Enjoy it at the moment - Netflix may decide later to produce less content you like in favor of other content to attract a larger group of subscribers (i.e., they'd rather lose you if they can get 100 more subscribers).
Its doubtful that would happen to the extent it would drive off many customers. As the market matures, customer retention becomes as much or more important part of the mix as customer acquisition. It may cost less to keep a customer than attract a new one.
Why can't the right-holders charge a flat-fee for streaming rights and let more than one entity stream them? Why must the streaming rights be held by one and only one entity with the deepest pockets?
For most providers, it is evidently the path the to greatest returns. They can release any way they want, but if you release to everyone the value goes down for any given distributor, who place a lot of value on exclusivity to draw more customers. You can also lengthen your return periods by strategic sequential releases to different distributors.
The next step for Netflix may be to produce major motion pictures, release in theaters then exclusively on NF.
I also wonder when they make serious moves into live TV and sports. Theoretically they could make that a different service but use the existing infrastructure.
Its not about whether the base reason for the business is 'good' or 'bad' in your mind or anyone elses. It is simple accounting, that there are jobs created by fulfilling the need and that should be considered when stating the overall economic impact. If you want to ignore that element simply because PTB is a bad thing, then you'll have an intentionally inaccurate result. You may not care if it is inaccurate do to your emotional response to the topic, but others like to use accurate information.
That's less than a dozen house cats do in the same period. But seriously, some projects using new technology will fail. That's to be expected. That's how we learn what works and what doesn't.
But they claimed CSP was mature enough for Ivanpah, not a pilot or experimental project, but one that committed to delivering energy contractually. Meanwhile, many of us knew they could never deliver.
The study makes a lot of assumptions, and 'concludes' there is a correlation but I don't see the data behind that part. The cost includes a lot of interesting components, including lifetime productivity loss for the PTB individual. They include any economic loss they can count, but they don't offset with the jobs created by caring for some of the individuals, which sounds cold but it should be factored in as well.
Regardless, this study seems to have a very wide margin of error associated with it.
You cannot have a meaningful discussion, in risk analysis terms, for any practical purposes in the frame from which it was brought forth, without including probability. You CAN find definitions of risk that include probability. You clearly don't get the former, and intentionally ignored the latter.
Are curved phone displays really needed or useful? I don't see any benefit. Maybe a phone that fits better in your rear pants pocket, but that's about it.
The article is very fuzzy when distinguishing between juice and juice drinks. It seems to claim 'orange juice' is very high in sugar, but then implies it means orange juice with added sugar, not pure OJ.
I suppose soft drink vendors could turn this around and say "as healthy as fruit juice" as show by this study.
More recent studies point to older fathers (those who have a kid after age 50) as a contributor to risk of ASD. This is not a new theory, but still not completely validated as many factors complicate things. But, it sounds plausible and can also explain the statistical rise in ASD as more and more children are born to older parents.
"the father" is irrelevant. Anti-vax movement was born out of the need to blame someone for bad things. In this case, the evil vaccine overlords. That need is so compelling that the erroneous blame survives in the face of clear scientific evidence.
Counterexample: I haven't (yet!) gotten sick from VR, and generally love roller coasters, but had trouble keeping down my lunch (and then felt bad for for hours) after a vigorous flight simulator at the -- highly recommended! -- Strategic Air & Space Museum, near Omaha, Nebraska.
Flight simulators often use spinning to get the G forces. Spinning is the thing that gets to my stomach, not side to side or up and down shifts.
1. A long payoff period true, but a very big payoff to society. Does society abandon everything that has a high capital cost and long payback?
2. Renewables are not dispatchable for the most part. Nuclear certainly can be. The only other choice is CO2 producing gas or coal. I guess you prefer those.
3. Wind and solar technologies are actually 'older' than nuclear. You can choose which ones you want to quit developing, but the fact that a technology exists for a certain time period is a stupid reason to discontinue it. Nuclear is still the greatest success story when it comes to actual clean air MWH production.
I see you also have a propensity to link nuclear power to nuclear weapons. That explains your response to a large extent.
Good response. My question was purposely simplistic, as a primary factor in most peoples opposition to nuclear power is a highly skewed risk perception. How much was put in there to make sure that was considered. I was trying to get people to think about the why. People accept much greater risks almost everyday than are posed by even greatly higher than normal exposures, be they external or internal. Safety limits are set way below significant risk levels, and so those safety limits can be exceeded greatly with little chance of effect. Many people simply don't realize that.
Even ingesting a small amount of material that is biologically 'sticky' is only a tiny risk adder, and is overshadowed by many other risks factors for the same cancers.
Slashdot Mirror
Enjoy it at the moment - Netflix may decide later to produce less content you like in favor of other content to attract a larger group of subscribers (i.e., they'd rather lose you if they can get 100 more subscribers).
Its doubtful that would happen to the extent it would drive off many customers. As the market matures, customer retention becomes as much or more important part of the mix as customer acquisition. It may cost less to keep a customer than attract a new one.
