Nope. It simply renews every month (and that's a convenience, not a contract) unless you cancel. There is no contract beyond a month.

>you cant just unilaterally change a contract even with "30 days notice"

Whoosh. If the contract only lasts 30 days, you can change the terms for a future contract.

As I recall, Ohio toll highways did this years ago; if your time stamp at the booth was less than a certain number of minutes since the previous, you got a ticket for speeding.
Infallible, and took away the point really.

Sure, I guess you could speed and then pull over waiting before you cross the next gate but... Why bother?

Forget about the law. Ethically, Netflix is in the right. Someone signs up and pays for a month. They get a month of service. That continues month to month. At some point, Netflix tells them "it will cost more next month, if you don't want to pay more, you can simply cancel and not pay." There's no force or deceit. Continuing to pay and then coming back later and suing Netflix is an attempt at theft, plain and simple. The law is unethical.

Yes.
Have you heard the quality of her court discussions?
A Supreme Court justice that argues against the minutiae of 'legalese' seriously?

The primary stated goal of NASA's Artemis program for several years was to land the first woman and person of color on the moon. It was emphasized repeatedly, trumpeted, and openly stated on NASA's website for years (before it was taken down in March 2025).

While I certainly understand your attempt to strawman the point, this doesn't logically mean the woman and person of color on the crew are necessarily unqualified.

What it does suggest to anyone who isn't crying racism/sexism on a daily basis, is that given equivalent qualifications, these individuals - to fill the stated goal of the program - would have been preferentially picked over other candidates afflicted with the regrettable conditions of whiteness and/or maleness.

IF NASA would have gone so far as to pick someone to fill those gendered- and ethnically-preferred roles over someone more qualified, I can't say. (Then again, we have KBJ as Supreme Court so anything's possible.)

https://medium.com/predict/thi...

"The real reason we will never be able to "fix" the drought is because the American West is not in a drought right now.
And you can't fix something that isn't broken. ...
The West's rapid aridification isn't being caused by a "once-in-a-century" weather event like the flooding in Kentucky or the nearly constant hurricanes that pummel the Southeast each year.
It's not even the direct result of climate change (although that's definitely accelerating the process and making the effects more intense). Western states are running out of water because they are located in a desert. ...
What we're dealing with in the West is not a drought because the current lack of rainfall isn't "abnormal" for a desert. Dry is the default setting. And you can't call it a "drought" because you wish deserts were wetter.
The problem isn't the so-called drought - - it's the city planners, developers, and suburbanites who built cities in a desert with no plan to provide water beyond wishful thinking and praying for rain.
The fact that we got weirdly lucky with unseasonably wet weather for a few decades has helped us ignore the reality that the American West simply doesn't have the water to support 65 million people - - and half of the country's agriculture - - at least not at anything near our current water usage levels.
And there's really nothing we can do about it." ...
According to researcher Lynn Ingram, a professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at UC Berkeley, "The 20th century was abnormally wet and rainy." Ingram goes on to claim, "The past 150 years have been wetter than the past 2,000 years." (cf "The California drought is helping return the weather pattern to normal" https://archive.ph/0m3BI)

In other words, what we're experiencing now isn't a drought. It's a reestablishment of the norm."

OMG!!! PONIES!!1!

Immunology, presumably.

The only donor bodies that aren't going to treat the transplant as an act of war are clones or heavily immunosuppressed; and it's probably more plausible to assume that you'll be able to clone a human like a sheep than assume that you'll be making some fundamental breakthroughs in immunology to deal more elegantly with unmatched hosts.

I can see the utility of having spare organs in certain emergencies; but how much life extension would you actually get even if the sort of neurosurgery involved in removing a brain and reattaching it to a new host's spinal cord were viable? Is the theory that the assorted ghastly flavors of neurodegeneration are actually to be blamed on older organs and everything will be fine; or is this just a very expensive way to ensure that you skip the various ways peripheral organs can kill you and are assured to be the spryest patient in the dementia ward?

"By the 1970s these 'bombed to shit' countries were outcompeting American manufacturers in their own domestic market."

LOL
"I'll just prove his exact point for him!"
Thanks man!

Lol, cogent conservative responses here get modded to oblivion.
Frothing leftist flamer "Insightful"

Slashdot is so ideologically captured.

Did you think the benefit of being the 'only surviving industrial infrastructure' faded what, a week after ww2? /huh?

"We used to have super high taxes for the wealthy and corporations."

Did we?

Because what I see is a high marginal tax rate really only in the postwar years. ... And anyone who begins their economic model in the late 40s is a moron or a liar.

Remember anything important that happened, say, midcentury?
Something that may have left the US fabulously wealthy, particularly relative to all the other industrialized countries who were shattered & left in ruins by the same event?

Anyone who points to that time and stupidly says "durr, we should do it THAT way" conveniently disregards the (hopefully unique) economic environment resulting from multiple, cataclysmic, economy shattering wars and the luxuries available to those left standing thereafter.

Instead of laws, how about parents take responsibility for parenting?