I too watch a lot of Netflix. My household goes through ~20-25 rented disks a month, and at least 250 hours a month of streamed programming. So, I get your reason for not wanting to buy everything on DVD. The thing is, it isn't about what you DON'T want to have control over, it is what you DO want to have control over. For example, go to your netflix, and try to watch the Good Eats episode about chocolate chip cookies. That's right. It's not there.
Now, I am with you that I don't care to watch a particular episode of Eureka 5 times. I very much enjoy watching it once, but that is enough for me. Good Eats on the other hand, I will use like a cookbook. I will go and get the episode that has the information I want, and rewatch it. I also want to make sure that they are available for my son.
TV programming is like cups. There are some that you keep in your cupboard, and there are some that you crumple up and throw away when you are done. Netflix and other streaming solutions are great, but they do not replace the ability to buy a permanent physical copy of the programming.
I am on my way home from a month long road trip around the country made possible by T-Mobile, the Nexus One, and the ability to tether via the 2.2 update. While my wife drove through California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Utah, I sat in the back of the Minivan and worked remotely throughout the trip. I was truly amazed at how good the coverage was. The only places that I had trouble was in the national forests, Wyoming, and South Dakota. Well, I also had some data trouble in Wisconsin where the phone was on roaming most of the time. Other than that, I was VPNing in and screen sharing with the office right on the road.
As an added note, I am posting this via my laptop in the passenger seat of my car driving down the freeway via the tethering feature of my Nexus one.
No, it is not good it is very very bad. She may not be able to shove broccoli down all our throats, but she does have the power to influence people who can, she can make if far more difficult to eat right and be healthy, she can and is trying to marshal huge amounts of pressure on children to do things that are very bad for their health.
Body builders might be unhealthy, but the First Lady is not suggesting that people with 3% body fat add fat to their body. She is suggesting that Mr. Universe was flat out obese, and that he should REDUCE his body fat even farther.
The government's definitions of healthy, overweight, and obese are dangerous. The current climate concerning the moves to regulate eating is a serious concern for people like me. According to the First Lady, I cannot be considered "normal" weight until I get down to at least 8% body fat. The only reason she would consider that high of body fat to be "normal" is because I live a sedentary lifestyle. If I exercised, she would tell people I am fat at 0% body fat. I have been hydrostaticlly weighed. At 5' 11", my lean body mass is 164 pounds. The only reason that my muscle mass is that low is because I don't get much exercise. I build muscle extremely fast. If I were to do light exercise, I could easily reach 178 pounds of lean muscle mass in just a few months. 178 pounds is the point that a 5'11" man is considered "overweight" by the government, medical and insurance industries.
So, not only will I have the First Lady targeting children to tell them that there is something genetically wrong with me, by I get to watch her create a dark future for my child at the same time.
Well, to be fair, the government (as well as the medical and insurance industries) are batshit insane when it comes to defining "fat", "overweight", and "obese".
At 5'11" the insurance, medical and government accepted standard, the BMI, says that I would not be "normal" weight until I reached 178 pounds. Just yesterday I was hydrostatically weighed. My lean body mass was 164 pounds. That means that at 8% body fat, I would be considered "overweight" or "fat". This is with virtually no exercise. I build muscle REALLY fast. If I worked out with any kind of weight training for 3 or 4 months, I could easily break the 178 pounds that defines me as "fat" in lean body mass. The BMI would also call my weight "normal" at 133 pounds. The government, medical, and insurance industries declare that not only should I reach 0% body fat (which will kill you by the way), but that to be "normal", I should start deciding what body parts I want amputated. Maybe an arm and a leg would do it. I have to be careful not to choose both legs though, because then I would be "fat" again.
This is even simpler to dispel by any sane halfway intelligent human. Every human on the planet either has an anus, or some medically constructed equivalent. The calorie counter group loves to throw out the laws of thermodynamics. Well, clearly they don't understand it, because as long as you have a functioning anus, it is physically impossible for their calculation to be accurate.
