The problem with 3D is the glasses - without the glasses, 3D would be a nice enhancement, much like color.
Well maybe... but if I'm watching a GoT episode do I really want to feel like I'm flipping from being 1m away from a combat scene to suddenly being 50 meters up in the air overlooking the battlefield and back down to 1m again in a matter of seconds? Just saying that maybe we want some kind of grounding that we're really watching a screen and not teleporting around.
Yeah we've seen the "no commercials" promise before when cable TV was becoming a thing and it was bullshit then too. They'll only stay away from commercials long enough to get a subscriber base. Commercials are where most of the money is and it will be hard for them to ignore that fact. I have a hard time imagining Netflix being immune to the siren's call of that much cash forever.
Is it really? Take the Superbowl which is one of the few items where we have pretty much all the numbers. In 2014 there was 49 minutes 15 seconds of commercials, $4.5 million average per 30 second slot and 111.4 million viewers. That works out to a little less than $4 per viewer. So if you offered $5 to watch it ad-free you'd be beating the advertisers. That's not bad for about four hours of entertainment with both a football game and the half time show and it's supposed to be super-expensive compared to normal ads. Granted one display != one viewer so they'd have to charge more than $5 but still I bet there's a lot of people who'd like to out-bid the advertisers.
The real reason net neutrality is on the ropes is this: the idea was barely discussed by anyone during the election, in comparison to other issues. The companies that stand to profit from net neutrality are electronic media companies, and the companies that stand to profit from its removal are electronic infrastructure companies, and both will continue their fight under the covers. There wasn't much input from the electorate on the topic at all this cycle.
Actually I think it's way more old media vs new media, here in Norway where the main broadband revolution was DSL from telcos and the fiber revolution was lead by a former power company the "electronic infrastructure companies" seem pretty happy just to sell you bits and bytes. My impression is that in the US it's different because so large a part of the American population get their broadband through cable. It seems both bandwidth caps and anti-net neutrality gouging is primarily driven by cable companies wanting to drive customers to their own services instead of using online services and remain the gatekeeper and middle man between the content and the customers.
Yes, and we already have that. There are people who die every day waiting for a transplant organ. There's a limited amount available so they must be rationed and someone (or a panel of people most likely) has to determine where the limited supply will do the most good.
That's what other western countries do. The US goes by who has the best health insurance, like how big of a bill can we justify sending...
Yes. Timing is the key to understanding it. Sanders would have defeated Trump easily. The timing of the releases were carefully placed so as to build suspicion with independants while not hurting her primary bid. Then once she clenched that, proof that it was a rigged primary sent a lot of independants away from the DNC to either Green, Libertarian, and even a number to Trump. If they had released it all in the beginning, we would be swearing in Sanders tomorrow.
Let's not forget that the DNC wanted Trump to win the Republican nomination. So first Trump let Hillary drag him center stage as the enemy, then he let her eliminate Sanders before landing a final blow nobody saw coming until late election night? If all of that was planned Machiavelli could take lessons from him. If could simply be that they know the media has the attention span of a humming bird on speed, let's just pace this out so we get a good buzz and can keep it going until the election and that the rest was plain lucky. It's either that or we're in a Bond movie.
I won't provide an example, but it is fully possible to be honest and considerate at the same time, for example, just like it is possible to express even severe anger and dissatisfaction without shouting or getting into a fight.
Language is communication, you may think you're expressing it but does the recipient comprehend it? I've met the kind of people that seem to think if you're not shouting and cursing at them, you're not really angry. It's like they just hear "blahblahblah" but if you were really angry you wouldn't be calm and collected, so evidently you're not. There's no doubt that some people not only bubble wrap it but shy away from the truth in their quest to be considerate. See the Florence Foster Jenkins movie, she could have used some honest feedback before she booked Carnegie Hall...
The dream of space exploration & colonization is that it's a stepping stone towards other worlds and a vast spread of humanity across the galaxy. Not simply a one-time deal that adds a new region of Earth for humans to live in, but at great expense & difficulty.
Earth to Mars (shortest): 56,000,000 km
Earth to nearest star after the Sun: 40,000,000,000,000 km
I think you need to make the same kind of leap as going from horse and carriage to the Saturn V to go from interplanetary to interstellar. Sure keeping people alive is an interesting challenge, but somehow I don't think generation ships that take ~70000 years is the solution. For that we need a revolution in propulsion technology that we're not going to get from Falcon Heavy, SLS or even Musk's ITS. A bit like if I wanted to lift 100kg, I could do that with exercise but none of those plans or experience really bring me closer to lifting 10000kg.
In this case, their grievance is that we exist. ISIS wants a new caliphate to control the entire Middle East and they want to pursue holy war, you can't really negotiate around either of those even if they wanted to.
I think you misspelled "the world", basically their strategy is to generate so much resentment towards Muslims (you know, 1.6 billion people - bigger than declaring war on China) that they get two new recruits for every one that's killed. The only reason it's not working is that so far we haven't taken the bait. We grieve for the dead, increase the military effort but we don't lash out in revenge. I sorta expected some militant nutters to go postal in a mosque or to burn them to the ground but apart from a lot of very vivid commentary there's been very few actual attacks on Muslims in general. If we were as short-tempered as they are like going ballistic over drawings we'd be in WW3 by now.
The only significant change to that chart would be if we could start to project increases. Unless any of them plan on becoming super-centenarians we're likely to hit zero since they're all in their 80s and I don't see any credible plans for a return...
If you regularly need to travel 2-3 hours away from home, the time loss from long mid-trip recharges is not small.
True. But unless it's their day job, how many regularly spend that much time in a car anyway? If you're working eight hours a day - low for the US, I hear - and sleep eight hours you've go no life left with that commute. On the weekend I suppose if you have close relatives or a cabin that's just in the sweet spot it could be a regular thing, but if it's two-three hours one way and you're staying can get destination charging. Or not if it's a remote cabin, but then EVs aren't for you. Don't get me wrong, I've driven much longer but those were hardly trips I'd make every week or every month. If you divide number of cars by number of miles driven it seems to me a lot of cars don't actually go very far.
A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos