Those people whose education included history, are aware of the French revolution the (English) peasants revolt, WW1 and WW2, and various other incidents. As a result, they understand that, taken as a whole, evidence suggests that if you make the poor suffer enough, the results are quite similar to what is happening with Da'esh in the Middle East. (Mass murder, destruction, etc).
Reminds me of a quote:
When Social Security was proposed,
the poor were for it because it was better than starving to death,
the middle class were for it because it was better than nothing,
and the rich were for it because it was better than being drug into the street and killed.
The thing that annoyed me the most about the movie, which had about as little to do with the book as Abrams version of Trek had to do with others, is that the troops just ran around like sheep getting killed by bugs instead of working together like in the book.
Due to the obvious lack of heavy weapons, armor, any sort of tactics, etc used in fighting the bugs, I figured they were being sent out against the bugs by the government to get killed. Using small arms like they did against the bugs was pretty much the wrong tool for the problem. The point to using a weapon is to be able to kill, or at least neutralize the threat from, the opponent with a single use of it.
And threatening to lock up your opposition and appoint a "special prosecutor" isn't trampling all over the constitution and the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches?
Yes, it is, but I think the argument put forth is that Clinton's trampling will be subtle efforts that will go unobserved and result in a death of a thousand cuts, while Trump's trampling will be grand, obviously wrong, attempts that both sides will come together to stop.
Wasn't my call (I'm not a programmer) but a great many serious software programs in a laboratory setting that will only run under win7, and is only certified to run under win7 *by the federal gov't*
Fine, scream all you want about *nix, but the real world doesn't always listen.
Lol! You just called the government "the real world!" That is some funny stuff right there!
Very real if you are in any sort of health care business, like every hospital. FDA certified applications and devices are pretty much required if they touch a patient. Add in that these are almost all 3rd party vendor products, businesses like those 3rd party vendors and the hospitals do not like the added charges of upgrading, and that Win7 Enterprise is fully available with the license agreement, the pressure to have the latest and greatest rather than a known, stable platform is pretty much nil. Then you get into upgrade projects dealing with conflicts with other upgrades, required software, which budgets have how much money when, upgrade blackout periods, and available manpower to do upgrades, and things in highly integrated businesses tend to move slowly. As for Linux, said vendors do seem to be moving the backends to linux, but probably never will on the front end because of lock in. If you use three different programs that require Windows, one moving to linux would mean having to double the number of computers everywhere and increase the complexity of workflow, or choosing a different product that uses Windows.
Most everybody has been waiting for the new updates, but some people are still buying if they have to. Same with desktops. I'm still making due with my 8 year old Mac Pro because I'm waiting for updates, even if an iMac. Still, my old Mac Pro still runs all the software I need.
Ah, interesting. Didn't know that. Thanks. Still, haven't seen one. A couple of the people in the IT group I'm with had Surface Pros when they came out. Now they all seemed to have bought Mac Book Pros earlier this year. Of course, we run several vendor apps and none of them have even given hints they are even testing for Win10 yet, so we aren't dealing much with non-Win7 devices quite yet.
But if SpaceX gets humans (alive, that is) on Mars first, I'm sure at NASA you'll see the then-Director move his/her/it? gaze skyward and yell at the top of 'their' lungs: "MMMMUUUUUSSSSSKKKKKK!!!!!!!".
If SpaceX gets humans to Mars, they'll probably be NASA astronauts in a project that had funding help from NASA and uses lots of tech developed by NASA. That is, unless ULA/Blue Origin don't get their BE4 engine and accompanying rocket done and beat them using those same astronauts, funding and tech. However, I think ULA is more interested in commercial missions rather than grand stunts that might pay off. The way I bet this works out if it happens, is that SpaceX will land an unmanned mission on Mars that will confirm their ability to land and mine the atmosphere for rocket fuel, and use that to generate the interest and funding from government interests which will put NASA on the track of helping them get it done.
Really? I must not exist. My wife has a Surface Book, my kids have a Surface 3 and I have a Surface Pro 4. It's the first time in twenty years I've had a machine running Windows.
