The high-end got more expensive, but at the same time the low-end got much better. A $200 phone now can perform so well, most people would not feel a need to upgrade for quite a while.
Yes, that is true. My phones have all been "previous generation" phones for and I've never paid much more than that. Still, a large number of people do buy the silly-expensive phones.
I also think we've reached a point where a thousand bucks is more than people want to spend on their "cell phone," regardless of how cool it is. My Samsung Galaxy S5 is long in the tooth, so I just replaced it - With an S7 that cost me $225 CAD.
I don't think I'm alone.
Yeah... My phone was only $200 new, but I plan on keeping it a long time anyway. I don't need anything faster (and they're only really making marginal gains now anyway) - and I got a phone that can change batteries. I already have three batteries (bought two extras- they came as a pair) - since battery is what normally dictates when a phone needs replacing, I figure at 2 years a battery, even if I can't find new replacements in a few years- I've still got 6 years worth of battery here with my current phone.
If we're talking new sales of phones, yes we've reached a plateau. If we're talking about % of world population that use a cell phone... no, we haven't reached a plateau and won't for a long time.
The main difference is, phone sellers raised their prices so much that people want to hold onto their phones longer. When a new phone costs $200 you don't mind replacing it in a few years. When a new phone costs $1000 you would be peeved if you were forced to replace it in two years.
I started using Yandex when it became obvious Google was biasing its results politically.
Yes, Putin is the most unbiased man in the world. Every country should have media controlled specifically by his cronies. Those Western people know not how magnificent and non-duplicitous Putin is.
May Putin one day rule the world and we all live in perfect harmony.
> The US has a space spy plane that is capable of going beyond the moon but no one else does.
Uh... citation?
There's this little thing called google that was invented a few years ago... this isn't exactly secret knowledge (google or the spy plane) - how about you give it a try?
Any intention to spy on the far side of the moon by anyone other than the US space plane, which presumably has other missions to conduct, would involve building and launching a craft to do so at considerable expense.
My argument is that any intention to spy on even the *NEAR* side of the moon would involve no less of an expense, and so putting a base on the far side would not pose any greater of a barrier than any other situated lunar base.
It's not like you can spy on the moon from the ground or hell, even in earth orbit.
I think you're highly underestimating technology, and it depends on the level of spying that is involved. It's much cheaper and easier to put a satellite in orbit around the earth than around the moon. With no atmosphere around the moon and a powerful lense from an earth orbiting satellite you could definitely see basic structures being built, maybe judge activity too and fro the building (which buildings are being docked with), you could monitor for electro magnetic signals. A lot of this could probably be done with existing satellites in orbit.
People wanted "al a carte" and they're discovering its just as expensive and even more annoying....
Cutting the cord was a lot cheaper 5 to 10 years ago than it is now. Now everyone is doing it businesses are all wanting their piece of the pie back. When everything was on Netflix it was a better time as a cord cutter.
"I thought the whole point of paying for streaming service was to avoid ads?"
No, the point is to pay for the content you're interested it, instead of having to buy some large bundle of crap costing more which includes that content.
It's both. To avoid ads AND get content I want. I have Netflix, Prime, and Hulu- I've always thought three was excessive but I've given in to my wife and agreed to have all three. Hulu starts putting ads on pause and I'm dropping them. When I pause it's because my attention is needed elsewhere. Sure, I could hit mute, but that would be annoying... this would be enough for me to drop Hulu altogether and I'm pretty sure the wife would agree.
Why would adding more ads to a paid subscription service lead to more viewers?
He meant people viewing the ad. The ad gets more eyeballs... not Hulu.
Likely Hulu would get less because at least SOME Hulu viewers would quit the service if they introduced ads on pause (I would consider it). But the Ad would get more views if it were on pause rather than not at all.
Hulu would have to decide- would they get more revenue from the ads- or would they get more revenue from the people they scare off from their service. If someone leaves Hulu and get Amazon Prime or Netflix instead (assuming they don't already have multiple services) would they be gone forever?
users would be more accepting of ads that play when they choose to pause a show for a bit while they do something else.
