The same situation here, except minus the kids. My wife will get movies to watch on her laptop while I am doing work or playing a video game. The movies in my queue are either things I would only watch, or we would watch together. She may go through 2-3 a week, I go through 1-2 a month.
I also wrote Netflix an e-mail and really do plan on quit unless they reverse this policy. The feature is already implemented, I can't imagine it costs that much more to maintain as the code that manages the queues is already there and the mailing has got to be the same cost either way they go (profiles or not).
Stupid move, it will surely cost them some customers (at least I hope so).
From what I've read (granted, it's on forums and such) Toshiba and Sony both spin the PS3 different ways. Toshiba was including it in sales when talking about attach rates, but when talking about sheer numbers of HD-DVD players compared to Blu-ray players, the PS3 wasn't included.
I'm sure there are links out there to some blog, but who knows if those are any more reputable.
"The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone new licenses, and officials say the risk of someone in that age group being a terrorist, illegal immigrant or con artist is much less."
I read in another article pertaining to this (on CNN.com I believe) that a one of the guys in charge of this movement was quoted something like "people over 50 are less likely to be terrorists".
Wow, that is a great reason. I feel safer already!
720p requires 5-6Mbps to stream it, and 1080p even more. (warning: speculation ahead) It definitely makes things faster to download but for most people (in the US at least) 1 Mbps is the best they can do. That's still a long time for a movie download. Not out of the question though. However, I doubt any ISP can maintain anything close to even 1 Mbps if everyone is downloading HD quality video regularly.
Maybe you missed my LAST sentence then: "My apologies if this is not what you meant, but it is how I read it and want to avoid others making the same mistake.":-)
After reading it though, I noticed that 1) it is from April 2007 and 2) those players didn't come through. On a related note, Wal-Mart did have a $98 HD-DVD player sale in November on the Toshiba A2 player. So I guess the sub $200 part was correct, although it was a sale (and possibly an inventory clearance of an older model, I don't think they make the A2 any longer).
HD content distributed over the internet is a lost cause (at the moment). I wouldn't want my video compressed much more than it already is on BD/HD-DVD... and those are 15 GB minimum! I don't want to wait for that download, nor could any ISP handle people doing that much downloading. High-definition disc formats make my DirecTV HD feed look horrible. The compression is nasty. Same thing would happen with streaming HD (for now).
Also, something about a tangible item in my hand when I make a purchase. But that's just my preference.
Regarding number 3: WB is the only format-neutral studio right now, so they say "available in HiDef" to convey that the product can be purchased on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. You mention that there is no Blu-Ray version available, and that is not true.
However, this example of your mistake simply amplifies your point.:-) (Note: You may have been using that as an example of what the average consumer would think ('Ah, it's only on HiDef--not Blu-Ray HiDef'), and maybe I missed that point... again, your point is made very well)). Hope I closed all my parentheses.
I had to comment on this just to set things straight. Blu-Ray does not render your DVD collection useless anymore than HD-DVD does... why? Because both play DVDs. HD-DVD is simply a moniker for the new format because it is part of the DVD consortium.
Repeat: Blu-Ray players play DVDs just the same as HD-DVD players do. The only imcompatibility is that Blu-Ray players will not play HD-DVD and HD-DVD will not player Blu-Ray.
My apologies if this is not what you meant, but it is how I read it and want to avoid others making the same mistake.
$2/day seems like a lot... although I guess it could be deemed "convenience". I'm not sure if it's available where you are, but around here there is a service called "Redbox" which is $1/day.
If a lot of that junk mail is pre-approved credit card stuff, you can opt-out. Just google something like "credit bureau" opt-out and you can find the site. I did it less than a month ago and have already noticed a huge reduction in junk-mail. We used to get at least 10 credit card applications a week, now it's down to about 2--which are both from the company we have an account with already--just a different "themed" card.
On a related note to your related note, I ate at a restaurant this past weekend that automatically included 18%... and it was a party of 2! This is common for big parties, but not for 2. What if I decided the service was horrible and deserved no tip?
That being said, only once in my life have I left $0 for a tip, and only on 1-2 occasions have I left anything under 15% (my norm is 15% lunch, 20% dinner). I still feel the need to leave a tip based on the waiter's performance, and the restaurant did not allow me that choice. I was a bit put off, but luckily the waiter was very good.
