I was just trying to be a little bit sarcastic, in that I (and many many many others) were using VCRs in the 1980s to "watch whatever I want, whenever I want"... and nowadays (and for the last decade for me) with DVRs.

It's not a new thing.

I would gladly pay the SAME amount if I could literally turn off the channels I don't watch.

Yes, I KNOW you can disable channels e.g. in a Tivo (IIRC, at least in some cable company boxes, you STILL can't do that simple thing).

But I mean literally turn them off. Why? I want to give positive reinforcement to ACTUALLY the channels I want, and remove the home shopping & religious channels, even if they are subsidizing part of my bill.. (But I would also be removing some channels that ARE being paid through my bill..)

If it were on a show by show basis, but NOT at the $1-$2/episode price the various services charge now.. even better..

Heck, even though I love DVRs, if Hulu Plus had an AD FREE version for $50/month (that worked on a TV, not just on a computer -- I know, Tivos have Hulu Plus too), I'd use that INSTEAD of DVRing stuff.

It is also about watching whatever you want, whenever you want. Not just Thursdays at 9:00... People no longer want to schedule their lives around the broadcast schedule.

Welcome to the 1980s, houstonbofh.

Yes, but did Brazil have credit cards at *all* in the 1950s?

Changing credit cards is one of the cases (along with cell phones being far more prevalent than land lines, in developing countries), where having technological advances far earlier than other parts of the world causes tons of inertia which makes FURTHER advances much harder/take longer/more expensive.

Maybe he can show HP how to do URLs instead of the gibberish ones they've been using for years.

To be devil's advocate, are URLs "intended" to be human readable? I think there are arguments on both sides.

Doesn't it seem kind of silly, even though I admit they are more memorable, that every new movie that comes out has a new 'memorable' web site URL that's only relevant for a few months at most, rather than something like http://moviestudio.com/MOVIETI...

Seems to me you are arguing FOR econ 101, when you think you're arguing against it.

To be able to do a "real" supply vs. demand comparison, you DO need all costs involved included.

OK, so I presume you mean in other countries.

In the U.S., there are laws that prevent charging different prices for credit or cash. (Though yes, there is a loophole that you can list a "discount" for cash... Though, at least for me, gas [the only situation I noticed it used] was just as cheap or cheaper with credit card after counting the cash back, compared to other stations like Arco that do not take credit cards at all.)

But again, I agree that it costs the merchant something (but doesn't it save them time/money going to the bank to get change/bring cash in, and probably other time?)... Yet, at each individual purchase for me, it's as cheap or cheaper to use credit card, AND more convenient. I'd probably use credit card even without the cash back, for the convenience. Of course, I auto-pay in full every month, so don't pay any interest.

If you had a 401(k) or whatever your local equivalent is, or your own investments, you wouldn't have to rely on a pension.

You mean you're outside the U.S., right?

I'm IN the U.S., and I almost never use cash. I use credit cards. (Yes, the store has to pay a fee, which theoretically comes back to all customers, but at each individual purchase, my price is the same.. or actually lower, if you count my cash back, plus it's more convenient.)

I actually agree with you, though it's apparently due to Twitter's objection to Twitpic's trademark *application*.

You'd think Twitter would just use the system the way it was designed to, and object to Twitpic's trademark application (it actually seems like they have), and even possibly fight AFTERWARDS (if it is granted) for it to be revoked, due to the confusion it is actually causing.

Twitter seems to be doing a "we don't like what you're doing, so making you unable to continue".

That's why I specifically said "for people who want that functionality".

I can see wanting your sprinkler system online -- to change it from your couch.. or heck, even from somewhere else (not everyone has automatic rain sensors).

The common "fridge keeps track of what you have in it" idea would be great if it ALSO coordinated with the local grocery store ads that week..

Umm, the "Internet of things" doesn't NEED "modern Internet speeds". Does your fridge or your sprinkler system or whatever need high speed? No, it just "needs" (for people who want that functionality), some kind of comparatively dirt slow communication path.

That's not an argument FOR IPv4 directly, just that your "modern Internet speeds" argument directly doesn't necessarily justify throwing away decades' worth of hardware that is providing people functionality.

As long as you're replacing the "DNA" of the Internet, wouldn't replacing SMTP be a better thing to start with? (To prevent spam, or at least untraceable spam?)

Your humor will be a Bonanza.

I know, that's why I made that analogy.