Though I happen to like Daredevil, I definitely WOULDN'T recommend it for children. At least, not younger children. There's a large amount of bloodshed that even the Marvel movies don't have. Without getting too spoilery, the Fisk "car scene" in Episode 4 alone would make this not for kids.
Who needs 6 different boxes? I have a Roku box connected to my TV. With it, I access Netflix, Amazon (both Prime and VOD), Hulu Plus, Google Play, and various other services. I can switch between services effortlessly.
It's not that Netflix doesn't want to show these old movies/TV shows, it's that the content owners often give Netflix scraps hoping to starve them out of existence. They see Netflix as a threat to their old business model and want them gone.
Worse than content, they have a near-monopoly on Internet access - a total monopoly in some areas. If I want wired, broadband Internet access, my one and only choice is Time Warner Cable. If TWC decided tomorrow that my Internet access without cable TV costs $100, has a 10 GB limit, and a $10 per GB overage fee, there would be nothing I could do. That's admittedly an extreme example, but some cable companies are pricing their no-TV Internet packages higher than their TV+Internet bundles to force people to keep cable TV. Many are also setting bandwidth caps with overage fees to limit Internet video use (while their own video services remain cap-free).
If I don't like something Netflix does, I can go to another Internet video provider (even if it means not seeing a Netflix-exclusive show). If I don't like something my ISP does, I have no other options. The cable companies know this and are trying to exploit it.
For Netflix, I think making their own content is a hedge against the content providers who see Netflix as a threat* and who want to only give them old scraps of content, at best, to try to kill Netflix off.
* In reality, Netflix is probably one of the content providers' best allies against piracy. How many people will take the time, effort, and risk to pirate a show when it's available via Netflix?
From what I've seen so far from Daredevil, this is definitely what it means. Also, there are less filler episodes as the writers try to slow the plot advancement down and have a "bad guy of the week" for our heroes to tackle who is completely unrelated to the main plot. The plot pacing on Daredevil (so far... I'm 7 episodes in) is a whole lot better than on network shows.
We tried out Hulu Plus when we cancelled cable and I don't mind it that much. I think of it as my DVR-replacement. Instead of recording shows and then having to fast forward through commercials, I get to see a show slightly delayed from when it aired on Cable with fewer ads than cable TV would have given me. I definitely prefer Netflix or Amazon Prime, but Hulu gives me access to many shows that I would need to buy via Amazon VOD or Google Play otherwise and thus winds up saving me money.
Even with Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, Netflix, buying shows on Amazon VOD/Google Play, and buying more DVDs, we're STILL paying less than half of what the cable company wanted us to pay.
1) Script Kiddies who are running programs against your network looking for security holes. If your network is secured enough, these attackers will just move on to the next target.
2) Internal Employees who are either disgruntled, looking for "side income", or just careless/clueless These are the people who, with access to your HR database, download a list of your employees and their SSNs to sell for cash. They also are the people who know they are going to be fired and so sabotage systems. Finally, these are the people who open NEKKID_PHOTOS_OF_CELEBRITIES.ZIP.exe in their e-mail, who give out their passwords when "IT" calls them out of the blue from a non-company number, or who take their laptop (connected to the company's network) home but leave it in the car visible to all so it gets stolen.
In the case of internal employees, you can lock down access so they only have access to systems they need for their job and educate your users as much as possible about security threats and how to react. If an employee is a chronic security threat, you can take corrective action. Of course, this becomes difficult when said employee is also a company executive. (e.g. The CFO insists on connecting his virus-laden personal laptop to the network and has enough political pull to fire anyone who tells him that's not company policy.)
Even with the scholarship they were offering, we would have been stretching our finances to the breaking point. So, yes, it was a choice, but not much of one.
Our public school is a high poverty district and, at one point, we considered private school. Then we saw the cost: $16,000 per year per student (we have 2 kids). They have scholarship programs but we heard from people that accepting the scholarship means you open your finances wide open to their scrutiny. e.g. If you take one family vacation a year, they'll ask you why you're spending money on that versus giving them the money.