And how much do they expect advertisers to pay for ads that people are guaranteed not be watching - because they're doing something else?
It would be less palatable to me. If I pause the TV It's to talk to someone on the phone, or someone in the room or do something else that requires my attention. I don't want distracting ads yelling "wasssssuuuuuuuuppppppp!" at me as I'm trying to help my child with a maths problem that she just came to me with.
Obviously, but even putting that aside, it still makes no sense at all how having something on the far side would supposedly make it any more difficult to spy on it than something on the near side.
Well the comment about secret bases on the moon was tongue in cheek based on the cliché of secret moon bases... but absolutely it would be much harder to spy on.
The US has a space spy plane that is capable of going beyond the moon but no one else does. There are no satellites or any other space craft that come with in line-of-sight of the far side (and even other electromagnetic signals would be harder to spy on due to the mass of the moon). The near side of the moon can easily be spied upon by satellites from any number of countries without even standing out.
Any intention to spy on the far side of the moon by anyone other than the US space plane, which presumably has other missions to conduct, would involve building and launching a craft to do so at considerable expense.
Microsoft always skating to where the puck was, never where it's going. No one who chooses to use Windows wants a dumbed-down ChromeOS clone. If they want ChromeOS they'll use the real thing not the shoddy imitation that's called Windows that isn't really Windows.
Yes, they're making the same mistake as Windows Phone. Instead of innovating something new, they're trying to imitate the competition long after the market is established and already saturated.
Too late for this MS. Think of something new- innovate instead.
Remind me how many far away lands with no historical Chinese identity China has laid claim to, compared to say the USA or UK. China has shown little interest in being even a global military power, their interests are simply the South China Sea and Taiwan and other small islands they've long laid claim to but not had the power to assert the claim before.
If there were a reason to militarize space, you can bet the USA as the world's arms dealer would've done it already. The reason there's no military installation in space is that it makes no tactical sense. It makes your weapons more visible than they are on the ground, and it takes a hell of a lot longer for the weapon to hit the Earth target if you launch it from the moon than if you launch an ICBM from your home country.
Historically, yes... and you can include many other Europeans nations in that equation too. Of course the main difference is, when there is a territorial dispute nowadays they let the people living there decide. Tibet, Eastern Turkistan, Taiwan, etc, and other occupied regions wish they had that freedom. Noone living on the moon currently of course- and it wouldn't surprise me it nations did try to divide it up amongst themselves by setting up bases and declaring territory theirs... treaties against that now- but that's changing.
There's an International agreement in place for a long time now 'preventing' such a thing from happening, but that only works if every nation on Earth continues to honor it, it's not like it's a binding agreement in any way shape or form.
Considering the way China behaves overall, I wouldn't put it past them, though, to establish a 'colony' (read as: fortified military base) on the Moon, then try to claim the entire Moon as Chinese territory.
US has already proposed breaking that treaty by starting up the Space Cadets military branch that Trump already proposed. Besides, that, the Black Bird could be considered "militarizing space".
If it made sense to spin it off, it would have been done by now. Spinning off AWS is nothing more than an investment banker's wet dream.
There is only one Amazon that owns one AWS. That company is only run by one CEO.
All it takes is for him to be skeptical or hesitant, or just plain risk averse. It might make sense to a myriad of economists and upper management, but if Jeff Bozos were hesitant, it wouldn't happen until he were convinced.
Only an investment banker would think like that./p>
When it comes to share prices- they're the only ones that matter. A share's value has more to do with how much investment bankers think a business is worth (or will be worth) than it has to do with what that company is actually worth on paper.
, how it made them gain weight, dropped their libido...
There's a variety of pills that affect different women differently. Of course they don't like it. Ultimately it's a body altering substance. No one really likes their mood / personality to be dependent on a drug. But speaking from experience swapping from one pill to another made my partner horny as all heck and she gained a bit of weight after stopping altogether but that was due to the mood change (can't give a crap attitude combined with sitting and eating). Exercise fixed that. Not the weight, but the mood.
