Dogs biting are almost always due to human error. Not necessarily the victim's but due to the asshole irresponsible owners. People get burned by fires that are outside of their control all of the time.
coming around a corner and sliding on a small ice patch on an otherwise dry road is no more predictable than driving through woods with deer and hitting one in the road.
You drew an aribrary line in the a wide shade of responsibility gray, and declared it the correct line. You were wrong. You then acuse me of being a liar, when you said
I'm just going to assume you're trolling and stop responding btw.
I think it is clear who the liar is.
You keep posting examples that refute your statement, and then call me stupid. Hmmmm....
You are obsessed with straw man. You made a nonsense comment. Either ALL accidents are 'human error', or there are lots of other factors. Your argument boils down to "My shade of gray is better than everyone else's shade of gray." Claiming that an accident is caused by human error when it has the % of human involvement that fit YOUR definition, but slightly less becomes an "act of god" because you've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand is ridiculous. Obviously, your rational is that because YOU have hit animals, then hitting animals must be unavoidable. Very poor logic.
There is no desperation here. You just made an incorrect statement, and used very poor examples. YOU are the one that made a black and white statement. I never said all risks are identical. In the context of varying degrees of danger, your original comment is totally nonsensical.
Your claim that I called things black and white, and that I said every danger is exactly the same is a strawman.
My point was that Voyager had a tall hot part robot part human chick named 7. Tripping the Riff had a tall hot part robot part human chick named 6. They clearly intended it to be parody, since that was the point of the show. BSG had a tall hot part robot part human chick named 6, and they tried to play it totally serious.
You mean the politeness and consideration of bringing a $0.30 pair of ear plugs if you want it to be quite instead of expecting everyone else in the public transportation to adjust their behavior so that you can have it quite? Even when the vehicle itself is going to be extremely noisy anyway?
Ohhhhh....Ohhhhh!!!!! And don't forget to have the tall hot chick '7' from voyager, but since we don't want it to look like a rip off of another horrible show, we will disguise that it is the same character by changing her name to another number. How about '12'? Yeah, if we changer her name to 12, no one will notice!
With the cost of storage being what it is, down sampleing doesn't make sense for anyone. Unless the picture is total garbage (like the inside of a lens cap, deleting photos for space doesn't make sense either.
Ideally, the best offline backup would be to have a pal that you can plug a Nas drive onto his network in exchange for letting him plug one into yours. Then set up a VPN to the drive so that you can sync your local storage up to it at night. Obviously, you would likely want to take measures to keep him from accessing your data, but that shouldn't be too hard. Getting static IP addresses and a vpn router would be cheaper than the online storage services.
Claiming that you can avoid crashing due to wind by not driving, but that you cannot get the exact same effect by making the exact same decision about driving where there are animals, is silly.
Animals running across the road isn't a human choice. Neither is the wind blowing. Driving when either of them could cause you to crash IS a human choice. You are applying a different set of standards to the wind hazard than you are to the animal hazard.
That is who I was talking about. Yes, claiming that a programming language "mutilates the mind beyond recovery" is classic trolling. It is also a classic "appeal from authority" argument.
Cities already have a monopoly on access to provide data. Cities also have a means for the citizens to push for improvement. A city with a monopoly on access to conduit is DRAMATICALLY better than a corporations with a monopoly on access to actual data lines, and even better than a consumer cooperative with a monopoly on data lines. Of course, if cities would build out conduit, a consumer cooperative would be trivial to implement.
If wind is human error, then hitting an animal running across the road would be too. Your definition of human error seems to be, "If you hadn't been driving it wouldn't have happened, so you made the human error when you decided to drive". Except for animal running across the road. You haven't happened to hit an animal or two have you?
And if cities would require new street construction to contain pipes like the storm drains or sewer system, but for data lines, when new streets are built, and would put in pipes when the streets get dug up for maintanance, the city could rent the space for many companies to run their own cables to compete for data. The city would make more money. The streets wouldn't need to get dug up again. We would could have competition between providers. We would not have the city become the new monopoly on data access.
Many here are trying to simultaneously apply the technical definition of 'pornography' as in visually offensive. To the word when applied to Playboy, and then redefine it as 'sexual' when applied to more... hard core stuff. It's real simple. Playboy publishes the pictures of naked women for the explicit purpose of titillating it's readers. When we drop the 'graphy' from 'pornography', we are using the casual definition of 'sexually stimulating' media, and by that definition, your have identified the best possible test.
