And I know some 15 year old girls that would consent to have sex, too.... but not legally, since a 15 year old can't legally consent to anything (not here, anyway). Besides, we're not talking about sex, we're talking about marriage.
No, the ridiculous thing here is that marriage is (supposed to be) an agreement between consenting adults. Robots can't consent. Dogs can't consent. A robot can be programmed to consent, but that's not actually the robot consenting. The same ridiculous "slippery slope" argument about gays getting married - that it'll lead to people marrying children and pets. When you get married they even ask if either party has ever been judged to not be competent to make decisions. Legal agreements happen between consenting adults.
That's because people are short sighted. When oil prices were skyrocketing, people wanted to open ANWR, but the democratic response was that it wouldn't help because it'd take 10 years before it started producing, given not just the drilling but building a pipeline for it. My thoughts were exactly this: we were debating this freaking 10 years ago. If they'd moved then, it would have been done by now and we wouldn't be having this "crisis."
Don't get me wrong - I would like to spend resources on alternatives, too, but the demand for oil is not going to go away for some time.
I don't think it would be all that interesting to hear such a case - I doubt anyone believes you have a reasonable expectation of privacy using someone else's phone, particularly without permission.
We'll never know (I hope, assuming she doesn't run again), but that's not enough to set me to ease. After all, Trump just wanted to prove he could do it, I seriously doubt he really wanted to win.
They may save a few cents, but the issue has more to do with them competing for specs, and Apple will gloat about it's phone being thinner if Samsung doesn't do the same thing. It's devolved into a pissing contest (well... I guess it was already there).
Sure - and with all the spare computers I have lying around, I could do MythTV for the price of a tuner, but that doesn't give me the AMC, TNT, or FX shows that are the ones I'm missing.
The problem is that, as they lose better movies, they add more original content - and that is precisely what Netflix wants; so if you like Orange Is The New Black or, in my case, Narcos, there's no alternative. Hulu has done the same thing - they are both adding original content at a really rapid pace (and because of that, most of it is now junk, whereas the original programming used to be top notch) and allowing their contracts to go south for the other content.
Still, I don't think Narcos alone is worth $13 a month (or whatever it is). Stranger Things was good; it will probably slide in season 2, as I don't think it has anywhere to go. But the bottom line is there's a reason I haven't jumped ship yet, despite the overall quality of content decreasing.
I have some of those descriptions, and I think anthony_greer is right - to an extent. I dropped DirecTV because just getting the expanded package (but no premium channels) with HD service was getting very expensive. My kids never really even watched - my son prefers video games, and my daughter, when she watches anything, watches Netflix. There's a number of shows I think are actually quite good on broadcast TV and basic cable, but I can't stand commercials and either need DVR or a commercial free option.
Hulu+ (commercial free *) is great, but only gives me 1/4 to 1/3 of what I want... but it's the only service of it's kind to do so (as far as I know, anyway). Some services "DVR" capabilities allow you to forward through commercials, but it's often limited to a few certain networks. Amazon season passes are great, but add up pretty quickly if you like a lot of shows. It occurs to me there's too much on that I like, but at the same time I don't feel like I waste all that much time watching TV - usually binge watching during bad weather or something. Still, liking a lot of what's out there, it's hard to find a better deal than cable/satellite with DVR.
(*) except when it's not... but then they only show an ad at the beginning and, I guess, the end - but my problem is with shows being interrupted and breaking the mood.
Agreed.... I think a lot of people watch stuff they wouldn't otherwise because they have some free time and say "let's watch a movie." Then, instead of picking something they really want, they look at what's available on Netflix and choose what they hope is the best option.
When that best option turns out to be a pretty crappy movie, time and time again, it will cost Netflix customers in the long run.
Indeed, bean counters are more focused on what will get them the next bonus than what will actually help the company in the long run.
Is it? The experience I've had with systems like that (although I don't have Vue) is that sometimes you can skip, sometimes you can't. Usually you can't.
See, the difference is that it's just entertainment media - your entitlement mentality is what is helping making the world a shithole. Thanks, douchebag.
This already happens with a lot of shows; on Amazon Prime, for example, the first season (or few seasons) of a show are available for free, but you need to pay for the more recent or final seasons. True Blood, for example... all the seasons except the last (or last two, I forget) were free. Sadly for HBO, the last two seasons were the ones not worth paying for.
So honest people who respect the rights of others will buy the rest. The others aren't causing loss of sales, although they are being selfish and greedy.