We can't afford to move to a wealthier district either so, in the end, we're sending our kids to public school because it's our only option at the moment. Luckily, so far, our schools have been committed to doing the most with what they have (despite our governor's attempts to destroy the public school system).
I might be willing to say "let them merge" if their merger also meant a split by services rendered.
Company #1 handles ISP service. Company #2 handles TV service. Company #3 handles content ownership. (e.g. NBC.)
I'm not sure where phone and other services fall in that structure, but those three are the important ones. With a breakup like this, you won't have Comcast ISP's monopoly being used to advance Comcast TV's profits.
My guess is that the power of the ISS laser, if aimed at the ground, would cause less damage than aiming a laser pointer at the ground. For all of the sci-fi programs showing space-based lasers decimating cities, our atmosphere is very good at diffusing light and the ISS's laser isn't going to have the power needed to overcome this.
I'll admit that when people talk about the Holocaust (as in the event that occurred in Nazi Germany during WW2 as opposed to the generic term "holocaust"), they mean the 6 million Jews killed. That's because Jews were targeted above and beyond by the Nazis (at least as far as sheer numbers go). Still, it's a shame that the others aren't mentioned because they suffered and died alongside the Jews. Some of them even had a way out - something the Jews didn't have since they couldn't just convert and be allowed to be free - but instead of supporting the Nazis, opposed them which was a one-way ticket to a concentration camp (if not immediate death).
Maybe the poster was confused* about Holocaust deaths versus "general WW2" deaths (including soldiers, etc).
If you want to limit it to just the Holocaust, then Goebbels was guilty of (at least) being a co-conspirator in the deaths of 12 million people. This includes 6 million Jews and 6 million other people (political prisoners, gypsies, etc.).
* Chances are, the poster wasn't confused. Especially if one looks to the poster's previous posts. There's one calling evolution "not established science" there so I wouldn't be surprised if he would think that the Holocaust isn't "established history" either.
So if a woman is friends with a man, they can't hang out in private ever? And if the man decides that he wants more - and to force that "more" on her - then it's the woman's fault for hanging out with him without others around?
On the flip side, does this mean that women should regard all men as sexual predators? As a man, I'm offended by that.
For some colleges, relying on local police instead of campus security would be a huge negative. The college I went to was in a bad neighborhood, but our campus was pretty safe. Generally, you could walk around the campus at night without any problem. Walk two feet off campus, though, and I couldn't guarantee your safety. The local police might have had a hand in this, but I doubt they kept only the college safe. More likely, it was campus security providing focused protection (of a kind that the surrounding area didn't have) and calling in the police where needed.
This is especially true if the local community places a high value on the person being accused. For example, if a small town's football superstar rapes someone and she reports it, she will be treated as a horrible person for trying to ruin the team's chance at the playoffs. Accusations will be made regarding her promiscuity and her general character. Her name will be dragged through the mud. And all of this before the case even sees one day in a courtroom. She might have to leave the town entirely while the football superstar will be hailed as a hero for having to go through such trying times while still scoring points for the local team. And if the football superstar had raped other women, they will be pressured into keeping quiet having seen how women who speak out are treated.
Does rape get falsely reported? Sure, but it also goes unreported out of fear of the victim becoming a target.
Bah. That's the backwards way of doing it. Here in the US, we award expensive contracts to large companies so they can make huge profits while delivering sub-par voting machines. The politicians win (in the form of bribes from the large companies and votes "redirected" to them) and the large companies win (aforementioned huge profits) so it's a win-win. Yes, the voters themselves lose, but that's not important when designing voting machines, right?
Great. There are some days where I forget where I've put my smartphone. So now I can expect to lose my entire computer because it dropped and I might have vacuumed it up with the dust bunnies?
Slashdot Mirror
Though I happen to like Daredevil, I definitely WOULDN'T recommend it for children. At least, not younger children. There's a large amount of bloodshed that even the Marvel movies don't have. Without getting too spoilery, the Fisk "car scene" in Episode 4 alone would make this not for kids.
Who needs 6 different boxes? I have a Roku box connected to my TV. With it, I access Netflix, Amazon (both Prime and VOD), Hulu Plus, Google Play, and various other services. I can switch between services effortlessly.
