My Panasonic 50-something in TV is *not* a smart TV, and it's about 2 years old. I specifically shopped for a "dumb" TV. The features of smart TVs will quickly become outdated and cumbersome, and I hope to keep a TV for a good 10+ years. It was cheaper than the smart versions.
The HBO subscription is only worth it if you have a peer group that also has an HBO subscription and so it's important to watch things at the same time as them. I stopped buying DVDs about 10 years ago when renting became a lot cheaper than buying, but I've recently started again with boxed sets. Even if I only watch each episode once, it's cheaper than any of the streaming options, plus they're practically DRM free (as in, the DRM is so broken that it may as well not exist) and I can copy them to a mobile device for watching on long trips. Oh, and I get to wait until there are multiple years of something before I watch it.
I do wonder a bit what would happen to the economics of TV series production if most people did this. You'd expect a TV show to make a loss for the first few years, but then be profitable over a longer time, which is a very different model from the current mode of any profits after the first year are a nice bonus, but not factored into the accounting calculations.
The whole thing smelled of bullshit from day zero. It's much easier for the US to get someone extradited from the UK than it is for them to extradite someone from Sweden, so the whole running-to-the-embassy thing never made sense, except as a possible means to escape being tried for rape. If the US really wanted him, they'd have had the extradition process started with the UK long before Assange went to the Ecuadorian embassy.
I think the police have actually stopped guarding the Ecuadorian embassy. I'm sure there's still surveillance and they'd catch up with him pretty quick if he did attempt to leave, though.
Aaaaand what percentage of the earths surface is covered by the UK?
Speaking as an Englishman: 100% of the important parts, plus Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
1. Do you have to go out of your way and invest significant time and effort to avoid the use of these Oracle-owned libraries when you want to develop software in Java?
I'm quite happy to go out of my way to not add an extra 'use expensive commercial features' flag when I invoke the JVM.
2. Are you able to write good software without the Oracle-owned libraries? (good = robust, efficient, secure,
I'd first like to see an existence proof that robust, efficient, and secure software exists, but assuming that axiom, any Java program that works with OpenJDK (i.e. the reference Java implementation) will work without any Oracle-specific things.
Truth has always been found to promote the best interests of mankind... - Percy Bysshe Shelley