My wife has an Acer, which we sent back for warranty work onthe hinge/monitor cable and received it (repaired, no issues since) in about 6 business days. Have had no other issues with the laptop (Aspire 5120) since the hinge issue.
My wife and I bought an Acer laptop at a Black Friday sale almost 2 years ago (2 years this November). Aside from one issue with the screen cable in the hinge coming loose (which was fixed under warranty and returned in less than 6 business days) I have had no issues with the machine. I should add that I am pretty sure the hinge issue was due to having it in the trunk of my car with no case. Stupid, I know.
I think the Slashdot (and Digg) crowds are over estimating the desire for on-demand content. Sure, it's great for rental techniques... but when it comes to buying a movie, some people (a lot I poll at work, etc), including myself, want a physical disc. Why? Google Video is a good example of "why".
I bought my PS3 for 3 reasons: 1, it was $100 cheaper than it was a short time ago 2, it plays Blu-Rays (not HD-DVDs), and I got 5 for free, and 3, it will have some games I want to play (GTA4, Gran Turismo 5).
Until those games come out, I can enjoy some Blu-Ray movies and still have Super Paper Mario and Mario Strikers Charged to keep me busy.
But there's an inherit flaw in your logic of popular songs being cheapest... if the least-popular cost the most, they're never going to come down and that is because.... nobody is buying it! So the artist still isn't making money!
I'm not singling you out either, I just find it amusing that everytime a new step is taken, another set of people (who may not have had complains about DRM, or the non-DRm being more costly, etc) come out and voice a complaint. Even if they are different groups of people, they are all the same to people following the situations.
Slashdot Mirror
The same situation here, except minus the kids. My wife will get movies to watch on her laptop while I am doing work or playing a video game. The movies in my queue are either things I would only watch, or we would watch together. She may go through 2-3 a week, I go through 1-2 a month.
I also wrote Netflix an e-mail and really do plan on quit unless they reverse this policy. The feature is already implemented, I can't imagine it costs that much more to maintain as the code that manages the queues is already there and the mailing has got to be the same cost either way they go (profiles or not).
Stupid move, it will surely cost them some customers (at least I hope so).
6mm on each side? Really?
Send them both down to the lake and see who the watery tart throws the sword at...
From what I've read (granted, it's on forums and such) Toshiba and Sony both spin the PS3 different ways. Toshiba was including it in sales when talking about attach rates, but when talking about sheer numbers of HD-DVD players compared to Blu-ray players, the PS3 wasn't included.
I'm sure there are links out there to some blog, but who knows if those are any more reputable.
I guess I should have just taken 5 more seconds to provide the link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/11/real.id.ap/index.html :
"The over-50 exemption was created to give states more time to get everyone new licenses, and officials say the risk of someone in that age group being a terrorist, illegal immigrant or con artist is much less."
I read in another article pertaining to this (on CNN.com I believe) that a one of the guys in charge of this movement was quoted something like "people over 50 are less likely to be terrorists".
Wow, that is a great reason. I feel safer already!
Well, I wish that I knew who I was replying to, but... touche.
720p requires 5-6Mbps to stream it, and 1080p even more. (warning: speculation ahead) It definitely makes things faster to download but for most people (in the US at least) 1 Mbps is the best they can do. That's still a long time for a movie download. Not out of the question though. However, I doubt any ISP can maintain anything close to even 1 Mbps if everyone is downloading HD quality video regularly.
Maybe you missed my LAST sentence then: "My apologies if this is not what you meant, but it is how I read it and want to avoid others making the same mistake." :-)
No worries.
Thanks for the link.
After reading it though, I noticed that 1) it is from April 2007 and 2) those players didn't come through. On a related note, Wal-Mart did have a $98 HD-DVD player sale in November on the Toshiba A2 player. So I guess the sub $200 part was correct, although it was a sale (and possibly an inventory clearance of an older model, I don't think they make the A2 any longer).
