In general, you don't like beer. You like some beers, particularly ones that have been engineered not to taste very much like beer. Nothing wrong with that, but to say you like beer is stretch. In general, you don't. With exceptions.
Beer predates the use of hops by centuries. Beer was beer long before that ingredient was ever even used. Granted, I don't make any claim that IPA's or other hoppy beers aren't beer, but declaring that a later adaption is the only legitimate form is just stupid. Not to mention that though IPA's and other super hoppy beers IN GENERAL have existed for a long time, they've only become the trendy little niche they are in the last 20 years or so.
Besides - as the article so plainly states, Anheuser-Busch is the largest beer producer in the world. If anything is determined to "not taste very much like beer" the exception would be the victim, not the rule.
And please people stop with the "it tastes like piss" jokes. I'm guessing that almost no one claiming that even has any idea what piss tastes like. I certainly don't, but I'd imagine it's bitter as fuck and at least that portion of it (and little else) probably resembles an IPA a lot more than your standard plebeian lager.
Or he just likes beers that don't fit into what the trendy crowd says is "proper".
I can't stand hoppy beer. I enjoy beer just fine but I literally research the IBU and basically won't touch anything over 15-ish (generally the lower the better for me). That doesn't mean I don't like beer - just that I don't like the same beer as you.
Shiner Bock, Snapshot Wheat, or yes, even Bud Light, taste fine to me.
It's probably just for collection purposes. Look at the retro video game scene: pretty much the entirety of these games can be played via an emulator (or many of the better ones using one of the new "mini" consoles), yet people still want to have one of the physical cartridges.
Nah, I like my content without advertising - I'll happily pay the extra. I have faith that Netflix will spend the additional revenue wisely. Hell though I obviously don't WANT a price increase they could easily double the price and it'd still be worth it to me.
I never advocated for "a la carte" pricing being preferable. I'm not going "back" to anything - I have never paid for cable in my life. I "cut the cord" when I moved out of my parents house 10 years ago. I never did sign up for cable or satellite TV on my own. At that point I was using an Xbox with XBMC (now Kodi) and just downloading what I wanted. Around 6 years ago I subscribed to Netflix out of convenience and it has been good.
If the studio execs aren't happy with that arrangement, then introducing more services isn't going to get me to sign up for more of them - I'm just going to keep Netflix and turn to torrents for what isn't available there.
Let them do it. I'll vote with my wallet. I'm subscribed to Netflix and Prime (prime more for shipping than videos, but I occasionally watch things I find on there). And CuriosityStream but that's like $3 per month.
That's all I'm subscribing to. If another competitor comes along that offers GENERAL content that's better than Netflix I might would one day switch from one to the other, but I'm not subscribing to a separate service for every single media company.
Trust me, if enough of these new services fail, they'll go back to looking at licensing their content to a third party streaming service rather than doing it themselves.
Like 100% of all drivers until they get into an accident.
You know what's funny? I constantly have to have this argument with an 8 year old. Every time she does something dangerous and I tell her not to her response is "I do it all the time and never get hurt.". And the response is the same: you always did things lots of times without getting hurt . . . until you get hurt.
Then buy a dumb display. They're still out there. They may cost more, but that's the point of the article. You can't have it both ways.
TV's are already dirt cheap as it is. Compared to 15-20 years ago TV's cost 1/3 to 1/4 what they once did. If you have to pay a 20% premium to get the feature (or lack thereof) that you want I'm not gonna feel sad.
Uh, yeah. There's no denying that in this gen if you only have 1 system the PS4 is the one to get. I don't personally care about XBONE vs PS4 hardware wise - they both play games fine and for games released on both, the experience is fine on both. I'd recommend both systems just so that you can get the exclusives for both (or if a game you want to play goes on sale for one platform but not the other you can buy it for whichever its cheapest on), but if you can only have one PS4 exclusives have been SIGNIFICANTLY better.
And as to doing business with Sony - the other option is Microsoft. You might as well be arguing the moral superiority of choosing a pact between Baphomet instead of Belial.
4 works fine (hell 3 works fine). Can it still be shared with grandparents? Absolutely. A few cases of of password sharing will be far less damaging to a streaming service than people getting locked out of their account for legitimate activity because an AI thinks they did something suspicious.
As to 3 or more children - I've got 2 children. The chances that both of them and the adults are all watching Netflix SEPARATELY at the same time has pretty much never happened. They're either doing something completely different, multiple people are watching the same stream, or they're using a difference service (eg, while we're watching Netflix they may be watching Youtube or even Prime video).
Taking viewing habits into account sounds pretty stupid. If that's the case it could literally flag your account if a babysitter comes over and watches Netflix while you're out.