I also was a 'Navy Brat', and 100% of the many public schools that I attended fit the prior posters descriptions. To be fair, I would add biological space heaters to the list of public school products. The OP did not claim that all students would be criminals or soldiers. Just that it is designed to produce a steady steam.
As for home schooling producing sociopath-leaning people... There are points that can be debated about home schooling, but the claim that it makes people sociopaths means that either you don't know what the word means, or you are just lying. Of the many hundreds of home schooled children that I have met, I don't think I have met a single one that I could legitimately be called a sociopath.
But we have the internet now, so I can easily find out the difference between bow and stern:
-noun
1.
a flexible strip of wood or other material, bent by a string stretched between its ends, for shooting arrows: He drew the bow and sent the arrow to its target.
and
-adjective, -er, -est.
1.
firm, strict, or uncompromising: stern discipline.
2.
hard, harsh, or severe: a stern reprimand.
3.
rigorous or austere; of an unpleasantly serious character: stern times.
4.
grim or forbidding in aspect: a stern face.
I don't see why you would speak of them like they are opposites though...
Ahhh... The mythical "Good Old Days". No, 'people' never new the difference between there, their, and they're. That is a fantasy. I'm not saying that most of population isn't dumb. Just that most of the population has always been dumb.
You would have to say "toasting bread bought at Safeway" to compare to "apps bought in Apple App Store", and you would have to replace "have toaster self destruct if bread from Whole Foods was used" to compare with what Apple is doing. Claiming that the iPhone wasn't designed to run application X, so it is OK for Apple to try to stop you is disingenuous. The iPhone was designed to run third party apps. It is only who you bought it from that decides whether Apple will try to break your phone, or even try to stop you from running it.
You would not accept that from any other appliance manufacturer. You only accept that from Apple because "it's on a computer", and that makes it magically different.
I'm not sure you know what an appliance is. Lets look at some traditional appliances and see if you would be ok with the manufacturer deciding what you put in it...
Toaster? Nope. You would be livid if the manufacture tried to prevent you from using wheat bread.
Blender? Nope.
Oven? Nope.
Refrigerator? Nope.
Stove? Nope.
Appliances are things that you buy, and you put whatever you want in them. Once you have paid for them, the manufacturer no longer has a say. If anything, viewing the iPhone as an appliance should make people even MORE pissed about the way Apple handles the situation.
Because Apple "Just Works". For varying values of "Just Works".
This is a perfect example of the emperors clothes as it applies to Apple. Actually suggesting that someone put the phone in Airplane mode is crazy. Unless they are using it for an alarm clock, having the phone sit turned on with no passive functions possible, and no one to initiate an active function, Airplane mode is just an inefficient form of "OFF". Suggesting that someone turn their phone off every night so that they don't get charged exorbitant fees for some unknown, and certainly unneeded function is no better than telling someone they would be better off running Window Me as their primary OS over whatever they currently have installed.
A phone that must be turned off every night is kludgy and broken, providing a terrible user experience.
You are correct. The one piece you missed is that the monitoring actually INCREASES liability to the company. By putting up filters and monitoring employees, the company is declaring that it is their responsibility to find out and stop employees from browsing porn. They are also claiming that they have the ability to stop employees from browsing porn. This INCREASES their liability.
I'm not advocating one way or the other, but just for hypothetical sake... Wouldn't it then make more sense for cars to have WAY lower power flashing lights on them to identify them as opposed to trying to light up the entire countryside in an attempt to see as well as daylight? Maybe even flashing different colors? I know that this would require trusting other drivers to do the right thing, but really, every intersection you go through, you are placing your life in the other driver's hands.
I have to question the whole 2 hours of extra study as being useful. I think, as a culture, we have gotten confused about education. It is considered a given that the more school and study one does, they better their life will be. As cool as I think being smart is, it simply isn't true. Even right here in the US, most people never use their "education" beyond what they got in the 6th or 7th grade. Almost everything they use is either elementary school level, or on the job training. If most people in a developed country don't find extra study useful, how many in a third world country will? Once they can read, write, and do addition/subtraction/multiplication/division, they are pretty much as educated as they are going to use other than on the job training.
