From a Disney point of view, owning their own streaming service makes perfect sense, they already have 2 (or more?) Disney channels. They will just make everything they put on the Disney channel available for streaming. Unfortunately, it will probably work. Parents with kids (especially girls) will fork over the subscription rate for access to all of the Disney content (especially Disney princess shows and movies) until their kids outgrow Disney.
I'm not sure if any of the other company specific streaming services can make it, though. They don't have Disney's catalogue, reputation, or captive audience.
Let's say you are a coral and you can live in water of temperature 20-24 degrees Celsius. Which is convenient, because the water you live in is usually between 21-23 degrees. Now add global warming, over the course of the last century the water temperature increased by ~0.4 degrees on average. Before you could survive a hot period where the water temperature increased by a full degree, which is not an unreasonable increase for El Nino years. Now, however, you can only survive a hot period of 0.6 degrees before you start to die off. By the end of the century, if ocean temperatures increase by another 0.6 degrees, you may have trouble surviving every summer that not a La Nina year and you may be devastated if not completely wiped out by a moderate El Nino year.
If we're lucky, you will be replaced by a coral that is better adapted to those warmer temperatures, if we're not, the coral in your area goes extinct.
The fluctuations neither help nor hinder, because the baseline increase increases both the minimum and maximum values, and if the maximum values will kill you, you only have to hit those values once to get killed. The fact that you didn't die on a different day doesn't help you much, you're still dead.
Specifically that article said that the water that between 1.8 and 2.6 km below the pacific ocean surface was cooling at rate of around 0.02 degrees per century. If we assume all of the measurements are accurate, then the volume of water above 1.8 km and below 2.6 km would still be warming (at rates of about 0.4 degrees and 0.1 degrees per century, respectively), so the other parts of the pacific represent a larger volume of water and they are warming faster than this smaller band is cooling, and that means that there is more than enough warming water to offset the smaller band of cooling water. So overall the ocean is warming, even though there is band of water that hasn't seen the surface in 200-1000 years that is still cooling.
Consequently, nobody is going to build a radio system into a cop car that's so hard to remove that it's actually difficult. Most likely they'd build it into the light bar, or it would be a dash-mounted device. Either way, it wouldn't take long to steal.
Why steal the actual physical device, when you (or someone else) can reverse engineer it (or steal the plans) and release instructions on how to build your own stopper onto the internet? Imagine the fun of being able to stop random (or not-so-random) cars on the highway!
Yeah, that's a huge security hole that no matter how much you tried to protect it, would eventually fall into the hands of criminals and be abused.
Weird how Congress rarely gets the blame for deficits or other economic issues. If I recall correctly, Congress controls the purse strings and the President either approves or disapproves of the budget. Trump can say anything he wants and it doesn't matter as he doesn't control the allocation or amounts of any money, Congress does.
Maybe I've misunderstood the real process of the American budget, but it was my impression that the White House writes a budget and then submits it to Congress, where it is read, debated, and possibly modified and then eventually sent back to the White House for signing.
So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus. Am I misunderstanding the roles delineated in the Constitution? Does the President control the purse strings?
If the Trump administration wrote the budget, shouldn't they get both the credit and the blame for the budget?
That's because doubling the national debt *was* the fiscally responsible action for Obama. Why? Because the economy was in free-fall in the worse recession since the 1930s. The previous president had cut taxes, started 2 wars and increased entitlements (and increased the deficit before the recession started). Letting the economy bottom out naturally would have increased the debt more than trying to cushion it, and would have been a much worse result for Americans (less employment and more hardship). After dealing with the recession, the deficit shrank every year under Obama.
The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.
The reason why he wanted to expose the truth is completely irrelevant.
You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it true.
The only thing relevant is that you want to crucify him only for exposing the truth.
No, the other poster clearly indicated he wants to crucify Assange for using Wikileaks for personal gain and/or vendettas.
Again, it makes me sad that people like you consider exposing the truth is an atrocious crime.
The problem is he didn't really expose the truth, he exposed half a truth and mislead many people. We all know that he allowed Wikileaks to be used a vehicle for propaganda and helped the Russian intelligence agencies interfere in the U.S. election. He did so because he wanted to pursue a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton. The amusing part is that he hated Clinton because she wanted to do what the Trump administration is trying to do to him now.
