Funny, I just read an article about the guy who wrote Primer making a new movie. And, couple weeks ago, I went to see Les Miserables.

Adult movies are still being made, and with Indie movies, probably more of them. Just, look for them.

They are (increasingly) irrelevant in that the Nielson ratings DON'T accurately measure viewership of shows. One reason is because a decreasing percentage of those shows are shown on TV. Shows are being produced for more methods of viewing, and types of ads. People who are advertising on something other than TV are going to be decreasingly interested in Nielson ratings.

They also were always only a sampling. It only chose a certain number of families and tracked their viewing habits. I used to live in an area of the country that wasn't counted because it was too small. The city had 1 million people in the metropolitan area.

I live in Taiwan. That saying isn't actually a curse in the original.

Catholics' (and the general population's) views have changed a lot in 30 years. And, even some in 10 years. 30 years ago, few people would have even considered gay marriage, and a LOT more people find it morally acceptable. 10 years ago, not many people had considered gay marriage even. And, I'd bet more people find homosexuality acceptable.

Contraception, I bet more find it acceptable. Especially Catholics, who probably lagged behind the rest of the population-I'm betting that's the reason my grandparents had 9 kids, and my aunts and uncles have at most 4.

Abortion, probably generally more morally acceptable. Not sure, and definitely don't know about the shift in Catholic opinion.

There's a drug that does this. The paper mentions that the drug requires the patient to cooperate(regularly take the drug). Sometimes patients take the drug as part of rehab, somewhat willingly. BUT, knowing alcohol will make them feel sick, they still get drunk.

Usually, in Parenting 101, you don't get to delete words from the kid's brain.

The cost almost nothing to publish, but the used price is not a question with ebooks. Sometimes used books are priced at a percentage of the original cover price. Since I like old books, and paperbacks have the same content, I've bought books for a dime.

This will mean that instead of the publisher determining whether you know about an author, it will be advertisers or some similar type of middle man.

In the next hundred years, billions of works will be forgotten because no one cares about them. That will include ebooks. Even if they are still recorded in some universally available library, a small percentage of those books will actually be read.

I am not particular to the format of "the book". It is cheap and durable. I also like that it allows me to actually SEE a lot of my knowledge/entertainment-I can see the spines of lots of my books. It gives me a sense of comfort that I don't get from flipping through a list. I look forward to a future where that knowledge/entertainment is easier to access. But, it's not here.

The "Little Emperor Syndrome" and revering boys have both been mentioned.

But, it's also much more common for a kid to live with his/her parents for a lot longer in Asia. Probably more likely than to live outside the parents' home(excluding college). Often until marriage, or even after. This would make it less likely to even consider kicking the son out.

Often apartments are hard to get for homeless. They (usually) need a month's rent and a deposit. Possibly other fees. He might need credentials. Hotels/motels are usually daily or weekly

Homeless people find "saving" difficult, because of the likelihood of being robbed. Even if you keep the cash on you, you probably live in an not very good part of town. So, mugging is a problem. And, you need to sleep. You can hide the money, but if you take out some money to buy food, maybe someone will see the big wad of cash.

My father lived in a tent for a while, when my parents were separated. This is often the case for a lot of homeless in small towns. He had a job, but not enough money for an apartment(I don't remember whether he was financially supporting us also).

This doesn't make the review useless. But, Amazon IS in the business of selling stuff. Not just books. If a seller has a large percentage of unhappy customers, I don't want to buy from them.

Perhaps a separation of product and seller would make the reviews more useful, though.

The problem with eliminating the hard core fans is that it is difficult to sort them. If I'm "looking for a new book to read"(browsing), like checking out books similar books to something I've read, maybe a popular book has a large number of 5 stars. I don't want to check out all of them on a book I've never/barely heard of.

Also, I've known some people who just seem to give a lot of high ratings. 4 or 5 to almost everything they read.

For this reason, sometimes I find 4 star ratings more useful than 5 star ratings.

I rarely find 1 star ratings useful for the reason you listed. But, I have given a few 1 star reviews-actually, maybe I haven't put them down on a website, but they would be 1 star ratings if I did.

As another commenter said, it's become the default place to read reviews of products. What about people who want to review something they bought elsewhere/got as a gift?

For books, I use a website that's FOR reviewing books and keeping track of books. I do it more for myself than for others. I've got books in two countries, and don't want to buy multiple copies. It's also good as kind of a "book journal".

I've always been a little uncomfortable with the connection between the website(mainly amazon) selling the stuff and the website having reviews. I'd like to see a website that has more of a disconnect.

How do you define "easy"? "Offer nearly everything" seems like a pretty big requirement to me.

Very few car crashes require a person to decide between whether the people on a bus die or the person in the car dies. The vast majority of events would depend upon whether the car or human has better reaction time and environmental awareness. I think the rarity of those events make it mostly irrelevant. Maybe selfish (for the human in the car) computer control is 10.000X safer than human control. Maybe non-selfish (for the human in the car) computer control is 9.999X safer than human control. Either way, I'd take computer control over human control.

The only time freedom of travel would be relevant is if you want to go to some poorly definable location(like off-road). Suggesting it is relevant to freedom of travel in some other way would mean some kind of other legal restrictions(you can't go to this part of town).

It might be relevant as a privacy thing. I think cops would want to be able to control the computer in some cases.

Networking the car(like so cops can control it) would mean malware problems.

My first game was some arcade game I forgot. Some time in the early 1980s. It wasn't a big problem to change from a joystick or rolling ball(or whatever) to a NES cross style movable gamepad.