Wouldn't it just be simpler to use the state that the company is incorporated in?
(And for fairness, this should apply to B&M and online stores.)
I 100% agree this is a complete clusterfuck. e.g. Web Servers can literally be all over the world, so you can't use the location of those.
An online store is akin to having a salesclerk personally visit you while taking your order.
* It shouldn't matter where geographically the buyer is located, * Which leaves the question: Isn't the fundamental problem: Where is the seller located? Since geographically this is almost impossible to nail down (excellent examples by the way!), then use the Legal Location instead, since that is static.
Guess everyone is too busy trying to stick their fingers into the pie.
-- "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." -- Tacitus
> AND Netflix Originals also gives potential-cord-cutters on the fence an independent reason to consider Netflix even if they keep TV and keep buying movies, because there will be stuff they can't watch on TV without Netflix.
I guess you missed the news last week -- Comcast announced will be bundling Netflix:
In a statement on Friday, the companies said Netflix will be available later this month through various Xfinity TV packages delivered through Comcast's X1 set-top box.
If I'm reading that right it sounds like you can watch Netflix through the X1 box?
The astute reader may notice that Netflix carries less and less network shows / movies and continues to push "Netflix Originals" -- all in an order to minimize a key expense.
What expense?
One of the secrets of the cable / streaming industry is that license costs continue to go up. In turn this gets passed onto the consumer.
So when Netflix says Disney spends $8 Billion --- is that to _produce_ content or to _license_ content? And is that ALL media such as TV Shows AND Movies, or strictly JUST TV shows? And is that JUST Disney or does that include ALL of its subsidiaries ?
Content cost are spiraling out of control. i.e. The ten episodes of the first season of Westworld were reportedly produced on a budget of approximately $100 million.
Assuming that the $8 Billion Disney spends is solely to create content for TV shows -- that might seem like is a drop in the bucket compared to the budget of a few "blockbuster" movies. Here is a list of All the Disney films -- and here is a snippet of 2017 / 2018 movies:
719. 2017 Dangal (Disney India) 720. 2017 Beauty and the Beast (PG) 721. 2017 Born in China (Disneynature) (G) 722. 2017 Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 (Marvel) (PG-13) 723. 2017 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (PG-13) 724. 2017 Cars 3 (Pixar) (G) 725. 2017 Jagga Jasoos (Disney India) 726. 2017 Thor: Ragnarok (Marvel) (PG-13) 727. 2017 Coco (Pixar) (PG) 728. 2017 Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Lucasfilm) (PG-13) 729. 2018 Black Panther (Marvel) (PG-13) 730. 2018 A Wrinkle in Time (PG)
Let's actually tally the budget -- assuming Disney foot the bill for all of its 2017 movies...
* Dangal, $11 million USD * Beauty and the Beast, budget $160 million USD * Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2, budget $200 million USD * Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, budget $230 million * Cars 3, budget $175 million USD * Thor: Ragnarok, budget $180 million USD * Coco, budget ??? * Star Wars: The Last Jedi, budget $200 million USD * Black Panther, budget $200 million USD * A Wrinkle in Time, budget $100 million USD
... so around $1,156 million for Movies in 2017.
Ergo it looks like $8 Billion was for BOTH movies AND TV Shows.
What's really stupid is that the cable industry STILL relies on the inaccurate, archaic Nielsen ratings. Via the STB / DVR boxes they already have (relatively) accurate metrics of what people are watching but for some reason continue to use an idiotic Nielsen rating to bargain licensing costs -- because they aren't in the content creation business -- only the content licensing business.
Since Netflix is in the process of migrating from strictly licensing content to producing content this $8 Billion figure shouldn't be a surprise.
What I DO find surprising is that since Netflix can tell _exactly_ which shows are popular -- one would think they would use this "hard data" to lower licensing costs to carry multiple network shows. Instead we get few and fewer selections each year it seems. Has anyone tracked the quantity of content available on Netflix over the years?
"Ideas are a dime a dozen, its their implementation that is worth their weight in gold"
Also a successful business must master "good enough." Build up the revenue stream and slowly add features. The late Steve Jobs knew this in spades. e.g. The first iPhone didn't have cut/copy/paste but it didn't need to.
/sarcasm I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you that people are sharing files / video / music on the internet! Back in MY day we hoarded our one's and zero's! Only communists shared their data with a stranger. We practiced safe hex by being our corporate master's bitch!
Instead of asking the question: "When this many people are just outright ignoring copyright maybe this civil disobediance of Against Intellectual Property (written by a lawyer, go figure) is a call to re-think the archaic, capitalist concept of Copyright? Nah, let's go after Apple and Google instead which have NOTHING to do with this."
Wait till these people find out that you can share "illegal numbers" through Skype, Google Drive, or even email !
