"So this seems to me like using a disingenuous, pseudo-mathematical argument to justify the belief that ignoring consumers is something that could be good for Netflix long-term."
It's not disingenuous. The whole "the customer is always right" motto is largely a farce. The customer isn't always right and sometimes it's cheaper in the long run to say good bye to that customer versus doing everything possible to keep them.
Netflix could choose to ignore VPNs but then the content owners may decide to not sell Netflix their content because of 'piracy'. Not securing a show may have a larger impact on the bottom line and customer satisfaction then blocking VPNs.
You argue against a pseudo-mathematical argument, but your second paragraph is nothing but pseudo-mathematical argument.
Except that he wasn't charged with hacking the site. He was charged with sharing his login credentials. That's like me giving you a key to the apartment I just vacated and you used the key to get into that apartment and trash the place.
Re: 'Would you like some lemon juice and salt for that paper cut?'
Yup, nothing like seeing five Sportnets channels listing "NHL Hockey" and then seeing that the game has been blacked out and replaced with the scores of that night's hockey games. I was under the impression that the blockbuster deal Rogers signed with the NHL was supposed to eliminate blackouts. Oh well, there are other sources to watch NHL games.
By real democracy, do you mean the one where only a free adult male property owner could vote? The founding fathers had some good ideas, but it's stretching the truth to say they were trying to live in a real democracy.
"These trademarks and copyrights may not be used for any commercial or promotional purpose whatsoever without prior written permission from Burning Man."
Too bad for On Fire Male, that's not how trademark or copyright law works. Coke and Pepsi consistently use their competitors trademarks in their ads. And the ad is clearly mocking Burning Man, which means fair use comes into play.
Except that Karl doesn't uses a quote from the FCC. He uses a quote from the school's statement that the EMF analysis experts the school brought in noted that "RFE emissions on campus ‘were substantially less than one ten-thousandth (1/10,000th) of the applicable (FCC) safety limits.
So FCC sets a limit. Experts analyze school and find that RFE emissions are 1/10,000 of the FCC safety limit. That's hardly saying the FCC are gods.
It's not the "radition" from CFLs that is causing headaches. It's the number of cycles and modern CFLs don't have that problem.
But, yes, lets talk about anti-science confirmation bias.