This looks like a case of being hoisted by your own petard, and I have little sympathy for someone who deliberately helped Trump get elected when they are facing the consequences of Trump having been elected.
Do not try pretend to have the moral high-ground, because you really don't, at least not in my eyes.
That's ok. Sometimes people just want to enjoy a little schaedenfreude.
Actually Keynes said it had a stimulative effect even if you paid half the people to dig ditches and the other half to fill them in, and it does. He was making a point about how effective it is, not making a recommendation about what should be done with the money. Keynes would likely agree with you completely that spending the money on public infrastructure is better than spending it on make work projects.
Diverting up to 54% of the water of watersheds inside the rainforest is significant enough by fucking common sense that it requires justification to discount.
That's not what your quote says. It says 7%-17% percent overall, with up to 54% of individual watersheds. You have provided no evidence to substantiate that they were studying in an area that had any significant reduction in the watershed, and no evidence to substantiate that a reduction of that magnitude would have the effect of reducing the insect population by between 75% and 87.5%.
Also from what I read of the report you linked, the water diversion happens between the rain forest and the ocean. That's after it left the area they were studying, which leads me to wonder if it even matters at all. Really, you seem to desperately grasping at straws. Personally, I think the scientists, who had previously studied the insect population in the rain forest, would have noticed if it was now dried out to the point that the majority of insects can no longer survive.
So what's different this time? I mean, the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period - all were hotter and longer than the current burst.
Well, the evidence suggests that you're probably wrong about the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period being hotter and longer than the current warming.
I guess modern insects and mammals are just too wimpy...
Or, I guess you could ignore the evidence and invent your own explanations...
Really? So when the natives were genociding themselves, raping, enslaving each other and other people did the same thing it was suddenly whitey's fault?
The last residential school closed in 1996. So yeah, since the residential schools were treating them as (or more) savagely as they would have been treated 300 years ago, it is "Whitey's fault". The rest of the world progressed a bit in those years. If you pulled your head out your ass you might have been able to notice that too.
I wonder if you are aware that the survival rate for residential school students was lower than the survival rate for World War I or World War II veterans? Those kids would have been safer being sent to fight in the world's deadliest wars, and you want to laugh it off, like it was no big deal.
About Carly Fiorina - they paid for what they hoped. Their judgement was wrong, but it was their money and their responsibility to use them wisely. At the beginning, they saw big value in hiring her. And now we know the value of their mistake.
I don't think you grasped the point. Regardless of the jokes about Fiorina, you have claimed repeated that Fiorina is a value creator because she has money, when her track record is destroying value. The point then, is that having money has little relation to whether you create or destroy value. In fact, much of the money of the very wealthy is completely unearned by those who possess it and much of their income is derived from already having money. Economically speaking they accumulate additional wealth by extracting ownership rents from actual productive activity in which they frequently play no part what-so-ever. They get paid dividends and accumulate capital gains, and their personal financier shifts the money around from time to time to maximize the capitalist rents their boss is accumulating. They are owners and they don't actually have to do anything at all to earn additional wealth.
Nonsense. A maid and a gardener working for a millionaire would be at the low end; they still produce value by freeing up the millionaire to do other things. That same maid and gardener sitting at home collecting UBI no longer provide value; they still collect money from the millionaire via taxes, but now provide absolutely nothing of value.
They're doing "nothing" that you attach a value to, which is different from nothing of value. Most likely, they attach at least the value of the wage they would have been earning as a maid or gardener to the whatever they would be doing instead of working. Maybe they're raising their kids, instead of being absentee parents? Maybe they're studying to get their certifications so they can go back to being an engineer or nurse? Maybe they're learning a trade or skills to get a better job where they don't have to waste their lives in a menial job. Just because you can't assign a dollar and cents value to what they're doing doesn't mean it isn't valuable.
How many would continue to earn - or keep their earnings in the US - to support that level of taxation?
About 97%, give or take 3%. I mean it's like you know nothing about the history of taxation in the United States.
So every working individual pays another $1200 per month in taxes?