Well, despite the branding, the Surface and the Surface Pro are two different beasts. The Surface is what would normally be called a tablet these days, and the Surface Pro would be a laptop in tablet form running actual Windows rather than the cut down tablet version (WinRaT). My understanding is that Surface Pros are doing pretty good because people want a regular computer in tablet form to do what they want to do. However, the table Surfaces are not as there are no apps, there are cheaper alternatives. Perhaps things for the regular Surfaces have gotten better since the initial push when they had to call in a loss for all the original Surfaces that wouldn't sell. Still, while I see some Surface Pros here at my work, I've yet to see a Surface.
That's so 1990s. The modern SJW definition is "prejudice plus power" which is how they exclude minorities from being racist even when they are blatantly racist by the older definition. See, a black Uber driver may be very very prejudiced.. but he has no power, due to the assumption of a white supremacist society propped up by structural racism etc... so he's not racist.
Probably because that is pretty much the definition in the field of sociology and probably other social issues academia.
Probably not. Definitions of various -isms change with the context and usage even working in legal or academic settings where they are very well defined, or perhaps because they are very well defined and not uniform across the board. Add in individual speakers expecting common usage and I bet if you put twenty of them down to write down a definition they could not come up with one that they all would agree with even if they were on the same side of an argument to begin with. Deal with legal issues and it will probably at least differ between the individual states in subtle but meaningful ways. Again, the usage in fields like sociology tend to define them in ways that pertain to the field it is being discussed in. In the sociological example, racism usually does include a requirement for one side holding power over the other. Probably because the effect of a faction with power over another will be very different than that of disenfranchised group performing the same actions on the group in power with relation to society. What it boils down to is that unless the context is narrowly defined, everybody is going to think they know what it means, but there will be no real concensus on a definition, and any attempt to come up with one will probably take longer and be less fruitful than the conversation without one.
Nothing of the scale seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I grew up in the cold war, right in the middle of one of those proxy wars. There has been nothing approaching any of that shit since 1989.
Don't worry. Russia is looking to change that. They've been missing the respect they got when they were fighting proxy wars with the US and NATO.
I'm Never-Trump. I'm also fully supportive of the issue being fully investigated, and Clinton being treated exactly like every other person that holds a security clearance. Or are you saying that she should be treated differently because she's a woman? Or because she's rich? Or because she's white?
No, but I just really feel that this entire thing has pretty much been fully investigated already. Not to mention all the other times people have cried "wolf" and found nothing after it was fully investigated. This just feels like endless fishing in hopes of finding something rather than actual evidence of wrongdoing on a scale that matters. In fact, I feel this is all they have is a re-opening of the investigation, not any actual hopes of investigating anything. I really doubt they are going to find something, investigate it, write up their briefs, and put forth their case in the two weeks before the election. It seems like it is just one last chance at spreading FUD about somebody they don't like.
I just read the linked Wikipedia article. Apparently, they've already decided that the protagonist is a "female minority". So... that was one of the writer/producers' overriding concern about the new series, I guess? Making a social statement instead of just finding a great actor to carry the series? Well, Star Trek has always been an ensemble affair, and has been reasonably progressive in matters of casting without being too distracting about it (mostly), so hopefully it won't matter too much.
Reminds me of the following quote:
“So, why do you write these strong female characters?
Because you’re still asking me that question."
1. USPS loses about 3% of all letters. Would you be willing to take a 3% risk that your vote is never received?
I call BS.
Of course it's BS. Michigan is the only state to require reasons for an absentee ballot and most polls show MI to be going to Clinton rather than Trump winning by 10%. In fact, I bet this AC is overseas, sitting in Russia someplace.
Cash is amazingly convenient. People only want this because it's Apple and their cult leaders tell them that they want it.
I like cash. If nothing else, it's how I budget my money as I only withdraw certain amount twice a week for most things. However, I'd have to say that most people find just handing over a card, debit or credit, for all transactions more convenient. If Apple can come up with a process that easier than having to dig out a card and put in a pin, I'd say that most people will find that more convenient.
Now I'll make a recommendation of my own. Instead of a separate app, why not integrate this functionality in to existing products? Instead of an "Amazon Recommends" app, how about just showing recommendations on their website? Instead of a "Netflix Suggester" app, have a category like "Recommended for you" right along side the other categories?
That's pretty much where they are going. This is probably just a bit to test future software. Their plan, as put forth from their earlier releases will be probably something like the Apple TV but instead of just searching individual services you have paid for, or just the iTunes library, it will search TV schedules and all services and then inform you where they are. I bet you'll even be able to subscribe to such services through it. So, when you want to see that one movie that you've haven't seen in years, instead of having to check Netflix to see if they have it, Hulu, or iTunes, you'll just do a search and eventually this app will tell you if it is available, where, and for how much no matter where it is.