Yep, for years, I would periodically grab a new copy of MythTV, and try to get it up and running reliably. It never worked out. I would spend a few day trying to get everything to work, and after a few days of scouring the web for fixes, I would pack it away, and wait a few more months to try again. When I cancelled my Dish service, there was nothing left in MythTV that wasn't either handles just fine from XBMC on Windows, or with a cheap dedicated box.
MythTV would have made a much bigger splash if they had made a point to pick a list of currently available hardware, and tested it from formatted disk to watching on screen with the reference hardware. Instead, it was left up to the user to figure out how to get their parts to work under Linux. For common stuff like keyboards and mice, that was no big deal, but for stuff like video capture (beyond crappy USB webcams) and remote controls, it was a total PITA.
Oh, and Linux works just fine for streaming Netflix. It is one of the best OSes available for it. It just doesn't work on your distribution of choice. For proof, refer back to the Roku. Linux works so good for streaming Netflix that people are buying hardware with Linux pre-installed for the express purpose of streaming Netflix on it.
There is nothing wrong with streaming to your laptop, if you want to watch movies on a computer. You may live in a dorm, or alone in a very small apartment. Most people like to watch TV on a real TV. Not because a TV and a monitor are dramatically different technologies, but because a TV has a remote control that works better for the specific use, they can sit on their couch an watch the box across the room, and they can watch it with multiple people. In your case, your TV is 27". Your laptap screen is, what, 17"? This is the difference between sitting on the couch watching a movie, and sitting at your computer. If you have your laptop on your lap, it is the equivilent of holding your little 17" TV in your lap.
Your question of "what is wrong with it" is a little like asking "what is wrong with a tv that has no remote?" The answer is nothing under very specific circumstances. For most people, having a real TV that is an optimized experience is worth the extra effort.
Actually, the best example would be to compare it to DVDs. When you want to relax and watch those DVD's that you rent from Netflix, do you watch them on your laptop? Or do you watch them on your TV? Every single pro and con that can be applied to using a DVD player on your TV vs. your laptop can be applied to using a Roku or other Netflix streaming device hooked to the TV.
I like that I can play a DVD on my Laptop and Desktop. It just isn't the best viewing experience.
I cancelled my DishNetwork service last May. It is the first time since I was ~6 years old that I have been without some form of 'cable'. The Hulu/Netflix combo has satisfied our TV watching pretty well. I only expected it to last a few months. So far, I don't see a need to go back.
Ironically, shortly before that, I started doing business with Comcast. Netflix/Hulu did kill 'cable TV' for me, but because of some serious monopoly shinanagans by AT&T, it didn't kill paying a bill for Comcast service every month. What I did learn though was that the secret to Comcast is to be a 'Business Customer'. You don't have to be an actual business, but because the service is intended for heavy use by businesses, things like port filtering and throttling don't happen. They also offer better support if there is an outage. If your internet goes down Friday at 4pm, and it is determined someone needs to come out, someone will be there on Saturday.
The basic price is ~$20 more per month, and can be more if you are looking at the introductory prices that Comcast sometimes offers to residential customers. I pay $59 a month for a 12/2 line. I have only once dropped below 12, and general can sustain transfer rates in the 24/6 range. Not that I ever do for long periods. I hate to say it, and I fear the future service of a monopoly, but Comcast has been a really good provider for me. So, if you MUST use Comcast, do yourself a favor. Pay the little bit extra and get a "Business Account".
Streaming to a PC that isn't hooked to your TV is an inferior experience, so I wouldn't recommend it. While streaming to your PC is convenient, to be a replacement for DVDs, you need something hooked to a TV with a remote. Windows 7 comes with MediaCenter that has a Netflix Plugin. This means that it will work out of the box with any MediaCenter remote. You can also use the Wii, XBox360 or PS3. The Wii doesn't have as good of a picture, and the Wii mote is an inferior remote for the purpose, but it works, and if your TV isn't huge, it looks fine. You can also get Netflix streaming to many TVs and Blu-ray players, so if you are buying any new home entertainment devices, it may just come bundled. Finally if you MUST know that linux is driving your video, you can always go with a Roku.
First you assume that everyone parks themselves in front of the TV and does nothing else while watching it. Many people, like me, use TV the same way other people use the radio. It runs. They are aware of what is happening on it, but it doesn't consume them, and they do all sorts of other things at the same time.