Interestingly enough according to your numbers, if the average worker is paying an extra $1,200 per month in taxes, they're also receiving an additional $1,250 per month from the UBI. Anyone at the average or bellow is getting a net benefit, using your numbers.
This is actually true, only about 15-20% of CEOs are sociopaths. It's one of the highest job rates, but it's by no means a majority. I've worked for at least 2 sociopaths, though.
You on the other hand just seem to want to roll over and be a victim.
Nah, he doesn't even want to roll over. He just wants to claim he's the victim and it's the system is keeping him down. Just another temporarily-embarrassed millionaire with delusions of adequacy.
Taxes are not voluntary, they are compulsory, meaning people with guns come for you when you do not pay them.
So? People with guns will come for you (at least in theory) if you steal anything. Hell, you're probably American, so in your country, people with guns might come for you if you just copy something without the proper permission.
The Government gets paid before I do as well. The only thing I see is how munch the government TOOK out of my paycheck before it gets deposited in my bank account.
Now, I don't know about your job, but I filled out a form telling my employer to send a percentage of my pay check to the government so that I wouldn't have to worry about saving enough to pay the entire bill at tax time. So if your job is anything like mine, the government's not taking it before you get it, your employer is giving a percentage of your pay to the government, based on a form that you filled out when you started your job. Your employer is doing it because it's easier for everyone if they help you pay your taxes in installments over the year instead of simply letting you trying to manage the entire bill at tax time, and they are doing so because you authorized them to do so.
Shopping at the grocery store is not compulsory. For now until total socialism takes total control I can still at least grow my own food.
I sincerely doubt that you could, you seem generally incompetent and poorly informed.
Maybe I expect to much from other people, but that was how I actually parsed the title. It's not the competitors that's the problem, it's the content access restrictions inherent in the exclusivity deal being spread across all those competitors. It would actually be nice if the majority of third-party content was available on each of the competitors and the competitors would compete on service and in-house content exclusives, instead of mostly competing on who has the right to show what 3rd party content.
Disney, for example, should stay out of the streaming business and license their content to every single one of the streaming services that are willing to pay whatever price they decide to put on their content.
Also, you need to purchase an inexpensive $400 device to record the content , one is necessary for each user.
But only for a limited time. If you don't act fast you'll soon need two devices for each user. After all, why should they let you watch with both eyes for one low price? You're practically robbing them.
About what I expected, childish response from a child who can't even accept he screwed up a response.
Oh wow. I actually did not expect you to call your own response childish. It's good to know that even you think you are a joke.
It's amusing that you blame your inability to understand my response on me. It's just not that complicated. Unfortunately, your responses illustrate how limited both your understanding and sense of humor are. Here's a hint, I was poking a little fun at your ridiculous claims and your response is you claim I'm on drugs, which is actually hilarious, since my original response implied that you were either on drugs or needed to be back on them. But, I absolutely love how you discredit yourself with every response you make.
Seeing as you like my advice, here's some more, Try to actually get the facts right and in this case why don't you see if you can make a mathematical argument how having unlimited immigration is actually going to be good for the country.
You really love moving the goalposts don't you? Why don't you tell everyone what unlimited immigration is and why you think it's a problem, since you brought it up.
That's incredibly unlikely. I think I remember seeing a stat that over 90% of the Americans who voted in the last election voted for the same party they had in the last 3 elections. The punch line is the other 10% weren't old enough to vote in the last 3 elections. But seriously, the vast majority of actual voters voted for the same party they usually did. It was only very slightly down from previous election cycles, as I remember (1-2% change?).
The specific don't matter that much, because party politics is too entrenched in America for that maneuver to be anything but a spoiler. So, I think if Rand Paul had done that, we'd probably have the second President Clinton with approximately the same economy and the Republicans would be looking forward to expanding their majorities in Congress and the Senate.
Slashdot Mirror
From a Disney point of view, owning their own streaming service makes perfect sense, they already have 2 (or more?) Disney channels. They will just make everything they put on the Disney channel available for streaming. Unfortunately, it will probably work. Parents with kids (especially girls) will fork over the subscription rate for access to all of the Disney content (especially Disney princess shows and movies) until their kids outgrow Disney.
I'm not sure if any of the other company specific streaming services can make it, though. They don't have Disney's catalogue, reputation, or captive audience.
Let's say you are a coral and you can live in water of temperature 20-24 degrees Celsius. Which is convenient, because the water you live in is usually between 21-23 degrees. Now add global warming, over the course of the last century the water temperature increased by ~0.4 degrees on average. Before you could survive a hot period where the water temperature increased by a full degree, which is not an unreasonable increase for El Nino years. Now, however, you can only survive a hot period of 0.6 degrees before you start to die off. By the end of the century, if ocean temperatures increase by another 0.6 degrees, you may have trouble surviving every summer that not a La Nina year and you may be devastated if not completely wiped out by a moderate El Nino year.
If we're lucky, you will be replaced by a coral that is better adapted to those warmer temperatures, if we're not, the coral in your area goes extinct.
The fluctuations neither help nor hinder, because the baseline increase increases both the minimum and maximum values, and if the maximum values will kill you, you only have to hit those values once to get killed. The fact that you didn't die on a different day doesn't help you much, you're still dead.
Specifically that article said that the water that between 1.8 and 2.6 km below the pacific ocean surface was cooling at rate of around 0.02 degrees per century. If we assume all of the measurements are accurate, then the volume of water above 1.8 km and below 2.6 km would still be warming (at rates of about 0.4 degrees and 0.1 degrees per century, respectively), so the other parts of the pacific represent a larger volume of water and they are warming faster than this smaller band is cooling, and that means that there is more than enough warming water to offset the smaller band of cooling water. So overall the ocean is warming, even though there is band of water that hasn't seen the surface in 200-1000 years that is still cooling.
Consequently, nobody is going to build a radio system into a cop car that's so hard to remove that it's actually difficult. Most likely they'd build it into the light bar, or it would be a dash-mounted device. Either way, it wouldn't take long to steal.
Why steal the actual physical device, when you (or someone else) can reverse engineer it (or steal the plans) and release instructions on how to build your own stopper onto the internet? Imagine the fun of being able to stop random (or not-so-random) cars on the highway!
Yeah, that's a huge security hole that no matter how much you tried to protect it, would eventually fall into the hands of criminals and be abused.
Weird how Congress rarely gets the blame for deficits or other economic issues. If I recall correctly, Congress controls the purse strings and the President either approves or disapproves of the budget. Trump can say anything he wants and it doesn't matter as he doesn't control the allocation or amounts of any money, Congress does.
Maybe I've misunderstood the real process of the American budget, but it was my impression that the White House writes a budget and then submits it to Congress, where it is read, debated, and possibly modified and then eventually sent back to the White House for signing.
So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus. Am I misunderstanding the roles delineated in the Constitution? Does the President control the purse strings?
If the Trump administration wrote the budget, shouldn't they get both the credit and the blame for the budget?
That's because doubling the national debt *was* the fiscally responsible action for Obama. Why? Because the economy was in free-fall in the worse recession since the 1930s. The previous president had cut taxes, started 2 wars and increased entitlements (and increased the deficit before the recession started). Letting the economy bottom out naturally would have increased the debt more than trying to cushion it, and would have been a much worse result for Americans (less employment and more hardship). After dealing with the recession, the deficit shrank every year under Obama.
The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.
The reason why he wanted to expose the truth is completely irrelevant.
You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it true.
The only thing relevant is that you want to crucify him only for exposing the truth.
No, the other poster clearly indicated he wants to crucify Assange for using Wikileaks for personal gain and/or vendettas.
Again, it makes me sad that people like you consider exposing the truth is an atrocious crime.
The problem is he didn't really expose the truth, he exposed half a truth and mislead many people. We all know that he allowed Wikileaks to be used a vehicle for propaganda and helped the Russian intelligence agencies interfere in the U.S. election. He did so because he wanted to pursue a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton. The amusing part is that he hated Clinton because she wanted to do what the Trump administration is trying to do to him now.
This looks like a case of being hoisted by your own petard, and I have little sympathy for someone who deliberately helped Trump get elected when they are facing the consequences of Trump having been elected.
