They call it a watch, but its not really a watch.

What most would prefer to see is legitimate competition. The unlikelihood of that happening in many places coupled with the business practices of the monopolies breeds resentment.

No, that is not really an alternative. Most people who hold season tickets to local sports teams also want to see sports on TV, in fact I'd guess they are probably more likely to have sports packages than the average person.

SInce Disney owns ESPN, they can hold us sports addicts hostage to their content packages. College Sports could move to more of their own networks, but right now those are basically ESPN affiliations. The NFL or NBA might lead the charge if they found they could get greater revenue via their own distributions, but they are making big $$ now and not likely to take any risks.

Maybe Netflix could branch to live content. That would become interesting.

You have more options than I do. No DSL, satellite blocked by trees............... only Time Warner Ca-bull. Best I can do is threaten to leave every once in a while and try to get a retention rate.

Sports is the primary thing that keeps a lot of people on cable. If there were ever an alternative for live sports, the whole package thing would come crashing down.

Man, that asteroid water must be quite valuable. I guess they plan to bottle it.

Who trusts what they read on the internet anyway? Particularly by reading just one page of content that has no real meaningful impact to anyone but the criminal.

Anyone who doesn't validate what they read on the internet deserves to be......misled.

Is that your scientific analysis?

I wouldn't consider that a scientific analysis of religion and its place in societal development.

I would probably have been better to say that intolerance of those that are religious is irrational for someone that takes a scientific view of the evolution of socital beliefs. That they are decreasing in practice is irrelevant to that point.

Scientific reasoning tells me there are reasons religious beliefs are common throughout human societal history. That same scientific reasoning tells me that, because of its place in our societal history, hatred of those based on their practice of religion is more irrational than the practice of religion itself.

I think it stands to reason that those who don't know the details or have a depth of understanding on a subject can oversimplify things and believe the basis or solutions are simpler than they really are. I see this a lot in discussion of technical issues on /., where some can gloss over all the complications they are not aware of and propose solutions that seem quite logical when the underlying details are not considered . But, as you pointed out, one can understand the depths of a subject and have confidence in their answer as well. The better you know a topic, the better you know your limits within that topic as well.

Just an example, not a recommendation.