My wife blames everything on libido.
"The pill kills my libido... sorry" "Yeah, condoms kill my mood sorry" "Yeah, this contraceptive ring... it kills my libido too." "Sorry, I'm pregnant- pregnancy has killed my libido." "It's a well known fact women who are breastfeeding have lowered libido"
Now she uses an IUD... and not even one that has hormones on it, the one without.
"Sorry, the IUD kills my libido."
I truly suspect in her case it has nothing at all to do with the birthcontrol... she just has a low libido... at least for me.:(
Why is anyone still taking the Pill, when implants are so much more convenient and reliable?
Because larger breasts don't protect against pregnancy!:)
On a more serious note- my wife has an IUD but hates it (although I think what she blames it for isn't it's fault). She immediately said she would be willing to rub contraceptive gel into my back each night to have the IUD out. Vasectomy not a viable option for us, but I would take the gel if It were safe.
Apparently the female pill is something that women like because it reduces or eliminates unnecessary menstruation.
I've not known any woman who "likes the pill"- every woman I had a serious relationship would complain about the pill, how it made them gain weight, dropped their libido... etc, etc. I'm sure there are some out there because every woman is different and the pill impacts them slightly differently.
Women (most) don't take the pill because they like the effects- they take it because they don't want to get pregnant, or, because they have painful periods otherwise and so the side effects are just not as bad as having to deal with a painful period.
You could just wear a condom. It has other benefits like not getting diseases. Works well when you use it right and doesn't mess with your hormones.
Sure, if I were single, I would, but since they provide considerably less protection and I'm in a monogamous happy marriage- I'd rather never wear a condom again. They take away pleasure from both parties.
Slashdot Mirror
No they shouldn't handle dangerous substances like these, which are inhumane anyway: time for Americans to stand up for the right to arm bears.
I only want bare arms in the summer.
The high-end got more expensive, but at the same time the low-end got much better. A $200 phone now can perform so well, most people would not feel a need to upgrade for quite a while.
Yes, that is true. My phones have all been "previous generation" phones for and I've never paid much more than that. Still, a large number of people do buy the silly-expensive phones.
I also think we've reached a point where a thousand bucks is more than people want to spend on their "cell phone," regardless of how cool it is. My Samsung Galaxy S5 is long in the tooth, so I just replaced it - With an S7 that cost me $225 CAD.
I don't think I'm alone.
Yeah... My phone was only $200 new, but I plan on keeping it a long time anyway. I don't need anything faster (and they're only really making marginal gains now anyway) - and I got a phone that can change batteries. I already have three batteries (bought two extras- they came as a pair) - since battery is what normally dictates when a phone needs replacing, I figure at 2 years a battery, even if I can't find new replacements in a few years- I've still got 6 years worth of battery here with my current phone.
If we're talking new sales of phones, yes we've reached a plateau. If we're talking about % of world population that use a cell phone... no, we haven't reached a plateau and won't for a long time.
The main difference is, phone sellers raised their prices so much that people want to hold onto their phones longer. When a new phone costs $200 you don't mind replacing it in a few years. When a new phone costs $1000 you would be peeved if you were forced to replace it in two years.
I started using Yandex when it became obvious Google was biasing its results politically.
Yes, Putin is the most unbiased man in the world. Every country should have media controlled specifically by his cronies. Those Western people know not how magnificent and non-duplicitous Putin is.
May Putin one day rule the world and we all live in perfect harmony.
> The US has a space spy plane that is capable of going beyond the moon but no one else does.
Uh... citation?
There's this little thing called google that was invented a few years ago... this isn't exactly secret knowledge (google or the spy plane) - how about you give it a try?
My argument is that any intention to spy on even the *NEAR* side of the moon would involve no less of an expense, and so putting a base on the far side would not pose any greater of a barrier than any other situated lunar base.
It's not like you can spy on the moon from the ground or hell, even in earth orbit.
