Luckily, if you play music, they'll calm down and just follow you along.
Luckily, if you play music, they'll calm down and just follow you along.
I have a lightning bolt prompt.
You're a Tech Wizard, Harry!
That would still be a long list. Might be easier to just list the things he told the truth about. It'd save time.
I actively laughed when Blockbuster tried to launch the DIVX discs - "DVD-like" discs that you'd rent but would never have to return because they'd time out. This was, at least in part, a response from an upcoming service called Netflix which let you rent/return discs by mail and thus didn't have to drive to the store. Of course, you needed special DIVX players to play Blockbuster's DIVX discs and nobody owned those (but you could buy them from partner Circuit City). It flopped hard since people didn't want to pay more just to make more waste on a format even more proprietary than DVD.
Then Blockbuster had a chance to buy out Netflix in 2000 for $50 million. Blockbuster declined the offer. Two years later, Netflix IPOed, selling 5.5 million shares for $15 a share.
The only tears I shed for Blockbuster came from laughing so hard at them.
Hollywood tried to strike Netflix down, but it became more powerful than they could have ever imagined.
You're joking, but I've often said that Netflix is Hollywood's best tool against piracy. Say you were thinking of pirating BIG BLOCKBUSTER MOVIE. If it was on Netflix, what would be the likelihood that you'd pirate versus just streaming? Now, I'm sure some would pirate anyway, but many people would watch it 100% legally via Netflix versus pirating. If Hollywood would realize this and cooperate WITH Netflix, they could both profit. Instead, they brand Netflix as the enemy in one breath and in the other rail about how bad piracy is.
Sure you can have discussions that not all the content that you want is on Netflix.
And often the blame for that rests on the content owners who don't want their shows/movies on Netflix lest they "hurt DVD sales."
I've run into this before as well with Walmart. We don't buy from there often, but this one time something we needed showed on their website. When we got into the store, though, it was more. We could select "pick up at store" and get it an hour later at the online price or they would match another store's price, but they wouldn't match their own online price. The customer service lady at the store empathized with us. She had hit into this often herself. Unfortunately, corporate runs the web site and the physical stores as if they are separate companies and refuses to allow honoring or matching online prices in the store. My guess is B&N does the same thing. Idiotic from a customer perspective, but I guess some MBA thinks that this is genius.
do you know how many TV appliances like AppleTV existed? Just AppleTV. That was it; there was no Roku, there was not Amazon Stick. There was no Chromecast.
In fact, Roku began life as a Netflix streaming box idea that a group within Netflix had. Netflix eventually decided not to pursue the project and it was spun off as a separate company, albeit one with Netflix as the primary application draw. IIRC, early on Roku was boasting that they'd have 10 channels by the end of the year. They hit that number and then rocketed up in popularity soon after.
Daredevil's first season (haven't seen the second season yet) was a perfect example of this. Each episode moved the story line forward without any real "filler episodes." When the previous episode left off at a point, there was a really good chance that the next episode would pick up right there, No, they might not have as many episodes as a "regular TV" show would, but they also don't need to rely on the Bad Guy Of The Week formula to distract viewers from the fact that the main story line hasn't progressed in three episodes.
On the other hand, this is where having all of the episodes of a season can be handy. When Agents of SHIELD first came on the air, I watched the first episode and liked it, but missed the next three episodes for some reason. At the time, I didn't have any (legal) streaming options for this show, so I just didn't watch it. Luckily, the entire season came on Netflix so I could binge it, but not before Season 2 started. Back then, I set my DVR to record the Season 2 episodes so I could catch up. Nowadays, since I cut cable, I'd just watch the previous episodes on Hulu (assuming I caught them before Hulu removed them).
Don't forget that the unemployment rate is 42%. During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate peaked at 25%. If it was actually 40% now, they would be rioting in the streets.
Energy and the rules about creation of new energy are contained with the Universe. We have no clue how this would function outside of the Universe. Maybe there's an infinite supply of energy there - more than enough to spawn billions of Universes. Maybe the normal rules of physics don't apply (quite likely, actually) and creating a Universe winds up kicking off a process that spawns two more Universes. I'm not sure how testable any of this is - that's a question for physicists - but you certainly can't discount a multiverse because it would use up all the energy in the Universe.
As an American Jew, I see the efforts to give religion a stronger role in the USA's government and it frightens me. First of all, the religion that's pushed is always Christianity so I'd become a second class citizen unless I decided to worship Christ. Not that I'd support it if Judaism was the "official religion", mind you, because of my second point which is that I've seen where "Religion And State Are Mixed" ends up and it's never good. Historically speaking, we Americans fled from such a system. (The King of England ran the Church of England and you basically needed to be a member of that church to participate in government.) The Founding Fathers wisely saw the problems with this and wanted a Separation of Church and State. They didn't want religion mucking in government or vice versa. Which brings me to the third point. Anyone who wants to mix religion and government is foolish because it goes both ways. Do you really want the GOVERNMENT having a say in how you worship? Or telling you what your clergy must do to be Official Government Church Clergy? Or how your holidays are celebrated? I would think that the same people who want government out of their lives in other aspects would be frightened about having the government dictate their religious practices. Of course, looping back to my first point, when people in favor of this picture "church and state mixed", they picture THEIR form of religion running the show. Replace their religion with someone else's, though, and suddenly they're opposed to this horrible government overreach. As long as they get to impose their will on others, it's fine but they won't stand for anyone else doing the same to them.
You bolded the first part, but the second part is important too:
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
This means that, even if Obama did have Trump wiretapped, it was likely due to connections to a foreign power (likely Russia). So "Obama wiretapped me" is another way of saying "I was communicating with Russia."
Of course, all of these allegations are built literally from Conspiracy ramblings. Trump got his information from Breitbart who got their information from Mark Levin, a conspiracy theorist who thinks Obama's heading a silent coup. (Yes, he's so insidious that he turned over power to Trump while moving his coup forward.) We have a President who - with access to the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc - decides that a right-wing conspiracy theorist is his best source.
And just to add to the head-shakingly-sad nature of this, some Republicans in Congress want to open investigations on Obama based solely off of Trump's tweets (with Trump's staff specifically saying he doesn't need to provide any evidence that this is true). Yet, with all of the Russia connections coming out, they are dragging their feet as to whether a Trump-Russia investigation is needed. Party before Country!
Time is an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturers of space.