Do not try pretend to have the moral high-ground, because you really don't, at least not in my eyes.
That's ok. Sometimes people just want to enjoy a little schaedenfreude.
Actually Keynes said it had a stimulative effect even if you paid half the people to dig ditches and the other half to fill them in, and it does. He was making a point about how effective it is, not making a recommendation about what should be done with the money. Keynes would likely agree with you completely that spending the money on public infrastructure is better than spending it on make work projects.
Revenue is recognized upon customer delivery. Do you expect a factory making 4500+ cars a week to instantly deliver them in 15 minutes like a pizza?
You know the car is fresh because the welds are still glowing!
Yeah, sure, Net Neutrality obviously leads to death camps. That's why Finland is the happiest country in the world, it's all the grinning skulls...
Do you even read the stuff you write?
Diverting up to 54% of the water of watersheds inside the rainforest is significant enough by fucking common sense that it requires justification to discount.
That's not what your quote says. It says 7%-17% percent overall, with up to 54% of individual watersheds. You have provided no evidence to substantiate that they were studying in an area that had any significant reduction in the watershed, and no evidence to substantiate that a reduction of that magnitude would have the effect of reducing the insect population by between 75% and 87.5%.
Also from what I read of the report you linked, the water diversion happens between the rain forest and the ocean. That's after it left the area they were studying, which leads me to wonder if it even matters at all. Really, you seem to desperately grasping at straws. Personally, I think the scientists, who had previously studied the insect population in the rain forest, would have noticed if it was now dried out to the point that the majority of insects can no longer survive.
So what's different this time? I mean, the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period - all were hotter and longer than the current burst.
Well, the evidence suggests that you're probably wrong about the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period being hotter and longer than the current warming.
I guess modern insects and mammals are just too wimpy...
Or, I guess you could ignore the evidence and invent your own explanations...
Really? So when the natives were genociding themselves, raping, enslaving each other and other people did the same thing it was suddenly whitey's fault?
The last residential school closed in 1996. So yeah, since the residential schools were treating them as (or more) savagely as they would have been treated 300 years ago, it is "Whitey's fault". The rest of the world progressed a bit in those years. If you pulled your head out your ass you might have been able to notice that too.
I wonder if you are aware that the survival rate for residential school students was lower than the survival rate for World War I or World War II veterans? Those kids would have been safer being sent to fight in the world's deadliest wars, and you want to laugh it off, like it was no big deal.
Exactly. Give some people $1500 UBI check on the 20th of each month, and it'll be gone on the 21st.
And?
About Carly Fiorina - they paid for what they hoped. Their judgement was wrong, but it was their money and their responsibility to use them wisely. At the beginning, they saw big value in hiring her. And now we know the value of their mistake.
I don't think you grasped the point. Regardless of the jokes about Fiorina, you have claimed repeated that Fiorina is a value creator because she has money, when her track record is destroying value. The point then, is that having money has little relation to whether you create or destroy value. In fact, much of the money of the very wealthy is completely unearned by those who possess it and much of their income is derived from already having money. Economically speaking they accumulate additional wealth by extracting ownership rents from actual productive activity in which they frequently play no part what-so-ever. They get paid dividends and accumulate capital gains, and their personal financier shifts the money around from time to time to maximize the capitalist rents their boss is accumulating. They are owners and they don't actually have to do anything at all to earn additional wealth.
Nonsense. A maid and a gardener working for a millionaire would be at the low end; they still produce value by freeing up the millionaire to do other things. That same maid and gardener sitting at home collecting UBI no longer provide value; they still collect money from the millionaire via taxes, but now provide absolutely nothing of value.
They're doing "nothing" that you attach a value to, which is different from nothing of value. Most likely, they attach at least the value of the wage they would have been earning as a maid or gardener to the whatever they would be doing instead of working. Maybe they're raising their kids, instead of being absentee parents? Maybe they're studying to get their certifications so they can go back to being an engineer or nurse? Maybe they're learning a trade or skills to get a better job where they don't have to waste their lives in a menial job. Just because you can't assign a dollar and cents value to what they're doing doesn't mean it isn't valuable.
How many would continue to earn - or keep their earnings in the US - to support that level of taxation?