I don't think an actual human could look at logs and necessarily determine if there's password sharing going on. An AI would likely be equally unsuccessful.
The current solution is probably the best one: place a reasonable limit on the # of simultaneous streams and call it a day.
Yeah I think the last time I saw one was about 7-8 years ago. I was getting a medical evaluation for a pilot's license and there are only certain doctor's offices that will do this so I couldn't use my normal doctor.
The doctor my instructor gave me was an OLD guy (looked to be in his 70's) still working. Very small staff and when I was paying by card when I left, they whipped out the old carbon paper machine.
That said, my last card that I got from my credit card company this year didn't even have the raised lettering (it's lasered onto the back instead), so it wouldn't work with one even if they had a machine on hand.
This basically is starting to remind me of the cycle Apple went through back in the late 80's to early 90's. Back then Apples were seen as very high quality and the easiest most user friendly computers to own. They costed a lot, but if you had the money it was the way to go.
PCs kept getting built better though, and Windows started becoming a viable work GUI in the 90's after the 3.0 release. Eventually even if you preferred Apple it made little sense when a PC that worked just as good was 1/3 to 1/2 the cost. Even now after the company's rebound their traditional computer market share is a mere fraction of standard PC's.
Now, the same thing is happening with phones. For a long time Apple was the clear winner if you wanted a phone that "just worked". You paid a little extra but it was great. Now though, Android devices have pretty much caught up completely in hardware and software, while still being priced less. If you want a dirt cheap phone sure there are the sub-$100 options out there, but even at the premium level you can go Android and save a few hundred dollars vs Apple.
Particularly without Jobs at the helm, I see Apple's market share as continuing to drop within the next couple years. In a decade I'd wager Apple's marketshare on the phone market will be at or below 15%.
Most (all?) of LG's flagship phones still include it. They have that stupid "button on the back" design (which even after 3 months of owning one I still don't like), but it was the lesser of two evils for me.
It's hard to take this article/opinion seriously, but realistically the reason personal websites went away was because nobody wanted to visit a separate website everytime they wanted to see someone else's content - particularly when the UI and format of that content could shift dramatically on each site.
Social networking put all that stuff in a centralized location so that you can "catch up" with the interesting tidbits with a quick scan, and you don't have to worry about a full page photo background or The Verve Pipe blaring in the background.
And I'm sure they don't care if anyone copies it. Heck Walmart's grocery stuff is just called "Great Value" (Walmart hilariously has a bajillion different store brands depending on the department).
I'm pretty much the same. My old phone just recently died and to replace it I bought a new LG V20 (new, but it's obviously an older model). I paid right at $200 USD. It works absolutely fine and like the last one I'll use it until it dies or I manage to crack the screen (which in 10 years of smart phone use I've only managed to do once).
As a plus - that was one of the last phones with a removable battery. I don't think its an accident that the phone companies all decided to make the most failure-prone component non-serviceable by an average user.
You don't? Granted, all smells are subjective, and I actually don't like leather seats in cars (not because of smell but because of the feel), but there's not much that compares to the smell of an old leather holster, camera bag, etc.
If there's a market for it in China, then by all means go for it. I personally can't stand when my car finally LOSES that "new car smell". You get a good 2-3 months of it and then I spend the rest of the life of the car using "New Car Smell" Little Trees which don't really smell the same but its still a pleasant scent.
All of it will be a slow process within a human lifetime. Even during the expansion into a red giant if humans were around from their birth to their death any single human wouldn't notice much of a change in the sun during their own lifetime.
The problem with using FOSS as an example of communism is that consumption isn't limited. The method only works for "intellectual property". If I decide to code for free it doesn't matter of 1 person uses the software or half the planet does - my work was still fixed in scope.
On the other hand, if we're talking about vegetables rather than code, as each person consumes, what they consumed must be replaced, and that entails work.
I'm sure if there was some way that we could plant a field harvest it once and nobody would ever go hungry again, you'd have plenty of volunteers. Sadly, that just isn't the case.
That aside, this whole premise is laughable. This isn't UBI - $1000 per person annually is basically less than a lot of people get as a tax refund each year. It doesn't increase unemployment because IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO LIVE ON (this is also side-stepping the issue that generally unemployment is a measure of the people without jobs who are LOOKING for a job - so it's not a good metric anyways since the fear with UBI is that people wouldn't even want to look anymore, leading to them technically not be "unemployed").
Slashdot Mirror
In general, you don't like beer. You like some beers, particularly ones that have been engineered not to taste very much like beer. Nothing wrong with that, but to say you like beer is stretch. In general, you don't. With exceptions.