Britain would basically cease to exist as a nation.
Possibly, but I suspect that Russia would also. MAD has been a assumed condition for the entire Cold War and I doubt it has gone away. I think the nations would survive but their ability to continue a war would probably become a lesser importance than rebuilding. The nation probably could continue the war effort if they needed, but the destruction caused to all parties would probably prevent any real ability to occupy the other. Still, with such sword rattling, I would expect that there will be thought into placing key bits of industry in strategic locations to make knocking them out harder.
Here's the fundamental problem: we need a hippie solution.
We tried that with the USSR. Carter backed off of the cold war rhetoric and cut arms spending. This was so the USSR could cut back on the arms race, get their economy in shape, and not collapse and risk global war in the next decade. Instead, the USSR took it as a chance to ramp up and get ahead and we got Afganistan and Reagan because of it, and the USSR collapsed (risking war). What makes you think it will work any better with Putin and Russia?
Remind me, why are we picking a fight with Russia again?
I think you have it backwards. Russia is picking the fights as that is how they deem to get political respect and clout. They've always had a large chip on their shoulder about fitting in with the rest of Europe and being looked down on and act as the drunk bully uncle of Europe in return. recently they seem to want to play the Great Game again and continue imperialistic colonialism where they can.
Without extensive human repair and maintenance, Bertha would be dead in the ground after a few feet. That is a fact.
Yes, but it wasn't designed to be. All this actually sounds like a more realistic plan than just "we're sending people to Mars". A few years ago, landing reusable fist stage rockets would have sounded like 'magic and videos', but here we are. If anybody can figure out how to make it work, it would probably be SpaceX.
The "threatening to move" really pisses me off, because they only do that to convince the public to pay for a more lavish stadium that they should be paying for themselves, How does it make sense to anyone to pay $500 million for a stadium in order to subsidize a billionaire's football team? (Seahawks, I'm looking at you. Even worse because they used taxes from all of Washington state, so people in Eastern Washington who could care less about the Seahawks are still paying for their stadium.) This payment of welfare to billionaires has got to stop!
Mostly status. Cities, states, and the people in them like to have home teams. There are so few popular sports with teams that those that have them are nationally known. I imagine that there is also some entertainment value such as building a colloseum in a city in Civilization, and some tax revenue due to activity that probably helps at least the city its in from visitors. Still, what people really want is to have that big winner so they can feel a part of it like when the Seahawks won the Superbowl. That was a day that Seattle and Washington felt proud and most everybody else in the nation wished they were us.
Don't underestimate that desire for status and to feel part of being the winner. Not just for the common person but perhaps even more for those in power that feel they run the city and state. Look at the Sonics and how they went to OK. I grew up in OK and OK has always wanted a pro sports team, even to the point of the OK outlaws when they tried to jump start a new league in the 80's. As an Okie, it was obvious that the Sonics were purchased with the goal of moving them to OK. The NOLA Hornets did well in OKC when they moved there after Hurricane Katrina. Keep in mind that well before the hurricane, OKC had a pro basketball stadium ready to go long before there was a team to play in it. The Sonics were bought, run into the ground, used to make huge demands that even Seattle wouldn't go along with, just so they could make it easier to move them to OK and into what is now called the "Thunderdome". Now, OK has it's pro team and the prestige they want. No doubt this wasn't just the work of the one guy that bought the Sonics but probably a group effort by many of the rich and powerful of OK, and now I have to see all sorts of OK Thunders posts by my friends still there.
If Apple wants to create a compelling streaming service, they'll have to compete with existing services out there. I'm happy to take a look and see if it's worth a subscription. But since I have consoles that run any streaming app just fine, I can't imagine myself wanting any hardware they could possibly offer.
Sounds to me that they are trying to come up with an iTunes for steaming services. When you're looking for something, it will tell you which streaming source has it and they'll probably make it real easy for you to pay for what you want an get it.
Slashdot Mirror
Those people whose education included history, are aware of the French revolution the (English) peasants revolt, WW1 and WW2, and various other incidents. As a result, they understand that, taken as a whole, evidence suggests that if you make the poor suffer enough, the results are quite similar to what is happening with Da'esh in the Middle East. (Mass murder, destruction, etc).
