A few years ago the American Chemical Society raised their prices 200% and promised yearly 15% after that... Several other journals have raised their prices by 30-35% this year. Increases like that are depressingly common.
I'm just pointing out that it's a fairly arbitrary assumption and other assumptions are equally valid - everything from the only thing he would need a TV for is GoT, so the cost is huge, or he would actually want to watch Breaking Bad, CSI, whatever else is on, so the GoT cost is low.
But it seems unlikely in the extreme that there are any significant number of people who are very interested in watching GoT and have no device capable of playing video. With no TV, no smartphone, no tablet, and no computer, how would you even get interested in the show to begin with? So there's no point in including that cost. On the other hand, there are clearly people whose only interest in broadcast TV is GoT.
I don't see any reason to say "Imagine the connections that can be made to Columbine" if he wasn't trying to say that Columbine had something to do with bullying. If the connection between Columbine and this situation being discussed isn't bullying, then what is it?
If you're willing to assume that the hypothetical person doesn't want to watch anything else on HBO, why not also assume that they don't want to watch anything else? A good TV could set you back $1,000 (?) so that's an extra $100 per episode.
No, that's an extra $1000. It's a fixed cost, so assigning it to episodes of GoT A) is problematic and B) depends on how many episodes there end up being, so is currently impossible.
Seriously, why the general shift from 24-26 down to 12-13 episodes per season?
Money. More specifically than that I'm not sure, but I guarantee it's about money. Possibly risk - the studios don't want to commit to 26 episodes only to "have to" cancel it midway through the season for poor ratings. With only a 13 episode season, they're investing less, so have less downside risk. And if it goes well, then they can renew for another season, so the only upside they're risking is losing viewers between seasons. And we've seen that the movie and TV studios are not into taking risks lately.
Any wonder they they started shooting schools up? Imagine the connections that can be made to Columbine for instance. Everyone recognizes bullying without much effort. But if a bullied person gets no justice... we risk them snapping in the worst possible ways.
Perhaps he was hoping to trick people into thinking he was telling the NSA to reveal flaws. And it even worked for a while.
'Amusingly, the NY Times initially had a title on its story saying that President Obama had decided that the NSA should "reveal, not exploit, internet security flaws," but the title then changed to the much more accurate: "Obama Lets N.S.A. Exploit Some Internet Flaws, Officials Say." '
Presumably there are still people who believe the original headline.
Actually, knowing about a critical security vulnerability which 'enemies' can take advantage of, and which affects everything the united states government has online, is giving aid and comfort of enemies.
If nobody has ever been convicted of or even charged with treason for doing that, then that claim sounds speculative.
You are on a really slippery slope if you think the NSA is not a rogue agency, just like the CIA.
He specifically said the NSA is doing bad things, just not treason.