This would be defensible if most fiction was good, but it's not. Way too much of it is stupid and predictable. It could do with a good injection of the sorts of uncertainties and unpredictability real life holds.
Or, you know, a typo. If you want to rail against 'could care less'ers, why not go find an actual example?
What the hell? There are a hell of a lot of vegetarians that don't eat meat for ethical reasons! There are also a lot of meat-eaters, like me, who have a sense of unease about eating animals but can stop because they are so delicious.
Wow, that's some ugly syntax for a modern programming language.
Okay, but seriously, you should be backed up - relying on warning from your HDD is appalling stupid if you've got stuff you really need to keep. Weekly disk image? What is this, 2002? Seriously, good hourly incremental backups are really easy now, there's no excuse for this kind of cobbled together dodgy shit.
You've missed the edict, Google is the enemy now. Larry Page is Satan.
So Stalin just sat there and let this go on? I mean, apart from the fact that it was stupid, cruel and absurd, it also must have been pretty boring. The more you read about him, however, the more you realise he enjoyed the absurdity of the whole thing. He really was quite terrifying.
People of all ages watch all sorts of shows, and indeed Downton Abbey is so popular that people of all ages must be watching it. No, I was responding to the comment "young enough that I feel peer pressure to watch Downton Abbey", which suggested that Downton Abbey's audience was skewed younger, whereas I think in the UK it would be skewed older. And just to answer your specific point, let's call 40 the midpoint.
You said that you are "young enough that I feel peer pressure to watch Downton Abbey" - which I found odd, given that although it's a very popular show in the UK, being young would not increase the peer pressure to watch it.
This is hilarious, Downton Abbey was clearly aimed at the older demographic in the UK, and is, in fact, largely watched by them. As most period dramas are. Are you guys saying that it's a young person's show in the US?
I agree with this, sites set their subscriptions way too high. I think something like Flattr, attached to something everyone already had money in (Paypal? iTunes? Google something? Amazon? Facebook credits?) might work on an okay scale.
Mod parent up!
I think this is also the reason it's pretty cheap - it's easy to see exactly how much money campaigns directly generate, which is very small amounts per impression. These metrics don't take in to account brand-recognition, so I suspect online advertising is an undervalued business.
You again. So you oppose the creation of a system that would allow people you want to pay for content do that, while keeping it freely available for those who don't? You're loopy.
Why are you so angry at what would be a voluntary system that might be beneficial for both parties? It's very strange. Since it wouldn't affect you in any way, what the fuck is your problem?
You obviously haven't heard - nobody uses desktops any more, we're all using our phones, tablets, smartwatches and cyborg glasses now. 90% of nothin' is nothin'.