Hulu only gives me about a third of the shows I want (although some of the original shows are quite good, too), but the commercial free Hulu subscription is only $13 a month. Yes, I'd pay $50 to get all the shows I like legally and commercial free.
Ah... the single ad at the beginning of the show doesn't really bother me. I have prime, too, and there are a couple of Hulu shows that do that, too, even if you have the commercial free option. It really doesn't bother me. I also don't need to watch the show live, but right after it airs, or the next day, or even the next week is fine for me. For some shows, Hulu will post it immediately after the broadcast ends; for others it's the next day. The problem is Hulu only has about a quarter to a third of what I would like, but I have found originals that are good, too, and it's only $13 month for the commercial free subscription. I would pay $50 if it had AMC (Walking Dead and Preacher) and a handful of other shows.
I will pay a reasonable price (*) for commercial free episodes of the shows I like. I mostly use Hulu with the commercial free option, and would pay double if they actually had more of the content out there. Now things are going to disparate services, or wholly owned services (likes individual apps from networks themselves), and all without even the option of paying for commercial free. There's no commercial free option for Sling, there's no commercial free version for PS Vue... why pay for a service and still be saddled with commercials? At the same time, iTMS style per-episode pricing adds up too quickly to make it worth it.
At the same time, neither will I illegally download someone else's IP. I don't have the right to unilaterally take that away from them just because I don't want to pay, but if they made it easier and more reasonably priced to get the content legally then it's not hard to imagine they'd be increasing their sales.
Of course, some selfish cheapskates wouldn't pay no matter how reasonable it was, but then they wouldn't be losing out on the sales from those people, either.
So yeah, I like the Walking Dead... and I will wait until next year to watch this year's episodes commercial free on Netflix. I don't care about spoilers, and I'm generally a patient person - especially when it comes to something so inconsequential as TV shows.
People pretend this doesn't happen, or that it's the exception. My wife is an immigrant who came here legally and we jumped through all the hoops for her to become a citizen, legally. She was attending English classes at local school where she encountered immigrants from ALL over, not just Mexico, who would actually BOAST about how they got medical treatment for free, lying to the emergency room personal both about the severity of their symptoms and that they had insurance, they just didn't have the cards with them, etc.; we know another couple from my wife's country that we were friends with, and now not so much; she was illegal, but had an anchor baby. He was legal (I helped him come here legally, too); they joke about the government handouts they get. They get two gallons of milk a week because they can, not because they need it. They end up throwing one away every week. It's baffling why they can't just say "we only need one." No, they take it because it's given to them and then they just throw it away, it's disgusting.
Meanwhile, most of the slashdot crowd probably knows mostly immigrants from college or work - here legally, on Visas, or even naturalized citizens. The vast majority of illegals, on the other hand, are uneducated takers - and since many send a lot of that under-the-table money back home, no, they don't pay taxes on that, not even local sales taxes.
Not bad points, but why don't we examine the first reason for a moment... I'm not sexist; people who want to work should go ahead and work, and it doesn't matter if the woman is the primary income earner, but look ask yourself this: why did it suddenly become necessary for families to need two incomes to maintain their standard of living?
It's true, but you'd think we'd have had a much faster, better "recovery," given the staggering amount of debt used to prop up the economy during the Obama administration. Bush inherited a recession, too; the internet bubble was bursting and he had to deal with 911, he spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave and I was extremely angry with how much extra debt he saddled us with - think of how I feel about the Obama administration, and for what? Stagnant wages and a recovery so slow it would have happened anyway (much like Roosevelt recovery) don't make feel like "well, at least we got that." So yes, both parties screw us by running up the debt and kicking the can down the road, but Obama essentially doubled it.
The only reason Clinton could balance the budget was because republicans (only because they didn't have the executive branch) forced it, and it wasn't difficult with an economy propped up by the internet bubble. But as soon as republicans got the executive branch, too, all hell broke loose and "deficits don't matter." I thought it might get better when democrats took over congress, but it actually got worse - you really can't win with these guys, but keep berating people like me for voting third party.
Again, everyone who's experienced induction can tell you you're wrong, but I'm not going to continue wasting my time on an AC; if you want to pretend it doesn't happen, I don't really care.
Slashdot Mirror
And I know some 15 year old girls that would consent to have sex, too.... but not legally, since a 15 year old can't legally consent to anything (not here, anyway). Besides, we're not talking about sex, we're talking about marriage.
