It's to make binge subscribers pay a little bit more.
Why would there be an exodus, current subscribers are not having their prices changed, only new subscribers. This is a move to counter binge subscribers in order to smooth out their revenue. In fact, if Netflix wanted to be brilliant about it, the would offer their Xth month free with a $1-2 reduction in your subscription cost. Basically, you're "paying forward" the extra $1-2 towards a month subscription that you only get if you stay subscribed long enough. That would essentially provide the exact same lower costs for long term subscribers.
Yep. Their goal is to encourage long term subscriptions and not binge subscribing. They have a "problem" where people will subscribe for one to two month, binge watch content, and then unsubscribe for about six to eight months.
What's the last time you flew? All airports are arranged as following
Airport -> Security Checkpoint -> Terminal -> Plane
All airports have tons of crap for sale in the terminal, ranging from sit in restaurants, to fast food, to souveniers after you've gotten past security. This has lead me to discover some hilarious things.... like a TGI Fridays that gave you plastic forks, knives, and spoons to eat with while serving you steak. Never again, TGIF. Never again.
Pedant troll failure out pedanted by pedant.
That's 25% of known cases. The unknown cases include those where the body falls out before landing or where the person survived the ordeal and scurries off without anyone knowing.
Get out of here with your context sensitivity. Marg obviously stands for margarine, margaret, or marginal. In other cases it's a negative slang for Maginot Line.
If your goal is to radically reduce energy, your best bet is to go around and just kill about half the population of the world.
Adolf Hitler, a visionary ahead of his time.
I don't think Aunt Flo is a significant danger for nuclear power plants.
It's called a life cycle or specifically a diplontic life cycle. A new human is created the moment a zygote is formed. Just because a creature is in a different stage of its life cycle and doesn't look anything like the members of your species that you deal with on a daily basis does not mean it is not a member of your species. Abortion is nothing more than setting arbitrary points at which to declare a human as "sub-human" and not warranting the rights afforded to humans.
The principal telling the boy to delete it occurred before the officer showed up.
Yes, most two-party consent (and even one-party consent) states will have an exemption regarding criminal behavior but most of them don't suddenly make the recording legal if it happens to have evidence of a crime on it. If you look at Pennsylvania's they require that you had a reasonable suspicion that the person being recorded has committed, is committing, or will commit a violent crime and that it is reasonable to believe that the recording will capture evidence of the crime in question.
So if you're walking around recording and it incidentally shows evidence of a crime, it would fail the first part. If you have reasonable suspicion but it's not reasonable to assume the recording would show evidence then it would fail the second part.
Semi-good point. There's two conditions that need to be satisfied. The first condition is that there is reasonable suspicion that the bullies are committing, are about to commit, or have committed a violent crime. This one is undoubtedly met. The second condition is that there is reason to believe that the recording will show evidence of the crime from the first condition. This second condition is the one that causes trouble because recording a crime is not by itself sufficient to make the recording exempt. So you would need to show evidence that there was reason to believe that a crime would be captured by the recording. If, for example, the boy was bullied by members of his class but it was only done in hallways or after school with no history of it being done in the classroom then it would be difficult, I would think, to say that recording in the classroom was reasonable.
To answer your question. The transcript written by the mother. The conversation between the mother and principal. The admission by the boy.
I was mostly correcting that it was the principal and not the police officer that told the boy to delete it so I'm not sure what your question has to do with my comment. I'm no fan of corrupt policy but the person I responded to was making highly inaccurate accusations.