacking them may not be required, they might cry uncle when the pain becomes great enough.
Or not, North Korea is the other way it goes I suppose.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I've paid enough to them over the years...
I would agree with you, few judges take a positive view on people who try and get clever with the law...
The law says what the Judge thinks it says, no more or less. Don't like it? You can always object or appeal.
Not anymore, there is now a 2TB 850 EVO, single drive...
Funny, that's exactly what contractors do. I was a contractor for 4 years at a desk where I had to show up in exact hours, attend OIG presentations about sexual harassment and child pornography on business systems, and of course was not allowed to post on Facebook where I work.
You weren't a contractor, you were an employee.
If you did that for 4 years, it may be worth your time to open a complaint with the IRS, the company owes you SS contributions and tax payments. You might be shocked how much money it ends up being.
"The employees like it, the customers like it" By that reasoning, it should be legal to sell narcotics on the street.
Yes, it probably should be... and I don't like that either, but our current war on drugs is stupid, expensive, and isn't remotely preventing it anyway...
And you can't see your backlit phone screen in a darkened room? I could see people complaining that the typical phone screen is too bright, but not too dim.
Sure I can, but you missed the point... I don't WANT to see it, I want to feel it.
Touch screens are not the solution to everything. :)
Thanks for the reply...
That is what it looked like... for my needs, it is just something else to keep track of, but it is nice that it exists for those who can use it. :)
You still have to see the screen to press it.
A real remote with real buttons doesn't require this.
For watching TV and movies in the dark, nothing beats a remote with physical buttons.
Matricom's stuff gives you full rooted Android with Miracast/DLNA/Airplay etc.. plus you can run all of your Android apps on it.
Given the mess that is Windows and malware, the average customer really shouldn't have, doesn't need, and won't use a "fully rooted" device.
Locked devices are a PITA for techies, but for average customers, they are a good thing.
The suggestions you made are nice ideas for people who are already technical in nature, but even then they are overkill.
I'm one of those people, I have a dozen computers in my home of various types, my home is wired for ethernet, I love techie stuff.
You know what? I use a Fire TV for watching TV, because it just works. It is so much easier to use than the complicated solutions, and it is by far good enough to cover almost everything that is needed. The wife and kids use it and love it. I do have a HTPC on the main TV and I'll turn it on from time to time, but no one else in my house would.
Normal people just don't do that, and aren't going to start tomorrow. :)
While that is a nice idea, I suspect that the average customer doesn't actually want a hundred different sources of movies...
Apple and Amazon seem to have done a decent enough job with their players. What they lack in broad video support they make up for in ease of use...
A lot of the suggestions and ideas tossed out are way beyond what most people will ever do.
Don't underestimate convenience - that extra $45 cost will pay itself off in an hour for many people who actually value their free time and don't feel like fighting with a Chromecast.
This is worth quoting...
People who like to tinker with technology often don't see this as a "cost", but the reality is your average person just wants stuff to work.
I used to use the Roku 3, we had 2 of them, one for the adult's TV and one for the kid's. Fast, dependable, always work... The only reason we replaced them was because we bought a pair of Amazon Fire TVs, and for people who live in the Amazon ecosystem, nothing is better than those.
But if other services are your thing, by all means, get a Roku 3 and be happy with it.
I had to look up what Kodi was, never heard of it before...
It appears to be mostly designed for people who have collections of movies stored locally, or on a NAS. If I'm missing something, let me know, but that is what I saw.
I don't have a local media library, my HTPC is only for the web, YouTube, etc. There are also some things that can be watched for free online, but only with a PC. For example, we watch Shark Tank on ABC.com for free, we just have to wait one week after it airs. Otherwise we have to pay $3 per episode to buy them via Amazon.
You can't watch them for free on a "device" like a Fire TV or a PS4, but you can on your PC, that is why it is there.
It was, I think, a decent deal. Bought it a few months ago, it is a refurbished Acer minitower, Core i5 Haswell CPU with 4 GB of RAM and a 1TB HD, $309 I think it cost, plus tax. Uses the built in Intel video, but that's fine for that purpose, I don't play games with it, just browse the web and watch videos and it does both perfectly.
Well, I honestly don't know if it does that... the idea of "casting" whatever is on my phone never seemed to be something I want to do.
As I sit here and think about it, I still don't care to do that, so frankly, I don't know if it does that.
What I do know is that the Amazon remote works really well, the voice search is spot on the money, and the box itself is very quick.
Paid full price for one of them ($99), paid $69 for the second one, and got the stick for $19 when it launched.
Frankly, I don't use the stick very much, but it does come with a remote and it works fine, just lacking the voice search which is fine for how rarely it gets used.
Of course, it does help that we're a heavy Amazon Prime house, we watch video mostly on Amazon and we buy our videos and movies with them as well. We do have a Hulu and Netflix sub, but don't use those as much. Probably should drop Netflix, now that I think about it. Hulu is useful for stuff like America's Got Talent, that we watch as a family, but never would want to buy (I'm not even sure you can).
---
BTW, re: YouTube, Amazon has a nice app for that, but frankly I usually turn the HTPC on that is on the big TV. Why? Better overall experience, and having a keyboard to type on makes it nice. Plus sometimes I surf the web from the couch. :)
The one app that is not on Amazon is Vudu, and we don't use it much. We started a collection there a year or two ago, but stopped when we decided to go all in on Amazon. Vudu did have a great offer to convert DVD and BR to digital for as little as $1 per movie, that got us about 300 or so movies in that collection, and I bought a few of their sales and deals, but we often forget it is there. So much to watch, so little time. :)
I will say that ease of use and simple interface are strong benefits of the Amazon Fire TV, but having not used a Chromecast, I have no idea how it compares.