It makes sense to have it on the books because certainly there are scenarios where doing so can create an unsafe situation. Unfortunately it is probably applied to any situation if a random goon needs to meet quota.
I'm a thin guy. My daily calorie intake varies between 2000 and 3500. I do not have an active lifestyle, I am a programmer and spend my free time gaming. I'm the guy that my coworkers hate, because when we go out for lunch they eat a salad while I eat a giant plate of spaghetti. If they ate like I did, they would be very much overweight. I am not some medical marvel, nor do I have a malfunctioning digestive system. All my kin on my mother's side are the same. So yes, it's not as simple as that.
And I wonder how Elon calculated that statistic? He has his own conflicts of interest after all; he needs to sell more shares to get the Model 3 out to get his company profitable and this hype only makes that claim.
A Volvo engineer building a competing product is just as biased. Perhaps we should ignore the ramblings of either and base it on the opinion of existing regulatory agencies instead?
It wouldn't be enough for just the US to stop. Many western countries sell them arms, including Canada. They will have to do significantly worse than they already have to tip the scale.
Probably sanitation. Having most of the population shaved probably significantly reduces transmission of things like lice. Allowing a few people to remain bearded probably doesn't affect the overall sanitation, and so one could argue that allowances can be made. I don't believe religion is a fair way to distribute that allowance though.
The historical context for the Scientology cult is also well-known, and it is known that it is a organization dedicated to extracting money from vulnerable people. Yet in many locations it is considered a valid religion.
No, seriously, whoever does it, why is it a problem? If she adopted a bit of a southern drawl in front of white southerners, is it white-on-white racism?
I have no idea what Cruz advocates. Given that people aren't up in arms about him, I'll assume he's pretty much the status quo. Does Cruz have a personal product line on Amazon? Not sure where you're going with this.
Every country is actually expulsing illegal immigrants, even the Obama administration is doing it.
Except Trump frames his arguments using fear and oversimplified solutions rather than sound immigration policy.
Second, the ban on Muslims is a temporary measure and what actual right should someone have to actually immigrate in USA?
Again, this an argument based on fear, and such a policy wouldn't accomplish anything. In fact it would more likely increase resentment of the US.
Third, what's the point of protesters to invest Trump's rallies and try to prevent him to address his supporters?
This is certainly not acceptable in a democracy, but it's not really surprising. Trump is (at least partially) whipping up support by giving people targets to hate, targets to blame for their problems, and he is fanning the flames of both their passions and those that would stand against him.
If I could get everything in one streaming service, I'd happily cut the cord right now. But we're actually moving farther away from that happening.
That's because the rights-holders want to extract more money from you under the old models and are fighting the shift tooth and nail. The only reason we've seen any modernization at all is because of disruptive streaming companies taking a piece of their pie.
It's all in one place, and I'm only paying for that content once.
Sure, but you're probably paying 5 times the amount or more for that. Is "all in one place" worth that? You could subscribe to Hulu, Amazon, AND Netflix ($7.99, $7.99, $9.99) and still save a good chunk compared to your TV package. If you can't remember which of 3 providers carries an exclusive show you want to watch, then I can't imagine how you remember what TV channel your shows are on. On sports you're right, mostly because it is a demand for very specific live content and the rights-holders have been able to hold on to their dated business models. I imagine sports is one of the main things keeping traditional TV packages afloat right now.
If Netflix is raising prices while they remove content, and they're not sending reminders to users about it, I might just have to drop them.
I see it as ending a temporary discount that was explicitly noted as being temporary at the time it was given to existing customers. Given that 75% of the user base is paying the 9.99 rate already, it's hard to really whine about this since the service is obviously worth that amount to the majority of users. I agree they probably should remind people about the increase, but that is still a month away, maybe it will still go out.
Same old story when something niche goes mainstream - they start catering to the masses instead of the original niche. You may hate House of Cards, but a hell of a lot of other people seem to like it (haven't watched it myself).
Honestly I would not have noticed unless I was comparing recent and old credit statements. When I first read this article I thought I was paying 9.99 already, because it seems completely reasonable. I had forgot exactly how ridiculous the gap between Netflix and traditional TV service is.
Bitch as much as you want, none of that is relevant to what exists on the market today. $9.99 is still a damn good deal compared to the other options currently available. This will be the first price increase I've had from them in the 6 years I've been subscribed. It could probably go up to $14.99 before I would consider looking at other options. It's still far far far away from current cable TV prices, and I'm in Canada where we now have the government mandated $25 "skinny" tv packages that are just shit - if netflix removed 75% of their content it would still be better than skinny tv packages.
Best I can tell, the other scientific discoveries just change the origin location - e.g. rather than Africa 50,000 years ago, it was Australia 80,000 years ago. etc.
Slashdot Mirror
If they had this level of corporate maturity they probably would not be on Kickstarter.
It makes sense to have it on the books because certainly there are scenarios where doing so can create an unsafe situation. Unfortunately it is probably applied to any situation if a random goon needs to meet quota.
Here is a non-Uber related example of pretty much the same thing. The court ruled that the owner of the stopped car bore some of the responsibility.
+1. There will likely be another case within 5 years that won't be quite as unappetizing to the public.
No, but your debating skills do amaze me.