About 97%, give or take 3%. I mean it's like you know nothing about the history of taxation in the United States.
So every working individual pays another $1200 per month in taxes?
Interestingly enough according to your numbers, if the average worker is paying an extra $1,200 per month in taxes, they're also receiving an additional $1,250 per month from the UBI. Anyone at the average or bellow is getting a net benefit, using your numbers.
Most CEOs are not sociopaths.
This is actually true, only about 15-20% of CEOs are sociopaths. It's one of the highest job rates, but it's by no means a majority. I've worked for at least 2 sociopaths, though.
You on the other hand just seem to want to roll over and be a victim.
Nah, he doesn't even want to roll over. He just wants to claim he's the victim and it's the system is keeping him down. Just another temporarily-embarrassed millionaire with delusions of adequacy.
Taxes are not voluntary, they are compulsory, meaning people with guns come for you when you do not pay them.
So? People with guns will come for you (at least in theory) if you steal anything. Hell, you're probably American, so in your country, people with guns might come for you if you just copy something without the proper permission.
The Government gets paid before I do as well. The only thing I see is how munch the government TOOK out of my paycheck before it gets deposited in my bank account.
Now, I don't know about your job, but I filled out a form telling my employer to send a percentage of my pay check to the government so that I wouldn't have to worry about saving enough to pay the entire bill at tax time. So if your job is anything like mine, the government's not taking it before you get it, your employer is giving a percentage of your pay to the government, based on a form that you filled out when you started your job. Your employer is doing it because it's easier for everyone if they help you pay your taxes in installments over the year instead of simply letting you trying to manage the entire bill at tax time, and they are doing so because you authorized them to do so.
Shopping at the grocery store is not compulsory. For now until total socialism takes total control I can still at least grow my own food.
I sincerely doubt that you could, you seem generally incompetent and poorly informed.
Maybe I expect to much from other people, but that was how I actually parsed the title. It's not the competitors that's the problem, it's the content access restrictions inherent in the exclusivity deal being spread across all those competitors. It would actually be nice if the majority of third-party content was available on each of the competitors and the competitors would compete on service and in-house content exclusives, instead of mostly competing on who has the right to show what 3rd party content.
Disney, for example, should stay out of the streaming business and license their content to every single one of the streaming services that are willing to pay whatever price they decide to put on their content.
Also, you need to purchase an inexpensive $400 device to record the content , one is necessary for each user.
But only for a limited time. If you don't act fast you'll soon need two devices for each user. After all, why should they let you watch with both eyes for one low price? You're practically robbing them.
About what I expected, childish response from a child who can't even accept he screwed up a response.
Oh wow. I actually did not expect you to call your own response childish. It's good to know that even you think you are a joke.
It's amusing that you blame your inability to understand my response on me. It's just not that complicated. Unfortunately, your responses illustrate how limited both your understanding and sense of humor are. Here's a hint, I was poking a little fun at your ridiculous claims and your response is you claim I'm on drugs, which is actually hilarious, since my original response implied that you were either on drugs or needed to be back on them. But, I absolutely love how you discredit yourself with every response you make.
Seeing as you like my advice, here's some more, Try to actually get the facts right and in this case why don't you see if you can make a mathematical argument how having unlimited immigration is actually going to be good for the country.
You really love moving the goalposts don't you? Why don't you tell everyone what unlimited immigration is and why you think it's a problem, since you brought it up.
Son just because your state lets you use the whacky tabacky doesn't mean it's good for you.
That's good advice. You should consider taking it.
That's incredibly unlikely. I think I remember seeing a stat that over 90% of the Americans who voted in the last election voted for the same party they had in the last 3 elections. The punch line is the other 10% weren't old enough to vote in the last 3 elections. But seriously, the vast majority of actual voters voted for the same party they usually did. It was only very slightly down from previous election cycles, as I remember (1-2% change?).
The specific don't matter that much, because party politics is too entrenched in America for that maneuver to be anything but a spoiler. So, I think if Rand Paul had done that, we'd probably have the second President Clinton with approximately the same economy and the Republicans would be looking forward to expanding their majorities in Congress and the Senate.