No, the ridiculous thing here is that marriage is (supposed to be) an agreement between consenting adults. Robots can't consent. Dogs can't consent. A robot can be programmed to consent, but that's not actually the robot consenting. The same ridiculous "slippery slope" argument about gays getting married - that it'll lead to people marrying children and pets. When you get married they even ask if either party has ever been judged to not be competent to make decisions. Legal agreements happen between consenting adults.
That's because people are short sighted. When oil prices were skyrocketing, people wanted to open ANWR, but the democratic response was that it wouldn't help because it'd take 10 years before it started producing, given not just the drilling but building a pipeline for it. My thoughts were exactly this: we were debating this freaking 10 years ago. If they'd moved then, it would have been done by now and we wouldn't be having this "crisis."
Don't get me wrong - I would like to spend resources on alternatives, too, but the demand for oil is not going to go away for some time.
Yes, it's still stolen.
If you leave your car, running, doors wide open, and someone takes it, it's still stealing.
If I leave the door to my home wide open and someone comes in and takes things, it's still stealing.
Taking something that does not belong to you is stealing no matter how easy it was.
I don't think it would be all that interesting to hear such a case - I doubt anyone believes you have a reasonable expectation of privacy using someone else's phone, particularly without permission.
We'll never know (I hope, assuming she doesn't run again), but that's not enough to set me to ease. After all, Trump just wanted to prove he could do it, I seriously doubt he really wanted to win.
They may save a few cents, but the issue has more to do with them competing for specs, and Apple will gloat about it's phone being thinner if Samsung doesn't do the same thing. It's devolved into a pissing contest (well... I guess it was already there).
Sure - and with all the spare computers I have lying around, I could do MythTV for the price of a tuner, but that doesn't give me the AMC, TNT, or FX shows that are the ones I'm missing.
Hulu actually has a lot of movies they offer, too... unfortunately, it's about the same quality as Netflix's library.
The problem is that, as they lose better movies, they add more original content - and that is precisely what Netflix wants; so if you like Orange Is The New Black or, in my case, Narcos, there's no alternative. Hulu has done the same thing - they are both adding original content at a really rapid pace (and because of that, most of it is now junk, whereas the original programming used to be top notch) and allowing their contracts to go south for the other content.
Still, I don't think Narcos alone is worth $13 a month (or whatever it is). Stranger Things was good; it will probably slide in season 2, as I don't think it has anywhere to go. But the bottom line is there's a reason I haven't jumped ship yet, despite the overall quality of content decreasing.
I have some of those descriptions, and I think anthony_greer is right - to an extent. I dropped DirecTV because just getting the expanded package (but no premium channels) with HD service was getting very expensive. My kids never really even watched - my son prefers video games, and my daughter, when she watches anything, watches Netflix. There's a number of shows I think are actually quite good on broadcast TV and basic cable, but I can't stand commercials and either need DVR or a commercial free option.
Hulu+ (commercial free *) is great, but only gives me 1/4 to 1/3 of what I want... but it's the only service of it's kind to do so (as far as I know, anyway). Some services "DVR" capabilities allow you to forward through commercials, but it's often limited to a few certain networks. Amazon season passes are great, but add up pretty quickly if you like a lot of shows. It occurs to me there's too much on that I like, but at the same time I don't feel like I waste all that much time watching TV - usually binge watching during bad weather or something. Still, liking a lot of what's out there, it's hard to find a better deal than cable/satellite with DVR.
(*) except when it's not... but then they only show an ad at the beginning and, I guess, the end - but my problem is with shows being interrupted and breaking the mood.
Agreed.... I think a lot of people watch stuff they wouldn't otherwise because they have some free time and say "let's watch a movie." Then, instead of picking something they really want, they look at what's available on Netflix and choose what they hope is the best option.
When that best option turns out to be a pretty crappy movie, time and time again, it will cost Netflix customers in the long run.
Indeed, bean counters are more focused on what will get them the next bonus than what will actually help the company in the long run.
I could live with those speeds if I was on my own. I prefer cheap.
Is it? The experience I've had with systems like that (although I don't have Vue) is that sometimes you can skip, sometimes you can't. Usually you can't.
See, the difference is that it's just entertainment media - your entitlement mentality is what is helping making the world a shithole. Thanks, douchebag.
This already happens with a lot of shows; on Amazon Prime, for example, the first season (or few seasons) of a show are available for free, but you need to pay for the more recent or final seasons. True Blood, for example... all the seasons except the last (or last two, I forget) were free. Sadly for HBO, the last two seasons were the ones not worth paying for.