I think you're highly underestimating technology, and it depends on the level of spying that is involved. It's much cheaper and easier to put a satellite in orbit around the earth than around the moon. With no atmosphere around the moon and a powerful lense from an earth orbiting satellite you could definitely see basic structures being built, maybe judge activity too and fro the building (which buildings are being docked with), you could monitor for electro magnetic signals. A lot of this could probably be done with existing satellites in orbit.
More options is always good. Now we have a choice of Russians or Chinese spying on us!
Nah, I doubt it will sell in the West. At least, not without rebranding. But what do I know, we may one day see Alice here, we're all mad here.
#PauseMeansPause
But you were wearing clothes with the Under Armor logo on them- you're a consumer whore and were just asking for the ads.
People wanted "al a carte" and they're discovering its just as expensive and even more annoying....
Cutting the cord was a lot cheaper 5 to 10 years ago than it is now. Now everyone is doing it businesses are all wanting their piece of the pie back. When everything was on Netflix it was a better time as a cord cutter.
"I thought the whole point of paying for streaming service was to avoid ads?"
No, the point is to pay for the content you're interested it, instead of having to buy some large bundle of crap costing more which includes that content.
It's both. To avoid ads AND get content I want. I have Netflix, Prime, and Hulu- I've always thought three was excessive but I've given in to my wife and agreed to have all three. Hulu starts putting ads on pause and I'm dropping them. When I pause it's because my attention is needed elsewhere. Sure, I could hit mute, but that would be annoying... this would be enough for me to drop Hulu altogether and I'm pretty sure the wife would agree.
Why would adding more ads to a paid subscription service lead to more viewers?
He meant people viewing the ad. The ad gets more eyeballs... not Hulu.
Likely Hulu would get less because at least SOME Hulu viewers would quit the service if they introduced ads on pause (I would consider it). But the Ad would get more views if it were on pause rather than not at all.
Hulu would have to decide- would they get more revenue from the ads- or would they get more revenue from the people they scare off from their service. If someone leaves Hulu and get Amazon Prime or Netflix instead (assuming they don't already have multiple services) would they be gone forever?
users would be more accepting of ads that play when they choose to pause a show for a bit while they do something else.
And how much do they expect advertisers to pay for ads that people are guaranteed not be watching - because they're doing something else?
It would be less palatable to me. If I pause the TV It's to talk to someone on the phone, or someone in the room or do something else that requires my attention. I don't want distracting ads yelling "wasssssuuuuuuuuppppppp!" at me as I'm trying to help my child with a maths problem that she just came to me with.
Obviously, but even putting that aside, it still makes no sense at all how having something on the far side would supposedly make it any more difficult to spy on it than something on the near side.
Well the comment about secret bases on the moon was tongue in cheek based on the cliché of secret moon bases... but absolutely it would be much harder to spy on.
The US has a space spy plane that is capable of going beyond the moon but no one else does. There are no satellites or any other space craft that come with in line-of-sight of the far side (and even other electromagnetic signals would be harder to spy on due to the mass of the moon). The near side of the moon can easily be spied upon by satellites from any number of countries without even standing out.
Any intention to spy on the far side of the moon by anyone other than the US space plane, which presumably has other missions to conduct, would involve building and launching a craft to do so at considerable expense.
Microsoft always skating to where the puck was, never where it's going. No one who chooses to use Windows wants a dumbed-down ChromeOS clone. If they want ChromeOS they'll use the real thing not the shoddy imitation that's called Windows that isn't really Windows.
Yes, they're making the same mistake as Windows Phone. Instead of innovating something new, they're trying to imitate the competition long after the market is established and already saturated.
Too late for this MS. Think of something new- innovate instead.
Ask Tibet! When the Chinese arrive in your country they don't tend to leave.
Remind me how many far away lands with no historical Chinese identity China has laid claim to, compared to say the USA or UK. China has shown little interest in being even a global military power, their interests are simply the South China Sea and Taiwan and other small islands they've long laid claim to but not had the power to assert the claim before.
