can some explain why information can't be lost? this is slightly confusing and that assumption makes it seem like they're building a lot of theory on a pretty shaky foundation.
the analysis is fine, i think my initial comment was more about the whinging comment. which is why i went into obligation.
the service has dropped, yes, people are less satisfied yes, but netflix never promised to keep them as satisfied as it did, so customers shouldn't complain that they are now getting the exact service that they are paying for. if they no longer think it's worth it now that the "awesome" service has dropped to "fine" service, then they should stop paying for it. but they shouldn't be outraged that netflix has somehow "gone back on its word" when its word was never given. that was why i posted in the first place and that was my major gripe with your comment.
it's difficult to explain something that should be pretty obvious:) the only thing you should ever expect is what is guaranteed. finding words and analogies to explain it is... i don't know... like trying to explain purple.
my gripe is that you seem to be assigning a value that netflix never promised to provide.
"Yeah, golly gosh, how stupid for people to expect the same service that they've had all along just because they are paying the same price. What whiners!" - you:)
they are people who were accustomed to an elevated level of service over what they were purchasing. they are whining because netflix is delivering exactly what it promised to deliver all along. They are free to stop giving Netflix money, but i don't condone their whinging.
obligation is obviously what we're talking about though. you are still getting what you paid for, but the additional efficiency that you received for free from the provider is no longer as economically lucrative to them. you got more than you paid for before, you were explicitly buying 1-3 day processing time. They have literally not changed what they promised you, but they are no longer giving you more than they promised you.
you are at your leisure to discontinue service with them, as i would be if the color of their envelopes changed and it was a dealbreaker to me. but don't make it seem like some egregious insult that you're no longer getting more than you've paid for.
typically when that contract is explicit, not when it's implicit. My contract with the grocer is that when i pay for the item in my hand, i'm not purchasing half the product in my hand but the entire product in my hand that the label is attached to. I also don't live in an unqualified world.
I'm also fairly confident that implicit contracts exist... you know, as a thing. as the whole bait and switch line of fraud attests to. If I go to a restaurant and order a sandwich, and they give me a dog. i'm fairly sure legal recourse is available to me concerning said purchase.
contracts that have been predefined by convention are still contracts.
:) the eradication of smallpox is perhaps the shining pinnacle of human achievement... and cooperation.
smallpox is easy to identify, much easier to control than polio. but that doesn't mean it's easy or uncostly. It took a full on decade with everybody involved, literally everybody. In the midst of the cold war.
Again, we're discovering species every day, and sometimes we've mislabelled species extinct. And apparently we know less about the ocean depths than the moon's surface... so you know, yes we suck at knowing stuff:)
there's the implicit agreement at the restaurant, that i give them my money, and they give me the best food they are capable of giving me, and if that food is pretty good, i might repeat the exchange in the future.
this is different for transfer of goods and services.
do you hold it against amazon if you always take the super-saver delivery option and one day it takes 5 days to get to you, and the next day it takes 8? and the week before it took 3? they say it should get to you in 5-8. but just because oftentimes they may make it in 3 doesn't mean i'm suddenly outraged when it takes 8 days again.
implicit vs explicit agreement in these matters.
and holy crap, yes, you do exist in a society in which most transactions are loosely structured contracts.
gas pump, purchase of goods, purchase of services. the pre-defined terms are "you get what you see" and we're not selling you snake oil. When i buy an apple, i trust that it's not going to poison me. I pay with money and the possibility of future money, and in return i get an apple. And typically, if the batch of apples is going to poison me, a recall... as is the case with peaches right now.
inarguably good, unless you're a new-age hippie... in which case, give back the medicines and go retroactively have a 30 percent chance of dying in infancy.
... you get what you paid for, and what you paid for is exactly outlined in your contract. it is the baseline expectation you have for your service.
as far as i'm concerned, i usually purchase a product or service based on what they gaurantee the service can provide... not what i'm hoping it can provide, with the understanding that if there's an increase in the performance of my product, it's a nice benefit but my product isn't gauranteed to work better than what they say.
toss it away, but you buy exactly what they promise, anything else is a free benefit.
we've thought extinct multiple species before... like macroscopic seeable species... and then been really surprised when a member or two of said species fell out of a bush in front of a cameraman... don't be naive.
... fire is a damn nice thing to have. cooking is good, boiling is good. combustion is good. the steam engine is good. coal is good. petrol is good... fire is life.
epigenetic mechanisms are still being explored, and non-nucleotide based heredity like matrilineal passing of mitochondria. Remaking a virus from it's sequence seems like it should be really easy, and if there's any organism/automata that will be made first, it'll be a virus... but even still, there might be some transient quality that is... stored in ram and not in persistent memory that once lost is truly lost.
this entire story is the very definition of a first world problem.
"the service that i pay for that sends movies to me through the mail for less than the cost of a movie per month... is slightly slower. My outrage is palpable at this slight."
:) was not aware, but i think you should propose a water sequestration program. it'll be real effective for you know... governing water loss from the oceans.
Slashdot Mirror
the great thing is, even if he tweeted her full name the article would be responsible enough to not print it...
