Bah, you kids and your "sleep." If becoming a parent taught be anything, it's that it is amazing how little sleep you can operate on.

With the prospects of losing a their seat, being fined, or jail time these "representatives" will pay a hell of lot more attention to what they sponsor and vote for. There will a lot less or "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" in Washington.

And if you think Washington's bad, State politics can be even worse. In NY, we recently had a budget vote with some items that were extremely unpopular. Democrat after Democrat stood up saying how awful these provisions were - just before voting FOR the budget "with a heavy heart." They all used the exact same phrase. It was clearly a "the governor is leaning heavily on us politically because he wants this passed RIGHT NOW so we can't go against him no matter what our reservations." Only one Democrat went against the flow and I fully expect him to face political reprisals. (The Republicans opposed the budget, but that was to be expected.) And that's just scratching the surface.

A lot of people claim that more power to the states will solve all of the problems, but it just moves many problems down a level and can make it even harder to bring these issues to light than with the Federal government. Don't even get me started on Local governments. Forget turtles, it's dirty politics all the way down.

Just to bring this back to the situation at hand, though, you might have the right to do what you want to your own body, but you don't have the right to do that and then operate a motor vehicle. You can down a six pack of beers all you like, but if you get behind the wheel of a car afterward, you are violating the law. There is a very good reason for this: You don't have the right to put other people's lives in danger and call it "your right to do as you please."

Of course, then the burden for the police officers shifts from "we found drugs in his car" to "we have this evidence that he was under the influence of drugs while driving."

In that case, the ruling would probably be: You can't pull a motorist over for speeding, write him a ticket, and then force him to wait until a Drug Detector 9000 can arrive on the scene.

Now, if all police had small, portable devices that could instantly detect illegal substances (something like a police officer's version of a Star Trek tricorder), then there might have been a different ruling. After all, then the driver would just need to wait for the officer to turn on the device and measure the car for a few seconds. Much less of an inconvenience than "wait almost 10 minutes until a dog gets here." If/when Police Tricorders are invented and rolled out, I'm sure there will be legal cases to define when it is and isn't appropriate to use them.

Having a monopoly isn't actually illegal, but abusing it is.

Unfortunately, try getting the government to actually move against the giant cable companies. They donate large sums of money to political officials and, in return, have laws written which favor them. There is a near-zero chance that any action a cable company takes (short of outright blocking competitors like Netflix) would result in any legal action. Even if it did, the cable companies have enough legal might to either a) tie up the case for years until the political climate shifted back or b) settle for a slap-on-the-wrist and meaningless concessions.

In short, the cable companies have enough power that they can do nearly anything they want to do and they know it.

Finally, you might say, "Well why not just vote those bribe-takers out of office?" The problem there is that the bribes are used to buy elections. Without that money, you can't run ads, you can't get on TV, and you can't even participate in the public debate.

Not only that, but those in power can change the district lines to make sure they remain in power. Congressional re-election rates are over 80 percent. You have to go back to 1980 for the lowest rate and that was 55% in the Senate. So even at the worst, a Congressman had a better-than-a-coin-flip chance of staying in office. In some elections, you would have better luck betting on 4 numbers on a Roulette wheel than you would betting against a random incumbent.

And if they aren't outright bought out, then they are offered cushy jobs post-retirement, often lobbying the very people they used to work with. The revolving door goes round and round.

Though I happen to like Daredevil, I definitely WOULDN'T recommend it for children. At least, not younger children. There's a large amount of bloodshed that even the Marvel movies don't have. Without getting too spoilery, the Fisk "car scene" in Episode 4 alone would make this not for kids.

Who needs 6 different boxes? I have a Roku box connected to my TV. With it, I access Netflix, Amazon (both Prime and VOD), Hulu Plus, Google Play, and various other services. I can switch between services effortlessly.

It's not that Netflix doesn't want to show these old movies/TV shows, it's that the content owners often give Netflix scraps hoping to starve them out of existence. They see Netflix as a threat to their old business model and want them gone.

Worse than content, they have a near-monopoly on Internet access - a total monopoly in some areas. If I want wired, broadband Internet access, my one and only choice is Time Warner Cable. If TWC decided tomorrow that my Internet access without cable TV costs $100, has a 10 GB limit, and a $10 per GB overage fee, there would be nothing I could do. That's admittedly an extreme example, but some cable companies are pricing their no-TV Internet packages higher than their TV+Internet bundles to force people to keep cable TV. Many are also setting bandwidth caps with overage fees to limit Internet video use (while their own video services remain cap-free).

If I don't like something Netflix does, I can go to another Internet video provider (even if it means not seeing a Netflix-exclusive show). If I don't like something my ISP does, I have no other options. The cable companies know this and are trying to exploit it.

For Netflix, I think making their own content is a hedge against the content providers who see Netflix as a threat* and who want to only give them old scraps of content, at best, to try to kill Netflix off.

* In reality, Netflix is probably one of the content providers' best allies against piracy. How many people will take the time, effort, and risk to pirate a show when it's available via Netflix?

From what I've seen so far from Daredevil, this is definitely what it means. Also, there are less filler episodes as the writers try to slow the plot advancement down and have a "bad guy of the week" for our heroes to tackle who is completely unrelated to the main plot. The plot pacing on Daredevil (so far... I'm 7 episodes in) is a whole lot better than on network shows.

We tried out Hulu Plus when we cancelled cable and I don't mind it that much. I think of it as my DVR-replacement. Instead of recording shows and then having to fast forward through commercials, I get to see a show slightly delayed from when it aired on Cable with fewer ads than cable TV would have given me. I definitely prefer Netflix or Amazon Prime, but Hulu gives me access to many shows that I would need to buy via Amazon VOD or Google Play otherwise and thus winds up saving me money.

Even with Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, Netflix, buying shows on Amazon VOD/Google Play, and buying more DVDs, we're STILL paying less than half of what the cable company wanted us to pay.

For most companies, there are two main threats:

1) Script Kiddies who are running programs against your network looking for security holes. If your network is secured enough, these attackers will just move on to the next target.

2) Internal Employees who are either disgruntled, looking for "side income", or just careless/clueless These are the people who, with access to your HR database, download a list of your employees and their SSNs to sell for cash. They also are the people who know they are going to be fired and so sabotage systems. Finally, these are the people who open NEKKID_PHOTOS_OF_CELEBRITIES.ZIP.exe in their e-mail, who give out their passwords when "IT" calls them out of the blue from a non-company number, or who take their laptop (connected to the company's network) home but leave it in the car visible to all so it gets stolen.

In the case of internal employees, you can lock down access so they only have access to systems they need for their job and educate your users as much as possible about security threats and how to react. If an employee is a chronic security threat, you can take corrective action. Of course, this becomes difficult when said employee is also a company executive. (e.g. The CFO insists on connecting his virus-laden personal laptop to the network and has enough political pull to fire anyone who tells him that's not company policy.)