We need whistleblowers to protect us.
We need whistleblowers to protect us.
One thing I found is if I randomly stumble on Silverado, I'll pull it out and watch it. But I have to find it randomly on TV before I want to watch it.
Many younger individuals can't seem to get the concept that paying over and over for "borrowing" something is a bad deal.
We're talking about movies here, not music. I don't know about you, but there aren't very many movies I really care to watch over and over again. This is the whole reason that video rental stores (like the ill-fated Blockbuster) were such a success as soon as VCRs became commonplace; most of us just want to pay a fee and watch a movie *once*, and that's it. Once in a while we'll see a movie that's so great we might want to watch it multiple times (like Aliens from 1986), but that's rare, and even there it's not like I want to watch it that often.
Music is entirely different, and I agree with you on that: I really don't understand the current phenomenon where so many people want to pay for streaming music access, and my best guess is that it's mostly people who don't care that much about music and just want some crappy filler playing in the background all the time. Personally I have very specific music I want to listen to, so I keep it in Ogg form on all my devices (phone, laptop, car) and play from my library constantly. But I listen to music a fair amount: pretty much any time I'm in the car, for instance, plus frequently when I'm using my computer at home, plus frequently when I'm at work (with headphones). I don't watch movies that often, and it just isn't very often that I re-watch a movie.
Oh, and what if you wish to watch something that's older than last year? (Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow, Pacific Rim) or even within the last year (Star Wars 7) These are all available to me, to watch any time.
Right, and how much did all those cost you? How many dozens of movies do you have to make a decent collection so you aren't watching the same 3 movies over and over? The total cost there is significant. With Netflix, you pay a cheap monthly fee (less than $10) and can watch all you want at any time, out of a truly enormous catalog. If you really like a particular movie a lot and want the higher quality (and lack of worries about problems with access) that a physical disc offers, you can certainly buy that too; it's not either-or.
Exactly. Download it on BT, and now you have a reasonable-size file that you can just play in any decent media player at your convenience. No messing around with stupid easily-scratched optical discs, no messing around with your Blu-Ray player needing a firmware update because of some encryption keys on the disc, no messing around with slow internet connections and streaming problems (esp. with FF/REW), it "just works". The main problem with the BT stuff is that a lot of it is transcoded to smaller resolutions or bitrates to save space, so it won't have the ultimate quality of a true Blu-Ray. But it's still a lot better than DVD quality usually, thanks to much more modern codecs. The h265 stuff is great.
There is only value to ownership when you are going to reuse the item.
Otherwise, you are just prepping yourself to be on the next season of "Hoarders".
I stopped buying DVD's when I found I was rewatching less than 1% of what I bought.
As I get older, I rewatch less.
There is a glut of entertainment right now. I can spend 20 hours a week on Youtube (Lindybeige, Primitive Technology, official Music Videos, Stunning things like 10,000 japanese singing "Ode to Joy" in german, the Young Turks) and not even scratch the surface.
No, that's not an open question at all. Sanders would have won, easily.
Hillary wasn't that far behind Trump, she won the popular vote, but she screwed up (among other ways) by not campaigning in key states like PA that the DNC thought were "safe". Bernie was always much better about campaigning in places like that. Hillary's campaign was totally full of hubris; they really thought they couldn't possibly lose, especially to Trump. Her campaign was also full of condescension, esp. to the Bernie voters, and of course to anyone on the right. A lot of Trump voters were just sick of mainstream, incumbent politicians and voted for him out of spite for that and her. Many would have actually voted for Bernie. Bernie brought a lot of enthusiasm from the under-30 crowd. Obama himself won largely because he got young people to get out and vote. Hillary didn't: young people didn't like her, and her campaign didn't care much to court them either. It didn't help that she and her followers specifically told the Bernie crowd that "we don't need you". It also didn't help that she and the DNC were seen by the Bernie voters as having knifed his campaign in the back with dirty tricks, as shown in the leaked Podesta emails.
Hillary lost an election to the 2nd-most unpopular candidate in history. That's because she was the most unpopular candidate ever. There's really no way Bernie could have done worse. People actually *liked* Bernie, he had the support of the youth, and he wasn't hamstruck by scandal after scandal. The only arguments against Bernie were from Hillary supporters inventing nonsense to try to back their queen (like, "the Republicans would have found dirt on him too!" Except that they didn't.).
Just look at the election numbers. There were millions more votes in the 2008 election than in November's, even though the population is a little bigger now. Lots of people simply sat at home. Obama was famous and acknowledged for getting a lot of people out to vote, particularly younger people who are infamous for not turning out to vote; Bernie had the same effect, but Hillary had the opposite effect. Assume that Bernie would get those several million people out to vote unlike Hillary, add in all of Hillary's voters (because they sure as hell aren't going to vote for Trump, and they're generally older so they're more reliable about both turning out and voting along party lines even if they aren't enthused about the candidate), plus definitely more swing voters since he didn't have Hillary's baggage, and it's quite clear that Bernie would have won.
It's just too bad the DNC and their lapdogs in the media will never admit to itself that this is the case, and Trump being president is really all their fault for doing everything they could to keep Bernie from winning their nomination. (Remember the day when Washington Post published almost 20 hit pieces on Bernie in a single day?)
Someday long before Netflix was even started (Blockbuster was still big), I realized I was spending $60 a week on DVDs which i would watch once and then go onto the shelves.
For a while, I would wait until they dropped to 5 bucks and buy them then.
I stopped buying that day and have bought 3 DVD's since (one of which- Inception- I thought I would watch a lot but actually I watched it twice).
Netflix didn't stop me from buying DVD's.
I really hate the pricing model for DVD's. As I get older, I rewatch and reread less and less content.
Let's not forget the effect of helicobacter pylori bacteria on ulcers, they are in general held to be the main cause these days.
I have another theory about the beneficial effect of aspirin, caffine, etc. We evolved with them. Our diet was rich in salycilates and chemicals similar to theobromine or caffine. They came from the plants we ate, some of which were mildly toxic and which we evolved to process to the point that we became dependent on some of their effects. There are a lot of things in the primitive diet that modern people don't eat much at all, like acorns which had to be soaked to remove alkalai and tannin.
If this is the case, taking aspirin and drinking coffee or tea replace substances found in a more primitive diet.
But Clinton! Drink!
"To IBM, 'open' means there is a modicum of interoperability among some of their equipment." -- Harv Masterson