Reminds me of a quote:
When Social Security was proposed,
the poor were for it because it was better than starving to death,
the middle class were for it because it was better than nothing,
and the rich were for it because it was better than being drug into the street and killed.
The thing that annoyed me the most about the movie, which had about as little to do with the book as Abrams version of Trek had to do with others, is that the troops just ran around like sheep getting killed by bugs instead of working together like in the book.
Due to the obvious lack of heavy weapons, armor, any sort of tactics, etc used in fighting the bugs, I figured they were being sent out against the bugs by the government to get killed. Using small arms like they did against the bugs was pretty much the wrong tool for the problem. The point to using a weapon is to be able to kill, or at least neutralize the threat from, the opponent with a single use of it.
And threatening to lock up your opposition and appoint a "special prosecutor" isn't trampling all over the constitution and the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches?
Yes, it is, but I think the argument put forth is that Clinton's trampling will be subtle efforts that will go unobserved and result in a death of a thousand cuts, while Trump's trampling will be grand, obviously wrong, attempts that both sides will come together to stop.
voice authentication systems to be bypassed with ease now.
As a great man once said, "There's nothing more useless than a lock with a voice print."
Wasn't my call (I'm not a programmer) but a great many serious software programs in a laboratory setting that will only run under win7, and is only certified to run under win7 *by the federal gov't*
Fine, scream all you want about *nix, but the real world doesn't always listen.
Lol! You just called the government "the real world!" That is some funny stuff right there!
Very real if you are in any sort of health care business, like every hospital. FDA certified applications and devices are pretty much required if they touch a patient. Add in that these are almost all 3rd party vendor products, businesses like those 3rd party vendors and the hospitals do not like the added charges of upgrading, and that Win7 Enterprise is fully available with the license agreement, the pressure to have the latest and greatest rather than a known, stable platform is pretty much nil. Then you get into upgrade projects dealing with conflicts with other upgrades, required software, which budgets have how much money when, upgrade blackout periods, and available manpower to do upgrades, and things in highly integrated businesses tend to move slowly. As for Linux, said vendors do seem to be moving the backends to linux, but probably never will on the front end because of lock in. If you use three different programs that require Windows, one moving to linux would mean having to double the number of computers everywhere and increase the complexity of workflow, or choosing a different product that uses Windows.
Most everybody has been waiting for the new updates, but some people are still buying if they have to. Same with desktops. I'm still making due with my 8 year old Mac Pro because I'm waiting for updates, even if an iMac. Still, my old Mac Pro still runs all the software I need.
Ah, interesting. Didn't know that. Thanks. Still, haven't seen one. A couple of the people in the IT group I'm with had Surface Pros when they came out. Now they all seemed to have bought Mac Book Pros earlier this year. Of course, we run several vendor apps and none of them have even given hints they are even testing for Win10 yet, so we aren't dealing much with non-Win7 devices quite yet.
But if SpaceX gets humans (alive, that is) on Mars first, I'm sure at NASA you'll see the then-Director move his/her/it? gaze skyward and yell at the top of 'their' lungs: "MMMMUUUUUSSSSSKKKKKK!!!!!!!".
If SpaceX gets humans to Mars, they'll probably be NASA astronauts in a project that had funding help from NASA and uses lots of tech developed by NASA. That is, unless ULA/Blue Origin don't get their BE4 engine and accompanying rocket done and beat them using those same astronauts, funding and tech. However, I think ULA is more interested in commercial missions rather than grand stunts that might pay off. The way I bet this works out if it happens, is that SpaceX will land an unmanned mission on Mars that will confirm their ability to land and mine the atmosphere for rocket fuel, and use that to generate the interest and funding from government interests which will put NASA on the track of helping them get it done.
Really? I must not exist. My wife has a Surface Book, my kids have a Surface 3 and I have a Surface Pro 4. It's the first time in twenty years I've had a machine running Windows.
Well, despite the branding, the Surface and the Surface Pro are two different beasts. The Surface is what would normally be called a tablet these days, and the Surface Pro would be a laptop in tablet form running actual Windows rather than the cut down tablet version (WinRaT). My understanding is that Surface Pros are doing pretty good because people want a regular computer in tablet form to do what they want to do. However, the table Surfaces are not as there are no apps, there are cheaper alternatives. Perhaps things for the regular Surfaces have gotten better since the initial push when they had to call in a loss for all the original Surfaces that wouldn't sell. Still, while I see some Surface Pros here at my work, I've yet to see a Surface.