It's not that Netflix doesn't want to show these old movies/TV shows, it's that the content owners often give Netflix scraps hoping to starve them out of existence. They see Netflix as a threat to their old business model and want them gone.
Worse than content, they have a near-monopoly on Internet access - a total monopoly in some areas. If I want wired, broadband Internet access, my one and only choice is Time Warner Cable. If TWC decided tomorrow that my Internet access without cable TV costs $100, has a 10 GB limit, and a $10 per GB overage fee, there would be nothing I could do. That's admittedly an extreme example, but some cable companies are pricing their no-TV Internet packages higher than their TV+Internet bundles to force people to keep cable TV. Many are also setting bandwidth caps with overage fees to limit Internet video use (while their own video services remain cap-free).
If I don't like something Netflix does, I can go to another Internet video provider (even if it means not seeing a Netflix-exclusive show). If I don't like something my ISP does, I have no other options. The cable companies know this and are trying to exploit it.
For Netflix, I think making their own content is a hedge against the content providers who see Netflix as a threat* and who want to only give them old scraps of content, at best, to try to kill Netflix off.
* In reality, Netflix is probably one of the content providers' best allies against piracy. How many people will take the time, effort, and risk to pirate a show when it's available via Netflix?
From what I've seen so far from Daredevil, this is definitely what it means. Also, there are less filler episodes as the writers try to slow the plot advancement down and have a "bad guy of the week" for our heroes to tackle who is completely unrelated to the main plot. The plot pacing on Daredevil (so far... I'm 7 episodes in) is a whole lot better than on network shows.
We tried out Hulu Plus when we cancelled cable and I don't mind it that much. I think of it as my DVR-replacement. Instead of recording shows and then having to fast forward through commercials, I get to see a show slightly delayed from when it aired on Cable with fewer ads than cable TV would have given me. I definitely prefer Netflix or Amazon Prime, but Hulu gives me access to many shows that I would need to buy via Amazon VOD or Google Play otherwise and thus winds up saving me money.
Even with Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, Netflix, buying shows on Amazon VOD/Google Play, and buying more DVDs, we're STILL paying less than half of what the cable company wanted us to pay.
For most companies, there are two main threats:
1) Script Kiddies who are running programs against your network looking for security holes. If your network is secured enough, these attackers will just move on to the next target.
2) Internal Employees who are either disgruntled, looking for "side income", or just careless/clueless These are the people who, with access to your HR database, download a list of your employees and their SSNs to sell for cash. They also are the people who know they are going to be fired and so sabotage systems. Finally, these are the people who open NEKKID_PHOTOS_OF_CELEBRITIES.ZIP.exe in their e-mail, who give out their passwords when "IT" calls them out of the blue from a non-company number, or who take their laptop (connected to the company's network) home but leave it in the car visible to all so it gets stolen.
In the case of internal employees, you can lock down access so they only have access to systems they need for their job and educate your users as much as possible about security threats and how to react. If an employee is a chronic security threat, you can take corrective action. Of course, this becomes difficult when said employee is also a company executive. (e.g. The CFO insists on connecting his virus-laden personal laptop to the network and has enough political pull to fire anyone who tells him that's not company policy.)
Even with the scholarship they were offering, we would have been stretching our finances to the breaking point. So, yes, it was a choice, but not much of one.
I believe that would violate the Geneva Convention.
"Look out! They've weaponized Jar-Jar!!!!"
Our public school is a high poverty district and, at one point, we considered private school. Then we saw the cost: $16,000 per year per student (we have 2 kids). They have scholarship programs but we heard from people that accepting the scholarship means you open your finances wide open to their scrutiny. e.g. If you take one family vacation a year, they'll ask you why you're spending money on that versus giving them the money.
We can't afford to move to a wealthier district either so, in the end, we're sending our kids to public school because it's our only option at the moment. Luckily, so far, our schools have been committed to doing the most with what they have (despite our governor's attempts to destroy the public school system).
Without the TV service, the ISP service might actually improve speeds and remove caps (which are really designed to make streaming videos expensive).