I'm a thin guy. My daily calorie intake varies between 2000 and 3500. I do not have an active lifestyle, I am a programmer and spend my free time gaming. I'm the guy that my coworkers hate, because when we go out for lunch they eat a salad while I eat a giant plate of spaghetti. If they ate like I did, they would be very much overweight. I am not some medical marvel, nor do I have a malfunctioning digestive system. All my kin on my mother's side are the same. So yes, it's not as simple as that.
And I wonder how Elon calculated that statistic? He has his own conflicts of interest after all; he needs to sell more shares to get the Model 3 out to get his company profitable and this hype only makes that claim.
A Volvo engineer building a competing product is just as biased. Perhaps we should ignore the ramblings of either and base it on the opinion of existing regulatory agencies instead?
Greek god names have lasted in culture for over a thousand years. But I bet nobody can recall a TV character's name from just 100 years ago!
It wouldn't be enough for just the US to stop. Many western countries sell them arms, including Canada. They will have to do significantly worse than they already have to tip the scale.
Probably sanitation. Having most of the population shaved probably significantly reduces transmission of things like lice. Allowing a few people to remain bearded probably doesn't affect the overall sanitation, and so one could argue that allowances can be made. I don't believe religion is a fair way to distribute that allowance though.
The historical context for the Scientology cult is also well-known, and it is known that it is a organization dedicated to extracting money from vulnerable people. Yet in many locations it is considered a valid religion.
Sad and awkward maybe, still don't see racism (unfortunately I couldn't watch the video from this location).
No, seriously, whoever does it, why is it a problem? If she adopted a bit of a southern drawl in front of white southerners, is it white-on-white racism?
http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/4084/what-causes-some-people-to-unconsciously-imitate-the-accents-of-others
Wow, you just described EXACTLY what most democrats do.
I stopped reading there. Get your head out of your ass and focus on the arguments people are presenting and not the group you think they represent.
I have no idea what Cruz advocates. Given that people aren't up in arms about him, I'll assume he's pretty much the status quo. Does Cruz have a personal product line on Amazon? Not sure where you're going with this.
Or when Hillary changes her speech patterns when in front of a black audience, as if she were ... black
. So what's problematic there, cultural appropriation?
It's going outside the process just because you don't like the results. That's not how we do things.
But... "He started it!".
Every country is actually expulsing illegal immigrants, even the Obama administration is doing it.
Except Trump frames his arguments using fear and oversimplified solutions rather than sound immigration policy.
Second, the ban on Muslims is a temporary measure and what actual right should someone have to actually immigrate in USA?
Again, this an argument based on fear, and such a policy wouldn't accomplish anything. In fact it would more likely increase resentment of the US.
Third, what's the point of protesters to invest Trump's rallies and try to prevent him to address his supporters?
This is certainly not acceptable in a democracy, but it's not really surprising. Trump is (at least partially) whipping up support by giving people targets to hate, targets to blame for their problems, and he is fanning the flames of both their passions and those that would stand against him.
I don't think sports channels would be included in a $25/mo package. Also is live politics really a thing?
If I could get everything in one streaming service, I'd happily cut the cord right now. But we're actually moving farther away from that happening.
That's because the rights-holders want to extract more money from you under the old models and are fighting the shift tooth and nail. The only reason we've seen any modernization at all is because of disruptive streaming companies taking a piece of their pie.
It's all in one place, and I'm only paying for that content once.
Sure, but you're probably paying 5 times the amount or more for that. Is "all in one place" worth that? You could subscribe to Hulu, Amazon, AND Netflix ($7.99, $7.99, $9.99) and still save a good chunk compared to your TV package. If you can't remember which of 3 providers carries an exclusive show you want to watch, then I can't imagine how you remember what TV channel your shows are on. On sports you're right, mostly because it is a demand for very specific live content and the rights-holders have been able to hold on to their dated business models. I imagine sports is one of the main things keeping traditional TV packages afloat right now.
If Netflix is raising prices while they remove content, and they're not sending reminders to users about it, I might just have to drop them.
I see it as ending a temporary discount that was explicitly noted as being temporary at the time it was given to existing customers. Given that 75% of the user base is paying the 9.99 rate already, it's hard to really whine about this since the service is obviously worth that amount to the majority of users. I agree they probably should remind people about the increase, but that is still a month away, maybe it will still go out.
Same old story when something niche goes mainstream - they start catering to the masses instead of the original niche. You may hate House of Cards, but a hell of a lot of other people seem to like it (haven't watched it myself).
Honestly I would not have noticed unless I was comparing recent and old credit statements. When I first read this article I thought I was paying 9.99 already, because it seems completely reasonable. I had forgot exactly how ridiculous the gap between Netflix and traditional TV service is.
Bitch as much as you want, none of that is relevant to what exists on the market today. $9.99 is still a damn good deal compared to the other options currently available. This will be the first price increase I've had from them in the 6 years I've been subscribed. It could probably go up to $14.99 before I would consider looking at other options. It's still far far far away from current cable TV prices, and I'm in Canada where we now have the government mandated $25 "skinny" tv packages that are just shit - if netflix removed 75% of their content it would still be better than skinny tv packages.
Best I can tell, the other scientific discoveries just change the origin location - e.g. rather than Africa 50,000 years ago, it was Australia 80,000 years ago. etc.