Beer predates the use of hops by centuries. Beer was beer long before that ingredient was ever even used. Granted, I don't make any claim that IPA's or other hoppy beers aren't beer, but declaring that a later adaption is the only legitimate form is just stupid. Not to mention that though IPA's and other super hoppy beers IN GENERAL have existed for a long time, they've only become the trendy little niche they are in the last 20 years or so.
Besides - as the article so plainly states, Anheuser-Busch is the largest beer producer in the world. If anything is determined to "not taste very much like beer" the exception would be the victim, not the rule.
And please people stop with the "it tastes like piss" jokes. I'm guessing that almost no one claiming that even has any idea what piss tastes like. I certainly don't, but I'd imagine it's bitter as fuck and at least that portion of it (and little else) probably resembles an IPA a lot more than your standard plebeian lager.
Or he just likes beers that don't fit into what the trendy crowd says is "proper".
I can't stand hoppy beer. I enjoy beer just fine but I literally research the IBU and basically won't touch anything over 15-ish (generally the lower the better for me). That doesn't mean I don't like beer - just that I don't like the same beer as you.
Shiner Bock, Snapshot Wheat, or yes, even Bud Light, taste fine to me.
It's probably just for collection purposes. Look at the retro video game scene: pretty much the entirety of these games can be played via an emulator (or many of the better ones using one of the new "mini" consoles), yet people still want to have one of the physical cartridges.
Nah, I like my content without advertising - I'll happily pay the extra. I have faith that Netflix will spend the additional revenue wisely. Hell though I obviously don't WANT a price increase they could easily double the price and it'd still be worth it to me.
I never advocated for "a la carte" pricing being preferable. I'm not going "back" to anything - I have never paid for cable in my life. I "cut the cord" when I moved out of my parents house 10 years ago. I never did sign up for cable or satellite TV on my own. At that point I was using an Xbox with XBMC (now Kodi) and just downloading what I wanted. Around 6 years ago I subscribed to Netflix out of convenience and it has been good.
If the studio execs aren't happy with that arrangement, then introducing more services isn't going to get me to sign up for more of them - I'm just going to keep Netflix and turn to torrents for what isn't available there.
Let them do it. I'll vote with my wallet. I'm subscribed to Netflix and Prime (prime more for shipping than videos, but I occasionally watch things I find on there). And CuriosityStream but that's like $3 per month.
That's all I'm subscribing to. If another competitor comes along that offers GENERAL content that's better than Netflix I might would one day switch from one to the other, but I'm not subscribing to a separate service for every single media company.
Trust me, if enough of these new services fail, they'll go back to looking at licensing their content to a third party streaming service rather than doing it themselves.
Somehow I'm guessing they weren't familiar with the Streisand effect.
Intel = threadstripper
I wish there was grammar cameras...
1) You're, not your.
2) cameras, not camera's.
*I wish there were grammar cameras . . .
Like 100% of all drivers until they get into an accident.
You know what's funny? I constantly have to have this argument with an 8 year old. Every time she does something dangerous and I tell her not to her response is "I do it all the time and never get hurt.". And the response is the same: you always did things lots of times without getting hurt . . . until you get hurt.
Then buy a dumb display. They're still out there. They may cost more, but that's the point of the article. You can't have it both ways.
TV's are already dirt cheap as it is. Compared to 15-20 years ago TV's cost 1/3 to 1/4 what they once did. If you have to pay a 20% premium to get the feature (or lack thereof) that you want I'm not gonna feel sad.
You play PS4 games?
Uh, yeah. There's no denying that in this gen if you only have 1 system the PS4 is the one to get. I don't personally care about XBONE vs PS4 hardware wise - they both play games fine and for games released on both, the experience is fine on both. I'd recommend both systems just so that you can get the exclusives for both (or if a game you want to play goes on sale for one platform but not the other you can buy it for whichever its cheapest on), but if you can only have one PS4 exclusives have been SIGNIFICANTLY better.
And as to doing business with Sony - the other option is Microsoft. You might as well be arguing the moral superiority of choosing a pact between Baphomet instead of Belial.
4 works fine (hell 3 works fine). Can it still be shared with grandparents? Absolutely. A few cases of of password sharing will be far less damaging to a streaming service than people getting locked out of their account for legitimate activity because an AI thinks they did something suspicious.
As to 3 or more children - I've got 2 children. The chances that both of them and the adults are all watching Netflix SEPARATELY at the same time has pretty much never happened. They're either doing something completely different, multiple people are watching the same stream, or they're using a difference service (eg, while we're watching Netflix they may be watching Youtube or even Prime video).
