Interesting point. And what other books should we censor solely at your recommendation while we're at it?

Help? They set up a website. Just because we know how to type a URL into an address bar and not the search bar and know to read the page to find the comment section, doesn't mean they gave unfair help. Just because they made sure that their website is working properly in what it's suppose to be doing, doesn't mean they helped the other side. Besides, isn't making sure the minority is heard affirmative action? Aren't republicans against affirmative action?

zmodem was SUCH an improvement over xmodem. The ability to re-start interrupted transfers brings a smile of relief to my face thinking about it to this day.

I think this leads to a more pressing question: How do you decide where to balance technical accuracy with accessibility for the majority of people who won't understand it? Does the show count on getting away with some minor mistakes, knowing that 99+% of the audience won't catch it?

I've noticed several mistakes myself (in the handful of episodes I've watched with my girlfriend, who loves the show), especially around quantum physics (my preferred subject of study). I always wonder if they're deliberately introduced, or if they are genuine mistakes by the writers and/or actors due to lack of understanding or knowledge.

IIRC AT&T (I can't find a link, so my details may be off - YMMV) lost a case regarding this several years back, claiming that their "we may record this conversation" disclaimer applied to only the originally-disclaiming party.

To wit: if the other party consents to the recording of their own volition, you do not need to get additional consent to record, in any state. Their "this call may be recorded" statement provides their blanket consent to all recording.

All workers in the foxconn buildings have been arrested after the implementation of the stress cams.

So... their argument is "Netflix would have done it first, so we have to do it sooner."?

my wife: "Not that we're surprised, but it's nice to have concrete facts to back it up."

"Out of over 9,000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? " Tell that to voter fraud bills, the claim of "welfare queens" and not allowing female reproductive rights because "some use it to be promiscuous". Not so fun now that it's on the other foot, is it? However, unlike those claims, they do have control of AND responsibility over their entire network. This IP ban is standard practice for IT security. If they can't secure their network, then they don't deserve access to the server. Access to servers are a privilege, not a right.

Let me get this straight... You're saying they should be punished for not breaking any laws, while the police who perjured themselves and violated FAA FARs should not?

If you can be imprisoned for being an arsehole, you belong in prison as much as they do, as do the rest of us.

I do have a to agree in that the current development style/strategy (agile development) is less geared towards solid development and more on features and getting stuff out there. I think the article is just saying that they should do less of pushing out features and new things and more on good programming/fix known bugs. Of course putting out a bugless program is near impossible, but there's a difference in better prevention versus better clean-up.

yeah, this is what I thought they were doing. As big as verizon and comcast's data centers are, there's no way that they colo all of the data of all the content that netflix hosts. Not with the advantage of virtualized servers is allowing for caching and peering so that everyone, coming from different providers can still get the same content. That's not to mention that all the mentions of the deals between comcast and netflix mentioned direct peering, not colocation. http://arstechnica.com/busines... "News of a paid peering deal comes two days after a traceroute showed that the two companies were exchanging traffic with each other directly."

So what do you do when technology and law provides such an attractive feast for "content 'owners'" that it becomes impossible to purchase anything outright, and everything you pay for comes in the Netflix model?

To answer the OP's question, there is a solution: TecSec*. It provides a crypto-wrapper of sorts that allows for external data (literally anything quantifiable; e.g., geolocation data, time data, etc.) to be used as a condition for decryption. The notable caveat here is that you need a trusted source for the information to be used for criteria. But while difficult, it's possible to create a solution that will withstand (literally) the test of time.

*tecsec.com. Full disclosure, I am an acquaintance of the CEO, but we met because of the technology; I'm offering my opinion as a security professional, not a friend.

Wait... since netflix has direct connection to verizon, and I doubt netflix's amazon cloud servers discriminate between comcast and verizon connections. And if there is a slow down and it's only on verizon customers, why do you think it's netflix that undersized the connections? I mean, sure netflix could, but it would simpler and easier solution is that they didn't. Besides, if verizon is providing the bandwidth they said they did, instead of threatening to sue, why don't they just show logs/graphs of how much data is being pushed through and how fast. I'm sure they have splunk or cacti graphs somewhere.

Agreed. Though I can only speak anecdotally, every wealthy person I know - which I'm defining here as would not need to earn any more money between now and the day they die and still live comfortably in their chosen lifestyle - is not a spendthrift.

One of the wealthiest men in the world balked at an aircraft avionics upgrade that cost less than his income for one day.

And more often than not, even seemingly-frivolous expenditures have ulterior money-making options that may have long-term returns. Richard Branson may seem a spendthrift, but I assure you that nearly everything he does has long-term gains in mind. (He is not the person referenced above, btb.) Some pan out, some do not. But an expenditure that is knowingly not a good buy is a rare event.

I don't know if the research is still the most current, but in the Millionaire Next Door study, the ONLY absolutely consistent factor for American millionaires was their marriage to frugal wives.

Frugality is very heavily correlated to wealth gain and retention; to the point where I'm comfortable calling it a factor in causation.