Second, you assume that the 100GB is a single person's viewing. If they have 5 people in the house, you are not looking at 40-50 hours for the poster to put into something. You are talking about 8-10 hours a month to put into something. 20 minutes a day isn't an unreasonable amount of time to just sit unproductive.
Third, you assume that these other suggestions hold more value than watching TV. If the person is financially stable, getting a second job is likely to be less productive than sitting and watching a movie. Working every waking moment isn't something that most people classify as a "Good Life". It works for some, but it is not inherently better. Hobbies are great. Frequently they are great because they give the person time to relax and shift gears away from work and the other responsibilities of life. Watching TV and movies is a perfectly valid way to do that.
I know that it is hip to call TV a waste of time, and point out how useless it is, but that only comes from people without the ability to see outside their little world. What value is there in sitting in the woods over watching TV? None. What value is there in collecting Pez dispensers over watching TV? None. What value is there in fixing up that classic car over watching TV? None. Hobbies are all about wasting time. If they were about being productive, they wouldn't be hobbies. Sometimes they pay off, but usually they don't, and that's OK. It's OK whether it is watching TV, or growing flowers in your garden.
I'm not picking on you, your misunderstanding of human nature is not unusual. Just thinking.
Well, there is your problem. When I first signed up for Netflix a decade ago, I put every movie I ever wanted to see on the list. When I finished with that, I put every movie I ever wanted to rewatch on the list. Once I had seen every movie I ever wanted to see AND rewatched every movie I ever wanted to, I was left with putting the movies I saw trialers for on the list so that I could watch them when they got released to video.
That is when I moved into watching the movies I didn't want to see. You may think that is crazy, but there is value in it. I get a frame of reference to what other people like, as well as every once in a while I find a gem that I would never have watched other wise.
Sometimes it's good to streach a little in what you expose yourself too.
Two good examples of movies that I very much enjoyed, but didn't expect to:
Slashdot Mirror
If I recall correctly, it was also pretty heavily pirated by the MPAA.
Yep, that was the one:
http://videosift.com/video/The-MPAA-Pirates-a-Movie
coming around a corner and sliding on a small ice patch on an otherwise dry road is no more predictable than driving through woods with deer and hitting one in the road.
You drew an aribrary line in the a wide shade of responsibility gray, and declared it the correct line. You were wrong. You then acuse me of being a liar, when you said
I'm just going to assume you're trolling and stop responding btw.
I think it is clear who the liar is.
You keep posting examples that refute your statement, and then call me stupid. Hmmmm....
You are obsessed with straw man. You made a nonsense comment. Either ALL accidents are 'human error', or there are lots of other factors. Your argument boils down to "My shade of gray is better than everyone else's shade of gray." Claiming that an accident is caused by human error when it has the % of human involvement that fit YOUR definition, but slightly less becomes an "act of god" because you've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand is ridiculous. Obviously, your rational is that because YOU have hit animals, then hitting animals must be unavoidable. Very poor logic.
There is no desperation here. You just made an incorrect statement, and used very poor examples. YOU are the one that made a black and white statement. I never said all risks are identical. In the context of varying degrees of danger, your original comment is totally nonsensical.
Your claim that I called things black and white, and that I said every danger is exactly the same is a strawman.
My point was that Voyager had a tall hot part robot part human chick named 7. Tripping the Riff had a tall hot part robot part human chick named 6. They clearly intended it to be parody, since that was the point of the show. BSG had a tall hot part robot part human chick named 6, and they tried to play it totally serious.
That figure seems a bit low. Unless an animal runs across the road or similar, other problems are all IMO human error.
You made a black and white statement. Then when called on it, you claim:
why would you try to claim that all activities are equally dangerous? It's not black and white.
You mean the politeness and consideration of bringing a $0.30 pair of ear plugs if you want it to be quite instead of expecting everyone else in the public transportation to adjust their behavior so that you can have it quite? Even when the vehicle itself is going to be extremely noisy anyway?
Ohhhhh....Ohhhhh!!!!! And don't forget to have the tall hot chick '7' from voyager, but since we don't want it to look like a rip off of another horrible show, we will disguise that it is the same character by changing her name to another number. How about '12'? Yeah, if we changer her name to 12, no one will notice!
With the cost of storage being what it is, down sampleing doesn't make sense for anyone. Unless the picture is total garbage (like the inside of a lens cap, deleting photos for space doesn't make sense either.
So, your dangerous activity is better than someone else's dangerous activity. Check.