... if that were the case, why not just pack anthrax into a crop duster mechanic of some kind, and just ignore the big boom altogether?
can some explain why information can't be lost? this is slightly confusing and that assumption makes it seem like they're building a lot of theory on a pretty shaky foundation.
yes because burning isn't a disinfectant or anything. ebola ain't super contagious.
the analysis is fine, i think my initial comment was more about the whinging comment. which is why i went into obligation.
the service has dropped, yes, people are less satisfied yes, but netflix never promised to keep them as satisfied as it did, so customers shouldn't complain that they are now getting the exact service that they are paying for. if they no longer think it's worth it now that the "awesome" service has dropped to "fine" service, then they should stop paying for it. but they shouldn't be outraged that netflix has somehow "gone back on its word" when its word was never given. that was why i posted in the first place and that was my major gripe with your comment.
it's difficult to explain something that should be pretty obvious :)
the only thing you should ever expect is what is guaranteed. finding words and analogies to explain it is... i don't know... like trying to explain purple.
my gripe is that you seem to be assigning a value that netflix never promised to provide.
"Yeah, golly gosh, how stupid for people to expect the same service that they've had all along just because they are paying the same price. What whiners!" - you :)
they are people who were accustomed to an elevated level of service over what they were purchasing. they are whining because netflix is delivering exactly what it promised to deliver all along. They are free to stop giving Netflix money, but i don't condone their whinging.
obligation is obviously what we're talking about though. you are still getting what you paid for, but the additional efficiency that you received for free from the provider is no longer as economically lucrative to them. you got more than you paid for before, you were explicitly buying 1-3 day processing time. They have literally not changed what they promised you, but they are no longer giving you more than they promised you.
you are at your leisure to discontinue service with them, as i would be if the color of their envelopes changed and it was a dealbreaker to me. but don't make it seem like some egregious insult that you're no longer getting more than you've paid for.
typically when that contract is explicit, not when it's implicit. My contract with the grocer is that when i pay for the item in my hand, i'm not purchasing half the product in my hand but the entire product in my hand that the label is attached to. I also don't live in an unqualified world.
I'm also fairly confident that implicit contracts exist... you know, as a thing. as the whole bait and switch line of fraud attests to. If I go to a restaurant and order a sandwich, and they give me a dog. i'm fairly sure legal recourse is available to me concerning said purchase.
contracts that have been predefined by convention are still contracts.
:) the eradication of smallpox is perhaps the shining pinnacle of human achievement... and cooperation.
smallpox is easy to identify, much easier to control than polio. but that doesn't mean it's easy or uncostly. It took a full on decade with everybody involved, literally everybody. In the midst of the cold war.
Again, we're discovering species every day, and sometimes we've mislabelled species extinct. And apparently we know less about the ocean depths than the moon's surface... so you know, yes we suck at knowing stuff :)
like 95% of the universe.
there's the implicit agreement at the restaurant, that i give them my money, and they give me the best food they are capable of giving me, and if that food is pretty good, i might repeat the exchange in the future.
this is different for transfer of goods and services.
do you hold it against amazon if you always take the super-saver delivery option and one day it takes 5 days to get to you, and the next day it takes 8? and the week before it took 3? they say it should get to you in 5-8. but just because oftentimes they may make it in 3 doesn't mean i'm suddenly outraged when it takes 8 days again.
implicit vs explicit agreement in these matters.
and holy crap, yes, you do exist in a society in which most transactions are loosely structured contracts.
gas pump, purchase of goods, purchase of services. the pre-defined terms are "you get what you see" and we're not selling you snake oil. When i buy an apple, i trust that it's not going to poison me. I pay with money and the possibility of future money, and in return i get an apple. And typically, if the batch of apples is going to poison me, a recall... as is the case with peaches right now.
Good will isn't a cash equivalent after all.
inarguably good, unless you're a new-age hippie... in which case, give back the medicines and go retroactively have a 30 percent chance of dying in infancy.
:) found some preserved in scabs stuck in the pages of an old book.
well... everybody's just driving along fine, it's a four lane highway. Traffic is moving nicely. this is the current market.
Boom, you get to drive on the shoulda now mutha fucka.
Dynamic Perspective.
yeah, we know, things die real good around us humans for some reason.
the point was, we suck at knowing things, even when those things are big enough for us to see.
... you get what you paid for, and what you paid for is exactly outlined in your contract. it is the baseline expectation you have for your service.
as far as i'm concerned, i usually purchase a product or service based on what they gaurantee the service can provide... not what i'm hoping it can provide, with the understanding that if there's an increase in the performance of my product, it's a nice benefit but my product isn't gauranteed to work better than what they say.
toss it away, but you buy exactly what they promise, anything else is a free benefit.
all transactions are contracts.
all, just shoot any potential carriers.
again, something might be lost in the reproduction. we don't know enough about the transient interactions to know if anything important is.
we've thought extinct multiple species before... like macroscopic seeable species... and then been really surprised when a member or two of said species fell out of a bush in front of a cameraman... don't be naive.
... fire is a damn nice thing to have. cooking is good, boiling is good. combustion is good. the steam engine is good. coal is good. petrol is good... fire is life.
i'd say yes, but i'd hesitate still.
epigenetic mechanisms are still being explored, and non-nucleotide based heredity like matrilineal passing of mitochondria. Remaking a virus from it's sequence seems like it should be really easy, and if there's any organism/automata that will be made first, it'll be a virus... but even still, there might be some transient quality that is... stored in ram and not in persistent memory that once lost is truly lost.
they haven't fallen outside their time frame, just not delivering more than they were promising anymore.
just because you got added value for free, doesn't mean they're obligated to keep on giving you free stuff.
this entire story is the very definition of a first world problem.
"the service that i pay for that sends movies to me through the mail for less than the cost of a movie per month... is slightly slower. My outrage is palpable at this slight."
can it... love?
:) was not aware, but i think you should propose a water sequestration program. it'll be real effective for you know... governing water loss from the oceans.