Yeah, if TV was perfect I could just pay for a couple channels. But, do we need legislation to ensure I get the kind of TV package I want? This isn't a life or death situation. This isn't an inalienable human right. It's TV channels! It's one of the ultimate luxuries in the history of the world. Has tv ever really enriched anyone's life THAT MUCH?

Right now i have the option, as a consumer, to not pay for any tv channels. I exercise that option. You know what? I'm actually really happy with my decision. I get more than enough entertainment through netflix and online games. Yes. TV packages are a bad deal, but it's not like we, as consumers, don't have options.

When i think about it, subscribing to a channel isn't even what i really want. What I want is just a' la carte shows. Even with a channel you are locked into that channel's schedule. It's archaic and backwards if you ask me. Oh look, those options like netflix and hulu (and pirating) are already giving a superior option in my opinion.

Privileged kids do have advantages. There's no doubt about it. I think examples abound of people succeeding in spite of adversity though.

I use a delivery service. At first i was leary of getting the produce. My original plan was to just use it to stock up on canned and dry goods and get my own produce.

Still i ordered a couple peppers here and there. It turns out it isn't any worse than what i would pick myself. Now we routinely just have everything delivered. I hypothesize that delivery services are motivated to bring good produce because they know that's what everyone is going to complain about when they don't.

I suspect that the studio loses nothing by simply offering an unlimited viewing version for the pay per view price.

But i still question the validity of pay per view models. They still work around this broken assumption that someone watching something is actually worth $X and if the person didn't pay to watch it, the company is out $X. Once someone has watched a movie once, they already know what happens, they already used up the bandwidth to download it. They really aren't impacting to provider of the movie any more by watching it again. I doubt most people even will watch the movie more than once. I'd think the case where someone downloads a movie and watches it over and over and over is such an insignificant number of people it can't possibly affect the studio's bottom line. Presumably the pay per view model is in place to combat this guy, but really, does that consumer pay multiple times for the same movie? probably not. under either model, the studio gets one sale. they might as well just let the guy have the movie for a small fee in the first place.

The other scenario it's supposed to combat is the consumer that uploads the movie to some file sharing site. As has been pointed out many times in the past, the pirates who are going to illegally download movies are already doing so. DRM or not, they are available already. The best way for the studios to combat this is simply make their content available in a way that is more attractive to the consumer than going to a file sharing site.

for a WHOLE 4 YEARS!? amazing!

Is glass some magic system that comes preloaded with everything you need? I doubt it. If you didn't have the foresight to preload a hebrew translator on your phone (and there are translators that work from the camera stream) when you were going to israel, why would glass have it? Actually, its my understanding that glass itself does next to nothing. It's really just a novel display and input mechanism for your smartphone. You probably still have to dig out your phone and download the right app from time to time even with glass.

my understanding of this (from other videos) is google will publish the specs on how to make glass friendly frames. Then it's up to the eyeglasses designers to use those specs to make frames that are compatible with glass. Then, it's up to me to buy a set of those frames if i want to use glass with my current eyeglasses. (and then maybe google gets some kickback or licensing fee???)

It sounds like kind of a hassle to me. But, I buy new eyeglass frames every few years. At this point i don't think i would consider glass compatible frames, but if it was somehow cool, eh, maybe?

But now that this is out, people looking for jobs are all going to switch to firefox and chrome. They probably still won't have whatever quality makes them good at the job, but they will have lived up to the expectations of the HR algorithm.

I don't see it as intellectually dishonest. What Orth said is probably EXACTLY what the company thinks when consumers complain about it. They pushed him out because he was too honest.

What do you think is going to happen now? The internet connection requirement is going to vanish from xbox? that Orth was somehow the evil genius behind it all? Now that he's gone the rest of microsoft will start singing ding dong the witch is dead and only do what is in our best interest? No. it's still there. They are still pushing for it. It's just that they are going to work harder on making you think it's there because you want it.

We honestly should hold the guy [Orth] up as an idol. he was accurately communicating what the company thinks of it's consumers and allowing us to see through the fog of marketing and make informed purchasing choices.

That sounds suspiciously like the argument, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.", that is brought up to support all kinds of big brotherish laws.

We have had a perfectly good system to measure how well people are learning material. It's called a test. You pass it, you know the material. what difference does it matter if the person is good at highlighting? maybe I happen to already know the material but have to take the course because there's no mechanism to allow me to test out of it. Now i have to spend hours reading it even though i'll ace the tests?

FTFY

This is a worthless statistic. Maybe they assests were all bloated and inefficient and the movie took way longer to render than it should have. Maybe they were incredibly efficient and every texture and model was optimized and the movie actually took half as long to render as it would have for anyone else. Maybe the hardware was a couple of pentiums in a warm basement in southern california.

At any rate, the time it takes to render a movie is about as interesting as the average histogram from all the frames.

I'm holding out for 3d printed records.

Well, it seems like a waste of computing power to use it to find those things. I mean, we already know where the sun is. We already know where it's windy.