Awhhh! Poor rich people are being picked on! Look, how they suffer!

The rich people are the ones benefiting most from our society and reaping the most rewards. It is fair that they proportionally contribute the most to maintaining that society.

More like the person who wrote it doesn't know what it means.

Streaming on demand a drama for 100 minutes onto a TV.

Streaming on demand a drama for 40 x 6 minutes onto a TV.

What difference is there, other than the length and that one is called a "movie" and the other a "box-set" ?

The distinction between a TV show and a film is vanishing. They use the same technology. The same actors. The same costs.

My god! You're right! We must cut down all trees within a mile of anyone! Otherwise they'll only get burned down!

We also need to have some kind of method of restraining domestic animals. Something that fences them in, or maybe out. Come on, if we put our heads together I'm sure we could invent something to do this.

Good job our superior western intelligence has realised these things, and we don't follow these foolish Chinese in their futile efforts.

But only if you continue to not hold your head underwater. Go back to holding your head underwater and the drowning returns!

You've researched this? What was your sample size?

Oh, silly me. You haven't. You're just stating your preference and giving it legitimacy by making up facts.

Like everything else, the consumer will do a cost\benefit analysis. If they believe that they are getting something beneficial from accepting the ads that exceeds the annoyance of having them, then they will accept them.

Off the top of my head I can only think of one benefit; a reduced price for the TV, but no doubt they're trying to come up with others.

Personally, it would have to be a massive reduction in price before I'd consider the cost outweighed. But others may have tighter budgets and greater tolerance for adverts.

I also would expect a thriving industry of ad-disabling devices, allowing you to remove the adverts facility after purchasing the TV.

So obviously the technology didn't work out. Maybe there's a story behind that? Maybe it might make for a good plot line?

Hmm. Maybe there's a story behind that?

MIND BLOWN! A girl with a boy's name!? It's madness! This is just pushing credulity beyond all known limits! Maybe there's a story behind it?

Basically you're complaining that the show has stuff in it that you don't already know about. Do you not think it might be a bit boring if it was just a history lesson on pre-Kirk stuff you already knew?

Unless future events will occur by randomly shuffling events of the past to make news, I'm not clear what this experiment demonstrates that's useful.

That's not how taxes work. You don't individually get to pick a choose what you want your taxes spent on, based on what you believe you personally and directly benefit from.

The NHS benefits the entire country as a whole. All those doctors and nurses in private healthcare, who do you think trained them? Every other person who you work with, provides your services, makes up the rest of the society you're living in, who do you think is keeping them healthy?

This is the correct answer. Facebook sees you in the same location, (by network or GPS association) and therefore decides you might want to be friends.

This wonderful piece of logic is exactly what you need to become better acquainted with that creepy guy who always seems to be hanging around your gym. Or the work colleague that you tolerate but certainly don't want to socialise with. Or your annoying neighbour. Or your stalker.

If anyone is interesting in actually reading what Microsoft says about this, they'll see it is an entirely optional addition that the user has to turn on and agree to.

If you don't want Cortana reading your Skype messages, then don't switch the option to tell Cortana to read your Skype messages. What's difficult to understand about that?

This is the key thing that is getting glossed over. Yes, they know there's a child. But that's correlated with everything else bought. So know they know what age the child is, what prescription drugs are purchase by the household, what conditions the child may inherit, what the household's diet is like, what drinking habits are like, what life expectancy the child might have based on this. What is the likely academic achievement of the child based on the neighbourhood and the household income spent in store. How that compares to the child's peers in the school they are very likely to attend. What health insurance may cost the child in future.

Still happy with the store to be that familiar with the child's diapers?

Indeed. It's funny to see so many people here thinking that the US has some sort of claim on IBM, they're betraying the home country, and somehow Indian employees are worth less than Americans.

IBM is a multinational. It sells to whatever country is interested and it'll hire employees where-ever suits it.

It doesn't take a "smart" analysis to see the basic error in your figures and draw conclusions.