Lujan: Facebook has detailed profiles on people who have never signed up for Facebook, yes or no? Zuckerberg: Congressman, in general we collect data on people who have not signed up for Facebook for security purposes to prevent the kind of scraping you were just referring to [reverse searches based on public info like phone numbers]. Lujan: So these are called shadow profiles, is that what they've been referred to by some? Zuckerberg: Congressman, I'm not, I'm not familiar with that. Lujan: I'll refer to them as shadow profiles for today's hearing. On average, how many data points does Facebook have on each Facebook user? Zuckerberg: I do not know off the top of my head. Lujan: Do you know how many points of data Facebook has on the average non-Facebook user? Zuckerberg: Congressman, I do not know off the top of my head but I can have our team get back to you afterward. Lujan: It's been admitted by Facebook that you do collect data points on non-[Facebook users]. My question is, can someone who does not have a Facebook account opt out of Facebook's involuntary data collection? Zuckerberg: Anyone can turn off and opt out of any data collection for ads, whether they use our services or not but in order to prevent people from scraping public information... we need to know when someone is repeatedly trying to access our services.
> The Constitution exists to define the limits of government. It does not enumerate your rights.
That's why we have the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
While composing if you press TAB then the [Send] button will get focus which is to be expected.
Except Gmail has this annoying "feature/bug" that it does NOT colorize the [Send] button with a different background color -- except with a thin dotted rectangle that is bloody hard to see. It is too easy to then press Enter thinking you are going to indent the current line except you accidently fire off the email. Thank God for the Undo at the top.
Since Google still doesn't understand good UI here is a console snippet that will color-code the [Send] button red when it has focus.
for( var i = 0; i < document.styleSheets.length; i++ )
for( var j = 0; j < document.styleSheets[i].cssRules.length; j++ )
if( document.styleSheets[i].cssRules[j].selectorText === ".T-I-atl:focus" )
document.styleSheets[i].cssRules[j].style.backgroundImage = "-webkit-linear-gradient(top,#F48,#F00)";
WTF is Gmail being re-designed when they don't even understand _basic_ UI ?
The problem with the iPad is that Apple is fucking clueless about standardizing / supporting a gamepad API. Instead we are forced to use shitty touch screen controls that obscures the view.
Slashdot Mirror
/sarcasm Let's focus on 1% of problem and ignore the 99% that actually effect New Yorkers.
Guess they got nothing better to do.
> Well Microsoft haters will hate.
Wouldn't it just be simpler to use the state that the company is incorporated in?
(And for fairness, this should apply to B&M and online stores.)
I 100% agree this is a complete clusterfuck. e.g. Web Servers can literally be all over the world, so you can't use the location of those.
An online store is akin to having a salesclerk personally visit you while taking your order.
* It shouldn't matter where geographically the buyer is located,
* Which leaves the question: Isn't the fundamental problem: Where is the seller located? Since geographically this is almost impossible to nail down (excellent examples by the way!), then use the Legal Location instead, since that is static.
Guess everyone is too busy trying to stick their fingers into the pie.
--
"The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." -- Tacitus
"The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." -- Tacitus
Yup, I hate that too. Sometimes I want to watch one, the other, or BOTH.
Stop lumping them together!
> AND Netflix Originals also gives potential-cord-cutters on the fence an independent reason to consider Netflix even if they keep TV and keep buying movies, because there will be stuff they can't watch on TV without Netflix.
I guess you missed the news last week -- Comcast announced will be bundling Netflix:
If I'm reading that right it sounds like you can watch Netflix through the X1 box?
> As far as I know, it's illegal for them to carry viewership information from set top boxes.
The cable companies are aware of PII laws (Personally Identifiable Information)
Besides, they already know what channel (or VOD) the STB / DVR is tuned too upstream. Go figure.
The astute reader may notice that Netflix carries less and less network shows / movies and continues to push "Netflix Originals" -- all in an order to minimize a key expense.
What expense?
One of the secrets of the cable / streaming industry is that license costs continue to go up. In turn this gets passed onto the consumer.
So when Netflix says Disney spends $8 Billion --- is that to _produce_ content or to _license_ content? And is that ALL media such as TV Shows AND Movies, or strictly JUST TV shows? And is that JUST Disney or does that include ALL of its subsidiaries ?
Content cost are spiraling out of control.
i.e. The ten episodes of the first season of Westworld were reportedly produced on a budget of approximately $100 million.
Assuming that the $8 Billion Disney spends is solely to create content for TV shows -- that might seem like is a drop in the bucket compared to the budget of a few "blockbuster" movies. Here is a list of All the Disney films -- and here is a snippet of 2017 / 2018 movies:
Let's actually tally the budget -- assuming Disney foot the bill for all of its 2017 movies ...
* Dangal, $11 million USD
* Beauty and the Beast, budget $160 million USD
* Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2, budget $200 million USD
* Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, budget $230 million
* Cars 3, budget $175 million USD
* Thor: Ragnarok, budget $180 million USD
* Coco, budget ???