Taking viewing habits into account sounds pretty stupid. If that's the case it could literally flag your account if a babysitter comes over and watches Netflix while you're out.
I don't think an actual human could look at logs and necessarily determine if there's password sharing going on. An AI would likely be equally unsuccessful.
The current solution is probably the best one: place a reasonable limit on the # of simultaneous streams and call it a day.
Yeah I think the last time I saw one was about 7-8 years ago. I was getting a medical evaluation for a pilot's license and there are only certain doctor's offices that will do this so I couldn't use my normal doctor.
The doctor my instructor gave me was an OLD guy (looked to be in his 70's) still working. Very small staff and when I was paying by card when I left, they whipped out the old carbon paper machine.
That said, my last card that I got from my credit card company this year didn't even have the raised lettering (it's lasered onto the back instead), so it wouldn't work with one even if they had a machine on hand.
This basically is starting to remind me of the cycle Apple went through back in the late 80's to early 90's. Back then Apples were seen as very high quality and the easiest most user friendly computers to own. They costed a lot, but if you had the money it was the way to go.
PCs kept getting built better though, and Windows started becoming a viable work GUI in the 90's after the 3.0 release. Eventually even if you preferred Apple it made little sense when a PC that worked just as good was 1/3 to 1/2 the cost. Even now after the company's rebound their traditional computer market share is a mere fraction of standard PC's.
Now, the same thing is happening with phones. For a long time Apple was the clear winner if you wanted a phone that "just worked". You paid a little extra but it was great. Now though, Android devices have pretty much caught up completely in hardware and software, while still being priced less. If you want a dirt cheap phone sure there are the sub-$100 options out there, but even at the premium level you can go Android and save a few hundred dollars vs Apple.
Particularly without Jobs at the helm, I see Apple's market share as continuing to drop within the next couple years. In a decade I'd wager Apple's marketshare on the phone market will be at or below 15%.
Most (all?) of LG's flagship phones still include it. They have that stupid "button on the back" design (which even after 3 months of owning one I still don't like), but it was the lesser of two evils for me.
It's hard to take this article/opinion seriously, but realistically the reason personal websites went away was because nobody wanted to visit a separate website everytime they wanted to see someone else's content - particularly when the UI and format of that content could shift dramatically on each site.
Social networking put all that stuff in a centralized location so that you can "catch up" with the interesting tidbits with a quick scan, and you don't have to worry about a full page photo background or The Verve Pipe blaring in the background.
marquee tag or bust!
And I'm sure they don't care if anyone copies it. Heck Walmart's grocery stuff is just called "Great Value" (Walmart hilariously has a bajillion different store brands depending on the department).
I'm pretty much the same. My old phone just recently died and to replace it I bought a new LG V20 (new, but it's obviously an older model). I paid right at $200 USD. It works absolutely fine and like the last one I'll use it until it dies or I manage to crack the screen (which in 10 years of smart phone use I've only managed to do once).
As a plus - that was one of the last phones with a removable battery. I don't think its an accident that the phone companies all decided to make the most failure-prone component non-serviceable by an average user.
You actually like the smell of leather?
You don't? Granted, all smells are subjective, and I actually don't like leather seats in cars (not because of smell but because of the feel), but there's not much that compares to the smell of an old leather holster, camera bag, etc.
If there's a market for it in China, then by all means go for it. I personally can't stand when my car finally LOSES that "new car smell". You get a good 2-3 months of it and then I spend the rest of the life of the car using "New Car Smell" Little Trees which don't really smell the same but its still a pleasant scent.
All of it will be a slow process within a human lifetime. Even during the expansion into a red giant if humans were around from their birth to their death any single human wouldn't notice much of a change in the sun during their own lifetime.
The problem with using FOSS as an example of communism is that consumption isn't limited. The method only works for "intellectual property". If I decide to code for free it doesn't matter of 1 person uses the software or half the planet does - my work was still fixed in scope.
On the other hand, if we're talking about vegetables rather than code, as each person consumes, what they consumed must be replaced, and that entails work.
I'm sure if there was some way that we could plant a field harvest it once and nobody would ever go hungry again, you'd have plenty of volunteers. Sadly, that just isn't the case.
That aside, this whole premise is laughable. This isn't UBI - $1000 per person annually is basically less than a lot of people get as a tax refund each year. It doesn't increase unemployment because IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO LIVE ON (this is also side-stepping the issue that generally unemployment is a measure of the people without jobs who are LOOKING for a job - so it's not a good metric anyways since the fear with UBI is that people wouldn't even want to look anymore, leading to them technically not be "unemployed").