That's so 1990s. The modern SJW definition is "prejudice plus power" which is how they exclude minorities from being racist even when they are blatantly racist by the older definition. See, a black Uber driver may be very very prejudiced.. but he has no power, due to the assumption of a white supremacist society propped up by structural racism etc... so he's not racist.
Probably because that is pretty much the definition in the field of sociology and probably other social issues academia.
Racist != prejudiced or bigoted.
Can you clarify what it does mean then?
Probably not. Definitions of various -isms change with the context and usage even working in legal or academic settings where they are very well defined, or perhaps because they are very well defined and not uniform across the board. Add in individual speakers expecting common usage and I bet if you put twenty of them down to write down a definition they could not come up with one that they all would agree with even if they were on the same side of an argument to begin with. Deal with legal issues and it will probably at least differ between the individual states in subtle but meaningful ways. Again, the usage in fields like sociology tend to define them in ways that pertain to the field it is being discussed in. In the sociological example, racism usually does include a requirement for one side holding power over the other. Probably because the effect of a faction with power over another will be very different than that of disenfranchised group performing the same actions on the group in power with relation to society. What it boils down to is that unless the context is narrowly defined, everybody is going to think they know what it means, but there will be no real concensus on a definition, and any attempt to come up with one will probably take longer and be less fruitful than the conversation without one.
Nothing of the scale seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I grew up in the cold war, right in the middle of one of those proxy wars. There has been nothing approaching any of that shit since 1989.
Don't worry. Russia is looking to change that. They've been missing the respect they got when they were fighting proxy wars with the US and NATO.
I would have preferred Trump to have picked Santorum as his running mate
Me too. I can think of nothing funnier than for Trump to have a running mate whose name is a synonym for a "frothy mixture of fecal matter and lube from having anal sex".
I'm Never-Trump. I'm also fully supportive of the issue being fully investigated, and Clinton being treated exactly like every other person that holds a security clearance. Or are you saying that she should be treated differently because she's a woman? Or because she's rich? Or because she's white?
No, but I just really feel that this entire thing has pretty much been fully investigated already. Not to mention all the other times people have cried "wolf" and found nothing after it was fully investigated. This just feels like endless fishing in hopes of finding something rather than actual evidence of wrongdoing on a scale that matters. In fact, I feel this is all they have is a re-opening of the investigation, not any actual hopes of investigating anything. I really doubt they are going to find something, investigate it, write up their briefs, and put forth their case in the two weeks before the election. It seems like it is just one last chance at spreading FUD about somebody they don't like.
I just read the linked Wikipedia article. Apparently, they've already decided that the protagonist is a "female minority". So... that was one of the writer/producers' overriding concern about the new series, I guess? Making a social statement instead of just finding a great actor to carry the series? Well, Star Trek has always been an ensemble affair, and has been reasonably progressive in matters of casting without being too distracting about it (mostly), so hopefully it won't matter too much.
Reminds me of the following quote:
“So, why do you write these strong female characters?
Because you’re still asking me that question."
- Joss Whedon
1. USPS loses about 3% of all letters. Would you be willing to take a 3% risk that your vote is never received?
I call BS.
Of course it's BS. Michigan is the only state to require reasons for an absentee ballot and most polls show MI to be going to Clinton rather than Trump winning by 10%. In fact, I bet this AC is overseas, sitting in Russia someplace.
Cash is amazingly convenient. People only want this because it's Apple and their cult leaders tell them that they want it.
I like cash. If nothing else, it's how I budget my money as I only withdraw certain amount twice a week for most things. However, I'd have to say that most people find just handing over a card, debit or credit, for all transactions more convenient. If Apple can come up with a process that easier than having to dig out a card and put in a pin, I'd say that most people will find that more convenient.
Now I'll make a recommendation of my own. Instead of a separate app, why not integrate this functionality in to existing products? Instead of an "Amazon Recommends" app, how about just showing recommendations on their website? Instead of a "Netflix Suggester" app, have a category like "Recommended for you" right along side the other categories?