* Star Wars: The Last Jedi, budget $200 million USD
* Black Panther, budget $200 million USD
* A Wrinkle in Time, budget $100 million USD
Ergo it looks like $8 Billion was for BOTH movies AND TV Shows.
What's really stupid is that the cable industry STILL relies on the inaccurate, archaic Nielsen ratings. Via the STB / DVR boxes they already have (relatively) accurate metrics of what people are watching but for some reason continue to use an idiotic Nielsen rating to bargain licensing costs -- because they aren't in the content creation business -- only the content licensing business.
Since Netflix is in the process of migrating from strictly licensing content to producing content this $8 Billion figure shouldn't be a surprise.
What I DO find surprising is that since Netflix can tell _exactly_ which shows are popular -- one would think they would use this "hard data" to lower licensing costs to carry multiple network shows. Instead we get few and fewer selections each year it seems. Has anyone tracked the quantity of content available on Netflix over the years?
Pretty much this.
"Ideas are a dime a dozen, its their implementation that is worth their weight in gold"
Also a successful business must master "good enough." Build up the revenue stream and slowly add features. The late Steve Jobs knew this in spades. e.g. The first iPhone didn't have cut/copy/paste but it didn't need to.
These days it is called Minimum viable product
Hyperlinking already existed by the time Tim Berners-Lee re-invented for it the THIRD time.
Hyperlinked was demoed first in 1968, 1987, and last in 1993 according to Alan Kay - Normal Considered Harmful
* 1968 Mother of All Demos
* 1987 Hypercard
* 1993 Mosaic
--
"Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes." -- John Cook
> I don't think its a hard fact that businesses need to profit.
Exactly.
Proof: How do non-profits stay in business?
Greed usually hijacks sustainability.
/sarcasm I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you that people are sharing files / video / music on the internet! Back in MY day we hoarded our one's and zero's! Only communists shared their data with a stranger. We practiced safe hex by being our corporate master's bitch!
Instead of asking the question: "When this many people are just outright ignoring copyright maybe this civil disobediance of Against Intellectual Property (written by a lawyer, go figure) is a call to re-think the archaic, capitalist concept of Copyright? Nah, let's go after Apple and Google instead which have NOTHING to do with this. "
Wait till these people find out that you can share "illegal numbers" through Skype, Google Drive, or even email !
/sarcasm Presumably on the internet
> Zero questions on shadow profiles and tracking of people who don't even use the service.
You're too early.
Mark Zuckerberg Denies Knowledge of Non-Consensual Shadow Profiles Facebook Has Been Building of Non-Users For Years
The bogeyman / bullshit justification of fighting inanimate object such as the War on Terrorism (TM) is more profitable though. /cynical
> ... you blithering fucking imbecile.
Stay classy!
> The Constitution exists to define the limits of government. It does not enumerate your rights.
That's why we have the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights
While composing if you press TAB then the [Send] button will get focus which is to be expected.
Except Gmail has this annoying "feature/bug" that it does NOT colorize the [Send] button with a different background color -- except with a thin dotted rectangle that is bloody hard to see. It is too easy to then press Enter thinking you are going to indent the current line except you accidently fire off the email. Thank God for the Undo at the top.
Since Google still doesn't understand good UI here is a console snippet that will color-code the [Send] button red when it has focus.
for( var i = 0; i < document.styleSheets.length; i++ )
for( var j = 0; j < document.styleSheets[i].cssRules.length; j++ )
if( document.styleSheets[i].cssRules[j].selectorText === ".T-I-atl:focus" )
document.styleSheets[i].cssRules[j].style.backgroundImage = "-webkit-linear-gradient(top,#F48,#F00)";
WTF is Gmail being re-designed when they don't even understand _basic_ UI ?
100% agree.
I also agree, Mozilla Foundation should be broken up. /sarcasm
Why do you want the run the latest spyware from Microsoft?
1. Are you offering to verify and test all our drivers and apps will be still be functional after upgrading to Windows 10 ?
2. "Old" is a red herring fallacy. The wheel is thousands of years old -- you don't see people bitching about that.
3. "Don't fix what ain't broken"
Stop drinking Microshit's Kool-Aid (TM)
/Oblg. Nvidia poking fun of Intel a few years back.
Maybe _this_ time will be different. We'll have to wait and see ...
Banning "hate speech" is censorship. PERIOD.
If anyone (general public) can join the website then it should be classified as "public space" and the 1st amendment should take precedent.
But, no, let's target some bullshit inanimate object, "hate speech", in a knee-jerk reaction to the symptom instead of treating the cause.
/sarcasm Considering you are nagging about it, yeah, you are a nagger.
Mod parent +1 Interesting.
Why isn't she going to jail ?
Does anyone have a link / copy to the SEC settlement ?
The problem with the iPad is that Apple is fucking clueless about standardizing / supporting a gamepad API. Instead we are forced to use shitty touch screen controls that obscures the view.