You say that like it's a problem. Obviously nursing while piloting a supersonic jet is a ridiculous application, unlike "solving water problems in Africa" which is actually something you can work towards, but for the sake of argument we'll pretend that's a real thing.

Why is it a problem to advertise the sort of accomplishments that a person can make? Even if there's another class of people who are not as interested in those accomplishments vs. other accomplishments? Hell, *especially* when there's another class of people who aren't as interested in those accomplishments?

What do you mean nobody seems to care? It's all we ever hear about in any article about women's representation in STEM.

No, I think you have a deviant definition for suffering. And for opposite.

For instance, the opposite of "too cold" is "too hot". But there is such a thing as being neither too hot nor too cold.

There's a difference between these three things:

- Thinking something isn't illegal
- Thinking something shouldn't be illegal
- Liking something

I really don't see the ethical problem. Cable television is not a fundamental need. It's not like they are bundling your only supply of water with a purchase of 1000 corn dogs. I can understand you not wanting to buy it, though.

Verizon wanted to offer better granularity of service to their customers, but ESPN claims it's in violation of their contracts. If ESPN is right, then Verizon backed themselves into a corner.

If they aren't going to Canada, they are half-assing their honeymoon.

That's the "detriment of others" part, not putting themselves first.

What you said makes sense, but wasn't obvious contextually because they were talking about movies before and after. Now I get it.

Although I think TV series should be bucketed with movies as far as DRM goes.

If you read the article, they give stats on this, but I don't understand them because they seem to contradict themselves:

So...53% of all streaming video is on computers and 89% is on TVs instead?

Other statistics I've seen corroborate the PC thing, even if that surprises you. I don't know where that 89% number comes from or what it refers to. Maybe people's future plans?

In your mind, wanting kids to be vaccinated means being desperate to live in China?

Children are legally required to go to school. The law cannot legally mandate that children put themselves in undue danger (that's a constitutional right). Therefore, public schools must be provided that are full of children that are reasonably safe for other children to be around.

If you don't want this situation, then the thing to push back on is the legal requirement for children to be educated. I still wouldn't agree with that position but it's more consistent.

Slippery slope arguments are a slippery slope to a stagnant and decadent society.

The reason you'd care about their business model is because you are doing business with them.

I talk about movies with friends weeks after they are released. We don't usually all go the every movie in absolute sync.

A full season of TV released at once is like a super-movie.

I kind of get what you're saying, but I don't think it's worth it, nor do I think it really eliminates it. After all, A Song of Ice and Fire came out a book at a time. A whole series worth of content. And then it takes years to get the next book. He had forums dedicated to speculation too. It's still serialized, it's just bigger chunks coming in slower. On the other hand, in the past, some things published as novels now were kind of just collected magazine serial stories edited together.

The flip side is that they *could* release 5 minutes every day until the season is done. I think most agree that's too little at a time and would probably only watch when the slow drip of content reached a certain threshold.

I greatly prefer watching the whole season at once. In fact I often intentionally delay watching real world TV until I can binge-watch it.

I don't quite get that objection. It's not like it's particularly new. Magazines and newspapers were subscription-based and full of ads, for instance.

Mind you I choose to only watch Hulu and not pay for Hulu plus. Netflix is already the best and I have Amazon Prime because it comes with ancillary benefits. The benefits from Hulu Plus that I don't get some other way are too small.

Others have pointed out your math error. You, or others who share your opinion, seem to be making the same mistake over and over.

Here's a real statistic:

https://amourtan.com/2013/02/g...

350k puts you in 5.88%. To get to 1%, you need 800k.

You have got to realise that even on Slashdot, which skews high-income due to tech being a generally high income field, lots of people don't have a net worth of 350k let alone 800k.

(Also, you have to realize that 1% initially referred specifically to income inequality in the United States.)

Yes, 60 million is the number "now". Are you implying that at some point in the past almost 70 years, fewer people were thought to have died in WWII?

There are 5 references to the original crime, and a sixth to the definition of the actual definition of the crime committed. You gave 0 references.

Here's some more references for the specific number of 60 million deaths broken down by country:
http://www.nationalww2museum.o...
http://necrometrics.com/20c5m....

If you want to propose your own number, cite or shut up.

Quit being a drama queen. You are literally the only person on this thread to mention jail or prison in this entire thread as of the time of writing. We get it; you're offended that people aren't neutral on the subject of Joseph Goebbels. You can get over it.

If you don't care about him orchestrating war crimes, maybe you will accept he's a criminal due to him murdering six children (his own children) before his sucide? Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.... Those were by his own hand.

Here's a philosophical question. What's worse, murdering your own children by your own hand, or intentionally causing the deaths of 60 million people (the vast majority of whom should be presumed innocent of any crime), but at arm's length? I'd go with the latter, but they are both pretty damned bad.

The only reason he wasn't tried for war crimes was he was already dead:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ar...

It's not like it's unusual to not press charges on dead people. It doesn't do much good to anybody. Pretty safe bet he'd have been convicted.

It's not like this was an accident, that he couldn't have known what he was doing. It's certainly not thought crimes. We don't know Goebbels' thoughts, we know his actions.