So honest people who respect the rights of others will buy the rest. The others aren't causing loss of sales, although they are being selfish and greedy.
Hulu only gives me about a third of the shows I want (although some of the original shows are quite good, too), but the commercial free Hulu subscription is only $13 a month. Yes, I'd pay $50 to get all the shows I like legally and commercial free.
Ah... the single ad at the beginning of the show doesn't really bother me. I have prime, too, and there are a couple of Hulu shows that do that, too, even if you have the commercial free option. It really doesn't bother me. I also don't need to watch the show live, but right after it airs, or the next day, or even the next week is fine for me. For some shows, Hulu will post it immediately after the broadcast ends; for others it's the next day. The problem is Hulu only has about a quarter to a third of what I would like, but I have found originals that are good, too, and it's only $13 month for the commercial free subscription. I would pay $50 if it had AMC (Walking Dead and Preacher) and a handful of other shows.
I will pay a reasonable price (*) for commercial free episodes of the shows I like. I mostly use Hulu with the commercial free option, and would pay double if they actually had more of the content out there. Now things are going to disparate services, or wholly owned services (likes individual apps from networks themselves), and all without even the option of paying for commercial free. There's no commercial free option for Sling, there's no commercial free version for PS Vue... why pay for a service and still be saddled with commercials? At the same time, iTMS style per-episode pricing adds up too quickly to make it worth it.
At the same time, neither will I illegally download someone else's IP. I don't have the right to unilaterally take that away from them just because I don't want to pay, but if they made it easier and more reasonably priced to get the content legally then it's not hard to imagine they'd be increasing their sales.
Of course, some selfish cheapskates wouldn't pay no matter how reasonable it was, but then they wouldn't be losing out on the sales from those people, either.
So yeah, I like the Walking Dead... and I will wait until next year to watch this year's episodes commercial free on Netflix. I don't care about spoilers, and I'm generally a patient person - especially when it comes to something so inconsequential as TV shows.
People pretend this doesn't happen, or that it's the exception. My wife is an immigrant who came here legally and we jumped through all the hoops for her to become a citizen, legally. She was attending English classes at local school where she encountered immigrants from ALL over, not just Mexico, who would actually BOAST about how they got medical treatment for free, lying to the emergency room personal both about the severity of their symptoms and that they had insurance, they just didn't have the cards with them, etc.; we know another couple from my wife's country that we were friends with, and now not so much; she was illegal, but had an anchor baby. He was legal (I helped him come here legally, too); they joke about the government handouts they get. They get two gallons of milk a week because they can, not because they need it. They end up throwing one away every week. It's baffling why they can't just say "we only need one." No, they take it because it's given to them and then they just throw it away, it's disgusting.
Meanwhile, most of the slashdot crowd probably knows mostly immigrants from college or work - here legally, on Visas, or even naturalized citizens. The vast majority of illegals, on the other hand, are uneducated takers - and since many send a lot of that under-the-table money back home, no, they don't pay taxes on that, not even local sales taxes.
Not bad points, but why don't we examine the first reason for a moment... I'm not sexist; people who want to work should go ahead and work, and it doesn't matter if the woman is the primary income earner, but look ask yourself this: why did it suddenly become necessary for families to need two incomes to maintain their standard of living?
It's true, but you'd think we'd have had a much faster, better "recovery," given the staggering amount of debt used to prop up the economy during the Obama administration. Bush inherited a recession, too; the internet bubble was bursting and he had to deal with 911, he spent like a drunken sailor on shore leave and I was extremely angry with how much extra debt he saddled us with - think of how I feel about the Obama administration, and for what? Stagnant wages and a recovery so slow it would have happened anyway (much like Roosevelt recovery) don't make feel like "well, at least we got that." So yes, both parties screw us by running up the debt and kicking the can down the road, but Obama essentially doubled it.
The only reason Clinton could balance the budget was because republicans (only because they didn't have the executive branch) forced it, and it wasn't difficult with an economy propped up by the internet bubble. But as soon as republicans got the executive branch, too, all hell broke loose and "deficits don't matter." I thought it might get better when democrats took over congress, but it actually got worse - you really can't win with these guys, but keep berating people like me for voting third party.
Again, everyone who's experienced induction can tell you you're wrong, but I'm not going to continue wasting my time on an AC; if you want to pretend it doesn't happen, I don't really care.
No, I'm not. Millions of low-carb dieters have proved you wrong.