Ideally, the best offline backup would be to have a pal that you can plug a Nas drive onto his network in exchange for letting him plug one into yours. Then set up a VPN to the drive so that you can sync your local storage up to it at night. Obviously, you would likely want to take measures to keep him from accessing your data, but that shouldn't be too hard. Getting static IP addresses and a vpn router would be cheaper than the online storage services.
Claiming that you can avoid crashing due to wind by not driving, but that you cannot get the exact same effect by making the exact same decision about driving where there are animals, is silly.
Animals running across the road isn't a human choice. Neither is the wind blowing. Driving when either of them could cause you to crash IS a human choice. You are applying a different set of standards to the wind hazard than you are to the animal hazard.
That is who I was talking about. Yes, claiming that a programming language "mutilates the mind beyond recovery" is classic trolling. It is also a classic "appeal from authority" argument.
Cities already have a monopoly on access to provide data. Cities also have a means for the citizens to push for improvement. A city with a monopoly on access to conduit is DRAMATICALLY better than a corporations with a monopoly on access to actual data lines, and even better than a consumer cooperative with a monopoly on data lines. Of course, if cities would build out conduit, a consumer cooperative would be trivial to implement.
If wind is human error, then hitting an animal running across the road would be too. Your definition of human error seems to be, "If you hadn't been driving it wouldn't have happened, so you made the human error when you decided to drive". Except for animal running across the road. You haven't happened to hit an animal or two have you?
And if cities would require new street construction to contain pipes like the storm drains or sewer system, but for data lines, when new streets are built, and would put in pipes when the streets get dug up for maintanance, the city could rent the space for many companies to run their own cables to compete for data. The city would make more money. The streets wouldn't need to get dug up again. We would could have competition between providers. We would not have the city become the new monopoly on data access.
That is a great definition.
Many here are trying to simultaneously apply the technical definition of 'pornography' as in visually offensive. To the word when applied to Playboy, and then redefine it as 'sexual' when applied to more... hard core stuff. It's real simple. Playboy publishes the pictures of naked women for the explicit purpose of titillating it's readers. When we drop the 'graphy' from 'pornography', we are using the casual definition of 'sexually stimulating' media, and by that definition, your have identified the best possible test.
Whether you agree with the statement or not, it is an out and out troll. Do you really want to be quoting trolls?
Yep, for years, I would periodically grab a new copy of MythTV, and try to get it up and running reliably. It never worked out. I would spend a few day trying to get everything to work, and after a few days of scouring the web for fixes, I would pack it away, and wait a few more months to try again. When I cancelled my Dish service, there was nothing left in MythTV that wasn't either handles just fine from XBMC on Windows, or with a cheap dedicated box. MythTV would have made a much bigger splash if they had made a point to pick a list of currently available hardware, and tested it from formatted disk to watching on screen with the reference hardware. Instead, it was left up to the user to figure out how to get their parts to work under Linux. For common stuff like keyboards and mice, that was no big deal, but for stuff like video capture (beyond crappy USB webcams) and remote controls, it was a total PITA.
Oh, and Linux works just fine for streaming Netflix. It is one of the best OSes available for it. It just doesn't work on your distribution of choice. For proof, refer back to the Roku. Linux works so good for streaming Netflix that people are buying hardware with Linux pre-installed for the express purpose of streaming Netflix on it.
There is nothing wrong with streaming to your laptop, if you want to watch movies on a computer. You may live in a dorm, or alone in a very small apartment. Most people like to watch TV on a real TV. Not because a TV and a monitor are dramatically different technologies, but because a TV has a remote control that works better for the specific use, they can sit on their couch an watch the box across the room, and they can watch it with multiple people. In your case, your TV is 27". Your laptap screen is, what, 17"? This is the difference between sitting on the couch watching a movie, and sitting at your computer. If you have your laptop on your lap, it is the equivilent of holding your little 17" TV in your lap.
Your question of "what is wrong with it" is a little like asking "what is wrong with a tv that has no remote?" The answer is nothing under very specific circumstances. For most people, having a real TV that is an optimized experience is worth the extra effort.
Actually, the best example would be to compare it to DVDs. When you want to relax and watch those DVD's that you rent from Netflix, do you watch them on your laptop? Or do you watch them on your TV? Every single pro and con that can be applied to using a DVD player on your TV vs. your laptop can be applied to using a Roku or other Netflix streaming device hooked to the TV.
I like that I can play a DVD on my Laptop and Desktop. It just isn't the best viewing experience.