2 hours of extra work? THAT might be useful. With just 4 kids, it would be like having a whole extra person for income, but without any cost. Using someone else's $2 a day number, it would only take a week for it to pay for itself in a family of six.
Plus, that would be 2 hours less of laying in the dark wide awake next to a naked and willing (or at least available to you) woman with no birth control because there are more hours of dark than you need to sleep. Electricity is certainly a major influence in non-forced population control.
Probably soon after the introduction of the consumer level video camera. People would say things like, "Could you video tape that event?" Inevitably, someone would eventually shorten the statement shorten it to "Could you video that event?" Expect this to be more common now that far fewer people use tape as their recording medium. Since they are already used to using the adverb "video", and they will feel the need to drop the described verb "tape", the obvious result will be to use the adverb as the verb.
The solution to rolling something like this out would be to use it first for freeway traffic. This would mean that there would be no cross traffic, sensors could be used to see what is in front of you, while what is behind you should not matter, sensors could still do that. A pull through parking lot outside of major destination points similar to the park and ride lots, would allow for safe transfer between human and computer controlled driving. Dedicated lanes, which could be done in a freeway environment, could be used to separate the automated vehicles from the rest of the traffic.
Have you ever seen someone riding a unicycle as a mode of transportation? Pretty much the ONLY reason to do so is so that you can say, 'Hey look at me!!!' Unicycle riders make bike riders look like introverts.
Slashdot Mirror
I too watch a lot of Netflix. My household goes through ~20-25 rented disks a month, and at least 250 hours a month of streamed programming. So, I get your reason for not wanting to buy everything on DVD. The thing is, it isn't about what you DON'T want to have control over, it is what you DO want to have control over. For example, go to your netflix, and try to watch the Good Eats episode about chocolate chip cookies. That's right. It's not there.
Now, I am with you that I don't care to watch a particular episode of Eureka 5 times. I very much enjoy watching it once, but that is enough for me. Good Eats on the other hand, I will use like a cookbook. I will go and get the episode that has the information I want, and rewatch it. I also want to make sure that they are available for my son.
TV programming is like cups. There are some that you keep in your cupboard, and there are some that you crumple up and throw away when you are done. Netflix and other streaming solutions are great, but they do not replace the ability to buy a permanent physical copy of the programming.
Or they could just drag a line with a hook on it.
I am on my way home from a month long road trip around the country made possible by T-Mobile, the Nexus One, and the ability to tether via the 2.2 update. While my wife drove through California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Utah, I sat in the back of the Minivan and worked remotely throughout the trip. I was truly amazed at how good the coverage was. The only places that I had trouble was in the national forests, Wyoming, and South Dakota. Well, I also had some data trouble in Wisconsin where the phone was on roaming most of the time. Other than that, I was VPNing in and screen sharing with the office right on the road.
As an added note, I am posting this via my laptop in the passenger seat of my car driving down the freeway via the tethering feature of my Nexus one.
Those are the second best days.
No, it is not good it is very very bad. She may not be able to shove broccoli down all our throats, but she does have the power to influence people who can, she can make if far more difficult to eat right and be healthy, she can and is trying to marshal huge amounts of pressure on children to do things that are very bad for their health.
Body builders might be unhealthy, but the First Lady is not suggesting that people with 3% body fat add fat to their body. She is suggesting that Mr. Universe was flat out obese, and that he should REDUCE his body fat even farther.
The government's definitions of healthy, overweight, and obese are dangerous. The current climate concerning the moves to regulate eating is a serious concern for people like me. According to the First Lady, I cannot be considered "normal" weight until I get down to at least 8% body fat. The only reason she would consider that high of body fat to be "normal" is because I live a sedentary lifestyle. If I exercised, she would tell people I am fat at 0% body fat. I have been hydrostaticlly weighed. At 5' 11", my lean body mass is 164 pounds. The only reason that my muscle mass is that low is because I don't get much exercise. I build muscle extremely fast. If I were to do light exercise, I could easily reach 178 pounds of lean muscle mass in just a few months. 178 pounds is the point that a 5'11" man is considered "overweight" by the government, medical and insurance industries.
So, not only will I have the First Lady targeting children to tell them that there is something genetically wrong with me, by I get to watch her create a dark future for my child at the same time.
Well, to be fair, the government (as well as the medical and insurance industries) are batshit insane when it comes to defining "fat", "overweight", and "obese".
At 5'11" the insurance, medical and government accepted standard, the BMI, says that I would not be "normal" weight until I reached 178 pounds. Just yesterday I was hydrostatically weighed. My lean body mass was 164 pounds. That means that at 8% body fat, I would be considered "overweight" or "fat". This is with virtually no exercise. I build muscle REALLY fast. If I worked out with any kind of weight training for 3 or 4 months, I could easily break the 178 pounds that defines me as "fat" in lean body mass. The BMI would also call my weight "normal" at 133 pounds. The government, medical, and insurance industries declare that not only should I reach 0% body fat (which will kill you by the way), but that to be "normal", I should start deciding what body parts I want amputated. Maybe an arm and a leg would do it. I have to be careful not to choose both legs though, because then I would be "fat" again.
Just to put it in perspective, this is what the government, medical and insurance industries call "obese".
So, is the OP crazy for wanting the government out of the weight loss game, or are the people supporting them?
"(weight loss) = (calories in) - (calories exercised)"
This is even simpler to dispel by any sane halfway intelligent human. Every human on the planet either has an anus, or some medically constructed equivalent. The calorie counter group loves to throw out the laws of thermodynamics. Well, clearly they don't understand it, because as long as you have a functioning anus, it is physically impossible for their calculation to be accurate.
Give me the study that tracks the shift from fatty foods to sugar foods (carbohydrates ARE sugar), and the ever increasing obsession with calories.
I stand by my statement.
I don't know about the rest of the US, but at least in California, thy must also have the orange end.
I also was a 'Navy Brat', and 100% of the many public schools that I attended fit the prior posters descriptions. To be fair, I would add biological space heaters to the list of public school products. The OP did not claim that all students would be criminals or soldiers. Just that it is designed to produce a steady steam.
As for home schooling producing sociopath-leaning people... There are points that can be debated about home schooling, but the claim that it makes people sociopaths means that either you don't know what the word means, or you are just lying. Of the many hundreds of home schooled children that I have met, I don't think I have met a single one that I could legitimately be called a sociopath.
But we have the internet now, so I can easily find out the difference between bow and stern:
-noun
1.
a flexible strip of wood or other material, bent by a string stretched between its ends, for shooting arrows: He drew the bow and sent the arrow to its target.
and
-adjective, -er, -est.
1.
firm, strict, or uncompromising: stern discipline.
2.
hard, harsh, or severe: a stern reprimand.
3.
rigorous or austere; of an unpleasantly serious character: stern times.
4.
grim or forbidding in aspect: a stern face.
I don't see why you would speak of them like they are opposites though...
Ahhh... The mythical "Good Old Days". No, 'people' never new the difference between there, their, and they're. That is a fantasy. I'm not saying that most of population isn't dumb. Just that most of the population has always been dumb.
You would have to say "toasting bread bought at Safeway" to compare to "apps bought in Apple App Store", and you would have to replace "have toaster self destruct if bread from Whole Foods was used" to compare with what Apple is doing. Claiming that the iPhone wasn't designed to run application X, so it is OK for Apple to try to stop you is disingenuous. The iPhone was designed to run third party apps. It is only who you bought it from that decides whether Apple will try to break your phone, or even try to stop you from running it.
You would not accept that from any other appliance manufacturer. You only accept that from Apple because "it's on a computer", and that makes it magically different.