That's pretty much where they are going. This is probably just a bit to test future software. Their plan, as put forth from their earlier releases will be probably something like the Apple TV but instead of just searching individual services you have paid for, or just the iTunes library, it will search TV schedules and all services and then inform you where they are. I bet you'll even be able to subscribe to such services through it. So, when you want to see that one movie that you've haven't seen in years, instead of having to check Netflix to see if they have it, Hulu, or iTunes, you'll just do a search and eventually this app will tell you if it is available, where, and for how much no matter where it is.
Britain would basically cease to exist as a nation.
Possibly, but I suspect that Russia would also. MAD has been a assumed condition for the entire Cold War and I doubt it has gone away. I think the nations would survive but their ability to continue a war would probably become a lesser importance than rebuilding. The nation probably could continue the war effort if they needed, but the destruction caused to all parties would probably prevent any real ability to occupy the other. Still, with such sword rattling, I would expect that there will be thought into placing key bits of industry in strategic locations to make knocking them out harder.
Here's the fundamental problem: we need a hippie solution.
We tried that with the USSR. Carter backed off of the cold war rhetoric and cut arms spending. This was so the USSR could cut back on the arms race, get their economy in shape, and not collapse and risk global war in the next decade. Instead, the USSR took it as a chance to ramp up and get ahead and we got Afganistan and Reagan because of it, and the USSR collapsed (risking war). What makes you think it will work any better with Putin and Russia?
Remind me, why are we picking a fight with Russia again?
I think you have it backwards. Russia is picking the fights as that is how they deem to get political respect and clout. They've always had a large chip on their shoulder about fitting in with the rest of Europe and being looked down on and act as the drunk bully uncle of Europe in return. recently they seem to want to play the Great Game again and continue imperialistic colonialism where they can.
Since he lacks all practical applicable expertise.
Well, except for that entire runs a company that built and uses re-usable rockets that put things into orbit bit.
Without extensive human repair and maintenance, Bertha would be dead in the ground after a few feet. That is a fact.
Yes, but it wasn't designed to be. All this actually sounds like a more realistic plan than just "we're sending people to Mars". A few years ago, landing reusable fist stage rockets would have sounded like 'magic and videos', but here we are. If anybody can figure out how to make it work, it would probably be SpaceX.
The "threatening to move" really pisses me off, because they only do that to convince the public to pay for a more lavish stadium that they should be paying for themselves, How does it make sense to anyone to pay $500 million for a stadium in order to subsidize a billionaire's football team? (Seahawks, I'm looking at you. Even worse because they used taxes from all of Washington state, so people in Eastern Washington who could care less about the Seahawks are still paying for their stadium.) This payment of welfare to billionaires has got to stop!
Mostly status. Cities, states, and the people in them like to have home teams. There are so few popular sports with teams that those that have them are nationally known. I imagine that there is also some entertainment value such as building a colloseum in a city in Civilization, and some tax revenue due to activity that probably helps at least the city its in from visitors. Still, what people really want is to have that big winner so they can feel a part of it like when the Seahawks won the Superbowl. That was a day that Seattle and Washington felt proud and most everybody else in the nation wished they were us.
Don't underestimate that desire for status and to feel part of being the winner. Not just for the common person but perhaps even more for those in power that feel they run the city and state. Look at the Sonics and how they went to OK. I grew up in OK and OK has always wanted a pro sports team, even to the point of the OK outlaws when they tried to jump start a new league in the 80's. As an Okie, it was obvious that the Sonics were purchased with the goal of moving them to OK. The NOLA Hornets did well in OKC when they moved there after Hurricane Katrina. Keep in mind that well before the hurricane, OKC had a pro basketball stadium ready to go long before there was a team to play in it. The Sonics were bought, run into the ground, used to make huge demands that even Seattle wouldn't go along with, just so they could make it easier to move them to OK and into what is now called the "Thunderdome". Now, OK has it's pro team and the prestige they want. No doubt this wasn't just the work of the one guy that bought the Sonics but probably a group effort by many of the rich and powerful of OK, and now I have to see all sorts of OK Thunders posts by my friends still there.
If Apple wants to create a compelling streaming service, they'll have to compete with existing services out there. I'm happy to take a look and see if it's worth a subscription. But since I have consoles that run any streaming app just fine, I can't imagine myself wanting any hardware they could possibly offer.
Sounds to me that they are trying to come up with an iTunes for steaming services. When you're looking for something, it will tell you which streaming source has it and they'll probably make it real easy for you to pay for what you want an get it.