I cancelled my DishNetwork service last May. It is the first time since I was ~6 years old that I have been without some form of 'cable'. The Hulu/Netflix combo has satisfied our TV watching pretty well. I only expected it to last a few months. So far, I don't see a need to go back.
Ironically, shortly before that, I started doing business with Comcast. Netflix/Hulu did kill 'cable TV' for me, but because of some serious monopoly shinanagans by AT&T, it didn't kill paying a bill for Comcast service every month. What I did learn though was that the secret to Comcast is to be a 'Business Customer'. You don't have to be an actual business, but because the service is intended for heavy use by businesses, things like port filtering and throttling don't happen. They also offer better support if there is an outage. If your internet goes down Friday at 4pm, and it is determined someone needs to come out, someone will be there on Saturday.
The basic price is ~$20 more per month, and can be more if you are looking at the introductory prices that Comcast sometimes offers to residential customers. I pay $59 a month for a 12/2 line. I have only once dropped below 12, and general can sustain transfer rates in the 24/6 range. Not that I ever do for long periods. I hate to say it, and I fear the future service of a monopoly, but Comcast has been a really good provider for me. So, if you MUST use Comcast, do yourself a favor. Pay the little bit extra and get a "Business Account".
Streaming to a PC that isn't hooked to your TV is an inferior experience, so I wouldn't recommend it. While streaming to your PC is convenient, to be a replacement for DVDs, you need something hooked to a TV with a remote. Windows 7 comes with MediaCenter that has a Netflix Plugin. This means that it will work out of the box with any MediaCenter remote. You can also use the Wii, XBox360 or PS3. The Wii doesn't have as good of a picture, and the Wii mote is an inferior remote for the purpose, but it works, and if your TV isn't huge, it looks fine. You can also get Netflix streaming to many TVs and Blu-ray players, so if you are buying any new home entertainment devices, it may just come bundled. Finally if you MUST know that linux is driving your video, you can always go with a Roku.
http://www.roku.com/
It is a linux device (as I suspect many of the TVs and Blu-ray players are). So, you can enjoy streaming AND feel good about using linux.
Streaming to the desktop is not an OPTION for netflix streaming. There are far more, and far better options for streaming to an actual TV.
First you assume that everyone parks themselves in front of the TV and does nothing else while watching it. Many people, like me, use TV the same way other people use the radio. It runs. They are aware of what is happening on it, but it doesn't consume them, and they do all sorts of other things at the same time.
Second, you assume that the 100GB is a single person's viewing. If they have 5 people in the house, you are not looking at 40-50 hours for the poster to put into something. You are talking about 8-10 hours a month to put into something. 20 minutes a day isn't an unreasonable amount of time to just sit unproductive.
Third, you assume that these other suggestions hold more value than watching TV. If the person is financially stable, getting a second job is likely to be less productive than sitting and watching a movie. Working every waking moment isn't something that most people classify as a "Good Life". It works for some, but it is not inherently better. Hobbies are great. Frequently they are great because they give the person time to relax and shift gears away from work and the other responsibilities of life. Watching TV and movies is a perfectly valid way to do that.
I know that it is hip to call TV a waste of time, and point out how useless it is, but that only comes from people without the ability to see outside their little world. What value is there in sitting in the woods over watching TV? None. What value is there in collecting Pez dispensers over watching TV? None. What value is there in fixing up that classic car over watching TV? None. Hobbies are all about wasting time. If they were about being productive, they wouldn't be hobbies. Sometimes they pay off, but usually they don't, and that's OK. It's OK whether it is watching TV, or growing flowers in your garden.
I'm not picking on you, your misunderstanding of human nature is not unusual. Just thinking.
Well, there is your problem. When I first signed up for Netflix a decade ago, I put every movie I ever wanted to see on the list. When I finished with that, I put every movie I ever wanted to rewatch on the list. Once I had seen every movie I ever wanted to see AND rewatched every movie I ever wanted to, I was left with putting the movies I saw trialers for on the list so that I could watch them when they got released to video.
That is when I moved into watching the movies I didn't want to see. You may think that is crazy, but there is value in it. I get a frame of reference to what other people like, as well as every once in a while I find a gem that I would never have watched other wise.
Sometimes it's good to streach a little in what you expose yourself too.
Two good examples of movies that I very much enjoyed, but didn't expect to:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Dr._Horrible_s_Sing-Along_Blog/70115760?trkid=2361637#height1765
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Netherbeast_Incorporated/70067394?trkid=2361637#height1448