I'm not sure you know what an appliance is. Lets look at some traditional appliances and see if you would be ok with the manufacturer deciding what you put in it...
Toaster? Nope. You would be livid if the manufacture tried to prevent you from using wheat bread. Blender? Nope. Oven? Nope. Refrigerator? Nope. Stove? Nope. Appliances are things that you buy, and you put whatever you want in them. Once you have paid for them, the manufacturer no longer has a say. If anything, viewing the iPhone as an appliance should make people even MORE pissed about the way Apple handles the situation.
Because Apple "Just Works". For varying values of "Just Works".
This is a perfect example of the emperors clothes as it applies to Apple. Actually suggesting that someone put the phone in Airplane mode is crazy. Unless they are using it for an alarm clock, having the phone sit turned on with no passive functions possible, and no one to initiate an active function, Airplane mode is just an inefficient form of "OFF". Suggesting that someone turn their phone off every night so that they don't get charged exorbitant fees for some unknown, and certainly unneeded function is no better than telling someone they would be better off running Window Me as their primary OS over whatever they currently have installed.
A phone that must be turned off every night is kludgy and broken, providing a terrible user experience.
You are correct. The one piece you missed is that the monitoring actually INCREASES liability to the company. By putting up filters and monitoring employees, the company is declaring that it is their responsibility to find out and stop employees from browsing porn. They are also claiming that they have the ability to stop employees from browsing porn. This INCREASES their liability.
I'm not advocating one way or the other, but just for hypothetical sake... Wouldn't it then make more sense for cars to have WAY lower power flashing lights on them to identify them as opposed to trying to light up the entire countryside in an attempt to see as well as daylight? Maybe even flashing different colors? I know that this would require trusting other drivers to do the right thing, but really, every intersection you go through, you are placing your life in the other driver's hands.
I have to question the whole 2 hours of extra study as being useful. I think, as a culture, we have gotten confused about education. It is considered a given that the more school and study one does, they better their life will be. As cool as I think being smart is, it simply isn't true. Even right here in the US, most people never use their "education" beyond what they got in the 6th or 7th grade. Almost everything they use is either elementary school level, or on the job training. If most people in a developed country don't find extra study useful, how many in a third world country will? Once they can read, write, and do addition/subtraction/multiplication/division, they are pretty much as educated as they are going to use other than on the job training.
2 hours of extra work? THAT might be useful. With just 4 kids, it would be like having a whole extra person for income, but without any cost. Using someone else's $2 a day number, it would only take a week for it to pay for itself in a family of six.
Plus, that would be 2 hours less of laying in the dark wide awake next to a naked and willing (or at least available to you) woman with no birth control because there are more hours of dark than you need to sleep. Electricity is certainly a major influence in non-forced population control.
Probably soon after the introduction of the consumer level video camera. People would say things like, "Could you video tape that event?" Inevitably, someone would eventually shorten the statement shorten it to "Could you video that event?" Expect this to be more common now that far fewer people use tape as their recording medium. Since they are already used to using the adverb "video", and they will feel the need to drop the described verb "tape", the obvious result will be to use the adverb as the verb.
The solution to rolling something like this out would be to use it first for freeway traffic. This would mean that there would be no cross traffic, sensors could be used to see what is in front of you, while what is behind you should not matter, sensors could still do that. A pull through parking lot outside of major destination points similar to the park and ride lots, would allow for safe transfer between human and computer controlled driving. Dedicated lanes, which could be done in a freeway environment, could be used to separate the automated vehicles from the rest of the traffic.
No, the biggest traffic problems are caused by not enough road for the number of cars.
So, you ride a bike and shun SUVs so that you can make people think your penis is huge? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Gods help us if unicycles ever become popular. :)
Have you ever seen someone riding a unicycle as a mode of transportation? Pretty much the ONLY reason to do so is so that you can say, 'Hey look at me!!!' Unicycle riders make bike riders look like introverts.
So, I have to ask (in the roast me because it's fun sort of way) where does that put me with my Suzuiki Swift and Dodge Ram 2500?