Without the ISP service, the TV service might go IP-TV to widen their customer base.
In fact, if the latter happened, you could cleanly separate the TV portion of the company from the ISP portion.
I might be willing to say "let them merge" if their merger also meant a split by services rendered.
Company #1 handles ISP service.
Company #2 handles TV service.
Company #3 handles content ownership. (e.g. NBC.)
I'm not sure where phone and other services fall in that structure, but those three are the important ones. With a breakup like this, you won't have Comcast ISP's monopoly being used to advance Comcast TV's profits.
There are so many times when I wish "Shibboleet" were a real thing.
That or "agree to concessions that they will only really abide by for a year or two and then will 'forget' about."
My guess is that the power of the ISS laser, if aimed at the ground, would cause less damage than aiming a laser pointer at the ground. For all of the sci-fi programs showing space-based lasers decimating cities, our atmosphere is very good at diffusing light and the ISS's laser isn't going to have the power needed to overcome this.
I'll admit that when people talk about the Holocaust (as in the event that occurred in Nazi Germany during WW2 as opposed to the generic term "holocaust"), they mean the 6 million Jews killed. That's because Jews were targeted above and beyond by the Nazis (at least as far as sheer numbers go). Still, it's a shame that the others aren't mentioned because they suffered and died alongside the Jews. Some of them even had a way out - something the Jews didn't have since they couldn't just convert and be allowed to be free - but instead of supporting the Nazis, opposed them which was a one-way ticket to a concentration camp (if not immediate death).
Maybe the poster was confused* about Holocaust deaths versus "general WW2" deaths (including soldiers, etc).
If you want to limit it to just the Holocaust, then Goebbels was guilty of (at least) being a co-conspirator in the deaths of 12 million people. This includes 6 million Jews and 6 million other people (political prisoners, gypsies, etc.).
* Chances are, the poster wasn't confused. Especially if one looks to the poster's previous posts. There's one calling evolution "not established science" there so I wouldn't be surprised if he would think that the Holocaust isn't "established history" either.
So if a woman is friends with a man, they can't hang out in private ever? And if the man decides that he wants more - and to force that "more" on her - then it's the woman's fault for hanging out with him without others around?
On the flip side, does this mean that women should regard all men as sexual predators? As a man, I'm offended by that.
And what happens when a sober woman hangs out with a sober man who overpowers her? Not all rape cases are alcohol related.
For some colleges, relying on local police instead of campus security would be a huge negative. The college I went to was in a bad neighborhood, but our campus was pretty safe. Generally, you could walk around the campus at night without any problem. Walk two feet off campus, though, and I couldn't guarantee your safety. The local police might have had a hand in this, but I doubt they kept only the college safe. More likely, it was campus security providing focused protection (of a kind that the surrounding area didn't have) and calling in the police where needed.
This is especially true if the local community places a high value on the person being accused. For example, if a small town's football superstar rapes someone and she reports it, she will be treated as a horrible person for trying to ruin the team's chance at the playoffs. Accusations will be made regarding her promiscuity and her general character. Her name will be dragged through the mud. And all of this before the case even sees one day in a courtroom. She might have to leave the town entirely while the football superstar will be hailed as a hero for having to go through such trying times while still scoring points for the local team. And if the football superstar had raped other women, they will be pressured into keeping quiet having seen how women who speak out are treated.
Does rape get falsely reported? Sure, but it also goes unreported out of fear of the victim becoming a target.
A car that knows you'll get in an accident before you do?
"Honey, should we be worried that the car's CPU just ejected itself from the automobile?"
Bah. That's the backwards way of doing it. Here in the US, we award expensive contracts to large companies so they can make huge profits while delivering sub-par voting machines. The politicians win (in the form of bribes from the large companies and votes "redirected" to them) and the large companies win (aforementioned huge profits) so it's a win-win. Yes, the voters themselves lose, but that's not important when designing voting machines, right?
Great. There are some days where I forget where I've put my smartphone. So now I can expect to lose my entire computer because it dropped and I might have vacuumed it up with the dust bunnies?