If there were a reason to militarize space, you can bet the USA as the world's arms dealer would've done it already. The reason there's no military installation in space is that it makes no tactical sense. It makes your weapons more visible than they are on the ground, and it takes a hell of a lot longer for the weapon to hit the Earth target if you launch it from the moon than if you launch an ICBM from your home country.
Historically, yes... and you can include many other Europeans nations in that equation too. Of course the main difference is, when there is a territorial dispute nowadays they let the people living there decide. Tibet, Eastern Turkistan, Taiwan, etc, and other occupied regions wish they had that freedom. Noone living on the moon currently of course- and it wouldn't surprise me it nations did try to divide it up amongst themselves by setting up bases and declaring territory theirs... treaties against that now- but that's changing.
There's an International agreement in place for a long time now 'preventing' such a thing from happening, but that only works if every nation on Earth continues to honor it, it's not like it's a binding agreement in any way shape or form.
Considering the way China behaves overall, I wouldn't put it past them, though, to establish a 'colony' (read as: fortified military base) on the Moon, then try to claim the entire Moon as Chinese territory.
US has already proposed breaking that treaty by starting up the Space Cadets military branch that Trump already proposed. Besides, that, the Black Bird could be considered "militarizing space".
It will be harder for anyone to spy on a base on the far side of the moon and doing so would come at a higher cost.
If it made sense to spin it off, it would have been done by now. Spinning off AWS is nothing more than an investment banker's wet dream.
There is only one Amazon that owns one AWS. That company is only run by one CEO.
All it takes is for him to be skeptical or hesitant, or just plain risk averse. It might make sense to a myriad of economists and upper management, but if Jeff Bozos were hesitant, it wouldn't happen until he were convinced.
Only an investment banker would think like that./p>
When it comes to share prices- they're the only ones that matter. A share's value has more to do with how much investment bankers think a business is worth (or will be worth) than it has to do with what that company is actually worth on paper.
, how it made them gain weight, dropped their libido...
There's a variety of pills that affect different women differently. Of course they don't like it. Ultimately it's a body altering substance. No one really likes their mood / personality to be dependent on a drug. But speaking from experience swapping from one pill to another made my partner horny as all heck and she gained a bit of weight after stopping altogether but that was due to the mood change (can't give a crap attitude combined with sitting and eating). Exercise fixed that. Not the weight, but the mood.
My wife blames everything on libido.
"The pill kills my libido... sorry"
"Yeah, condoms kill my mood sorry"
"Yeah, this contraceptive ring... it kills my libido too."
"Sorry, I'm pregnant- pregnancy has killed my libido."
"It's a well known fact women who are breastfeeding have lowered libido"
Now she uses an IUD... and not even one that has hormones on it, the one without.
"Sorry, the IUD kills my libido."
I truly suspect in her case it has nothing at all to do with the birthcontrol... she just has a low libido... at least for me. :(
Why is anyone still taking the Pill, when implants are so much more convenient and reliable?
Because larger breasts don't protect against pregnancy! :)
On a more serious note- my wife has an IUD but hates it (although I think what she blames it for isn't it's fault). She immediately said she would be willing to rub contraceptive gel into my back each night to have the IUD out. Vasectomy not a viable option for us, but I would take the gel if It were safe.
Apparently the female pill is something that women like because it reduces or eliminates unnecessary menstruation.
I've not known any woman who "likes the pill"- every woman I had a serious relationship would complain about the pill, how it made them gain weight, dropped their libido... etc, etc. I'm sure there are some out there because every woman is different and the pill impacts them slightly differently.
Women (most) don't take the pill because they like the effects- they take it because they don't want to get pregnant, or, because they have painful periods otherwise and so the side effects are just not as bad as having to deal with a painful period.
You could just wear a condom. It has other benefits like not getting diseases. Works well when you use it right and doesn't mess with your hormones.
Sure, if I were single, I would, but since they provide considerably less protection and I'm in a monogamous happy marriage- I'd rather never wear a condom again. They take away pleasure from both parties.