Why can't the right-holders charge a flat-fee for streaming rights and let more than one entity stream them? Why must the streaming rights be held by one and only one entity with the deepest pockets?
For most providers, it is evidently the path the to greatest returns. They can release any way they want, but if you release to everyone the value goes down for any given distributor, who place a lot of value on exclusivity to draw more customers. You can also lengthen your return periods by strategic sequential releases to different distributors.
The next step for Netflix may be to produce major motion pictures, release in theaters then exclusively on NF.
I also wonder when they make serious moves into live TV and sports. Theoretically they could make that a different service but use the existing infrastructure.
But big oil bribes are more eviler than all those run of the mill everyday "not big oil" bribes.
That is your conclusion to draw, but I don't see how it is in any way relevant to this discussion.
Its not about whether the base reason for the business is 'good' or 'bad' in your mind or anyone elses. It is simple accounting, that there are jobs created by fulfilling the need and that should be considered when stating the overall economic impact. If you want to ignore that element simply because PTB is a bad thing, then you'll have an intentionally inaccurate result. You may not care if it is inaccurate do to your emotional response to the topic, but others like to use accurate information.
That's less than a dozen house cats do in the same period. But seriously, some projects using new technology will fail. That's to be expected. That's how we learn what works and what doesn't.
But they claimed CSP was mature enough for Ivanpah, not a pilot or experimental project, but one that committed to delivering energy contractually. Meanwhile, many of us knew they could never deliver.
The study makes a lot of assumptions, and 'concludes' there is a correlation but I don't see the data behind that part. The cost includes a lot of interesting components, including lifetime productivity loss for the PTB individual. They include any economic loss they can count, but they don't offset with the jobs created by caring for some of the individuals, which sounds cold but it should be factored in as well.
Regardless, this study seems to have a very wide margin of error associated with it.
Then get an even smaller screen.
So, how does this now play for Apple, who banked on their phones being secure as a selling point?
If they open the infrastructure up to competitors in all areas they service, it might not be a bad move by the State.
You cannot have a meaningful discussion, in risk analysis terms, for any practical purposes in the frame from which it was brought forth, without including probability. You CAN find definitions of risk that include probability. You clearly don't get the former, and intentionally ignored the latter.
Rum goes better with Coke.
*can be hidden under your skullcap.
Are curved phone displays really needed or useful? I don't see any benefit. Maybe a phone that fits better in your rear pants pocket, but that's about it.
The article is very fuzzy when distinguishing between juice and juice drinks. It seems to claim 'orange juice' is very high in sugar, but then implies it means orange juice with added sugar, not pure OJ.
I suppose soft drink vendors could turn this around and say "as healthy as fruit juice" as show by this study.
More recent studies point to older fathers (those who have a kid after age 50) as a contributor to risk of ASD. This is not a new theory, but still not completely validated as many factors complicate things. But, it sounds plausible and can also explain the statistical rise in ASD as more and more children are born to older parents.
"the father" is irrelevant. Anti-vax movement was born out of the need to blame someone for bad things. In this case, the evil vaccine overlords. That need is so compelling that the erroneous blame survives in the face of clear scientific evidence.
Yeah, I did Mission to Mars as well, my head hurt for a few hours. I'll pick the 'wimp' line next time.
Counterexample: I haven't (yet!) gotten sick from VR, and generally love roller coasters, but had trouble keeping down my lunch (and then felt bad for for hours) after a vigorous flight simulator at the -- highly recommended! -- Strategic Air & Space Museum, near Omaha, Nebraska.
Flight simulators often use spinning to get the G forces. Spinning is the thing that gets to my stomach, not side to side or up and down shifts.
Risk = probability x severity, not just the latter. Do some reading.
1. A long payoff period true, but a very big payoff to society. Does society abandon everything that has a high capital cost and long payback? 2. Renewables are not dispatchable for the most part. Nuclear certainly can be. The only other choice is CO2 producing gas or coal. I guess you prefer those. 3. Wind and solar technologies are actually 'older' than nuclear. You can choose which ones you want to quit developing, but the fact that a technology exists for a certain time period is a stupid reason to discontinue it. Nuclear is still the greatest success story when it comes to actual clean air MWH production.
I see you also have a propensity to link nuclear power to nuclear weapons. That explains your response to a large extent.
Good response. My question was purposely simplistic, as a primary factor in most peoples opposition to nuclear power is a highly skewed risk perception. How much was put in there to make sure that was considered. I was trying to get people to think about the why. People accept much greater risks almost everyday than are posed by even greatly higher than normal exposures, be they external or internal. Safety limits are set way below significant risk levels, and so those safety limits can be exceeded greatly with little chance of effect. Many people simply don't realize that.
Even ingesting a small amount of material that is biologically 'sticky' is only a tiny risk adder, and is overshadowed by many other risks factors for the same cancers.
Are your afraid of radioactivity? How much and why?
My phone supports HDMI out via an MHL port, you insensitive clod.
So, maybe you are one of those big screen users I also referred to?