HD content distributed over the internet is a lost cause (at the moment). I wouldn't want my video compressed much more than it already is on BD/HD-DVD... and those are 15 GB minimum! I don't want to wait for that download, nor could any ISP handle people doing that much downloading. High-definition disc formats make my DirecTV HD feed look horrible. The compression is nasty. Same thing would happen with streaming HD (for now).
Also, something about a tangible item in my hand when I make a purchase. But that's just my preference.
"And the largest retailer in the world, Walmart, recently announced they will only carry HD-DVD in their stores."
Source for that claim?
Regarding number 3: WB is the only format-neutral studio right now, so they say "available in HiDef" to convey that the product can be purchased on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. You mention that there is no Blu-Ray version available, and that is not true.
:-) (Note: You may have been using that as an example of what the average consumer would think ('Ah, it's only on HiDef--not Blu-Ray HiDef'), and maybe I missed that point... again, your point is made very well)). Hope I closed all my parentheses.
However, this example of your mistake simply amplifies your point.
I had to comment on this just to set things straight. Blu-Ray does not render your DVD collection useless anymore than HD-DVD does... why? Because both play DVDs. HD-DVD is simply a moniker for the new format because it is part of the DVD consortium.
Repeat: Blu-Ray players play DVDs just the same as HD-DVD players do. The only imcompatibility is that Blu-Ray players will not play HD-DVD and HD-DVD will not player Blu-Ray.
My apologies if this is not what you meant, but it is how I read it and want to avoid others making the same mistake.
$2/day seems like a lot ... although I guess it could be deemed "convenience". I'm not sure if it's available where you are, but around here there is a service called "Redbox" which is $1/day.
If a lot of that junk mail is pre-approved credit card stuff, you can opt-out. Just google something like "credit bureau" opt-out and you can find the site. I did it less than a month ago and have already noticed a huge reduction in junk-mail. We used to get at least 10 credit card applications a week, now it's down to about 2--which are both from the company we have an account with already--just a different "themed" card.
On a related note to your related note, I ate at a restaurant this past weekend that automatically included 18% ... and it was a party of 2! This is common for big parties, but not for 2. What if I decided the service was horrible and deserved no tip?
That being said, only once in my life have I left $0 for a tip, and only on 1-2 occasions have I left anything under 15% (my norm is 15% lunch, 20% dinner). I still feel the need to leave a tip based on the waiter's performance, and the restaurant did not allow me that choice. I was a bit put off, but luckily the waiter was very good.
My bad, I thought he was just correcting the "900+" saying it should say "over 900", so I was doing the same. Joke, sorry.
google it. :-)
My wife has an Acer, which we sent back for warranty work onthe hinge/monitor cable and received it (repaired, no issues since) in about 6 business days. Have had no other issues with the laptop (Aspire 5120) since the hinge issue.
My wife and I bought an Acer laptop at a Black Friday sale almost 2 years ago (2 years this November). Aside from one issue with the screen cable in the hinge coming loose (which was fixed under warranty and returned in less than 6 business days) I have had no issues with the machine. I should add that I am pretty sure the hinge issue was due to having it in the trunk of my car with no case. Stupid, I know.
I think the Slashdot (and Digg) crowds are over estimating the desire for on-demand content. Sure, it's great for rental techniques... but when it comes to buying a movie, some people (a lot I poll at work, etc), including myself, want a physical disc. Why? Google Video is a good example of "why".
I bought my PS3 for 3 reasons: 1, it was $100 cheaper than it was a short time ago 2, it plays Blu-Rays (not HD-DVDs), and I got 5 for free, and 3, it will have some games I want to play (GTA4, Gran Turismo 5). Until those games come out, I can enjoy some Blu-Ray movies and still have Super Paper Mario and Mario Strikers Charged to keep me busy.
But there's an inherit flaw in your logic of popular songs being cheapest... if the least-popular cost the most, they're never going to come down and that is because.... nobody is buying it! So the artist still isn't making money!
I'm not singling you out either, I just find it amusing that everytime a new step is taken, another set of people (who may not have had complains about DRM, or the non-DRm being more costly, etc) come out and voice a complaint. Even if they are different groups of people, they are all the same to people following the situations.
Just because a song is popular doesn't mean it's "spooge".
When your songs get to a certain price, will you delete them because they're too cool?