I suspect that if you do cut the cord without having the MythTV backend (I was planning on doing EXACTLY the same thing, still haven't completed it!) that you really won't miss it in the end.

You don't have to catch 'em all. Your life will go on if you miss some TV.

As for cooking shows, PBS has a LOT of shows on, and many are quite good.

Rain on a wedding day isn't ironic, as rain could happen on any calendar day of the year in most climates. It may be statistically more or less likely in given seasons, but it's not impossible on the surface of it.

A woman meeting the man of her dreams, and his wife is definitely not ironic, as it's very likely that many women admire the same qualities in men. That becomes a matter of who met whom in what order, and the wife happened to get there first while presenting the qualities that he admired.

The comment on cutlery isn't ironic, because there's no context to set it up as irony. It's simply a matter of having one incorrect thing in abundance, and not having the one correct thing.

I'm sure that others have gone through all of the statements from the song, so I'll stop there.

There's really no reason for content distributors to stop making content available.

What I think should happen, is that if viewers still are willing to accept the idea of timeslots like television broadcasts have, that once the content goes up for broadcast, then that content remains accessible from that point forth, with the ability for the content provider to change-out the ads between acts. There's no reason to have to wait for another broadcast window or to have to delay allowing on-demand viewing of the content after its original release.

If anything, this kind of system for "reruns" would be more fair to everyone involved. Advertisers would be billed per-ad, as the number of times their ads are shown could be more accurately determined. Content providers could actually see how often a show is being watched when it's relatively new, and the audience could actually go back and watch content that they might have missed before attempting to continue watching a series.

I stopped watching Person of Interest after it was pre-empted for a sports broadcast; they pre-empted the second of a two-parter. Apparently it was the local affiliate that decided to do it, but I've never gone back. Other shows, like Firefly could have benefitted by being watchable even if the network wants to show other content; all of the basketball games on FOX that season hurt finding an audience, resulting in cancellation. I've missed some Agents of Shield and am about ready to give up on that show, based on ABC's bloody stupid decision to not let one watch the previous week's episode until after this week's episode has already aired, so one cannot catch-up before the next broadcast! STUPID!

The business model can change and still be workable for the existing parties, if they're just brave enough to do it.

Yup. We got rid of cable TV something like five years ago. Keeping it was already in jeopardy when I realized I was coming home from work and watching four hours of CSI every evening on Spike, and starting to see reruns of episodes that I could have sworn were just shown, and the straw that broke the camel's back was the removal of Turner Classic Movies from our cable package. Since getting rid of cable we've found ourselves actually engaging in our hobbies again, as opposed to just passively staring at the screen.

A lady at work the other day didn't seem to know that one could still receive over-the-air broadcasts for television. I wonder how many people don't realize this and are paying for TV that they don't want or need.

SQL injection flaw in a Drupal module that's designed specifically to help prevent SQL injection attacks

Would this be actual irony, as opposed to Alanis Morrissette irony?

Heh. If the article implies what I think it implies, the engine that blew up on the stand was intended for this launch. So, possibly the replacement engine that was actually used in this launch (or the original one that passed) failed during the actual launch, if it was indeed an engine failure that destroyed this rocket.

Someone at the station must have been watching Earth II again...

Cap'n! She's taking quite a Wallop(s)!

You seem to have some knowledge from whence you speak... Given the use of decades-old refurbished Soviet engines, would either of the components that you mentioned be a part of that old assembly?

Budum-bum!

I don't think that it's a cut and dried as the article makes it out to be. My guess is that it still required human control to activate it, it just might not have required high-ranking military personnel or politburo officials to make the call.

Honestly at that height I don't think it would have mattered that much. Either the buildings of the launch facility were going to have debris rained down upon them from above, or were going to have their walls in the vicinity of the ground explosion absorb the debris.

There have been reports of vehicles damaged, but I think those are erroneous, confusing the destruction of the launch vehicle with possible damage to ground vehicles. There shouldn't have been anything not inside-and-under-cover given the destructive power of the launch anyway.

The ground explosion did take out two of the four towers around the pad, but I'm amazed that the worklights on the remaining two towers stayed functional. They were on through the end of NASA TV coverage a moment ago.

You mean, it wasn't a good idea to reuse those 40-year-old Russian engines even when two of them have been shown as defective before this launch?

Sounds like a mobster name.

Per her source, the deletion of data while she was using it was a warning. Warnings don't work that well when they're less obvious to the user. (I think Tom Clancy actually invented that move originally).

The reference I remember was in Doctor Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, when it's revealed that the Soviets have a doomsday weapon that'll destroy the world if a nuke goes off in their territory, and the Americans comment how a deterrent weapon is only good if it's known.