I think all big content succeeded in squeezing Netflix is driving more people to piracy. Blockbuster is trying to make hay on pissed off customers, but how long can they operate at a loss to keep them (there is a reason they went to Netflix). The perpetual fail of the USPS (who keeps kicking around the novel idea of working less to save money) should be another concern for Netflix, due to the number of streaming luddites.
RE: Losing Starz, I think the biggest hit is to fans of Sparticus, as their movie selection never impressed me. Guess where fans of that show will go...
I don't finish about 70% of the movies I start because they stink. Streaming allows you to sample a wider variety of content with lower risk (in this case the risk of losing your time, which in the case of a subscription mailed DVD, adds up quickly).
Budget does not equal competence. Otherwise, every Government service would be unparalleled, and we'd all be driving a GM, that is, when not enjoying our incredible public transportation services.
If people running red lights are so deadly or so frequent, then why do we need to set up robots to monitor intersections? Have you ever been stuck at an intersection for 3 minutes where no one is moving because of a poorly programmed light? Plain and simple law enforcement needs to do their job, not some automated ticket spambot. Who gets harmed when the frustrated driver decides to turn on Red at an empty 5 way intersection after sitting 2 minutes watching the lights go through it's sequence optimized for 9AM traffic? If a law is stupid and not based in the real world, it SHOULD be broken.
"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"-MLK
(and yes, a stupid disguised toll that protects no one, and encourages more reckless driving on a yellow light, is an unjust law)
Scientific American has been losing more and more credibility over the years (I think Scientific Political Agenda would be a better title). I do enjoy their coverage of evolution and psychology, but they show extreme bias and slanted opinions on just about any topic that can be politically biased. On other topics I tend to follow their sources and read what I can on those since I have little or no trust in their journalistic integrity (which in their defense is generally par for the course in the US media)
Michael Crichton touched on this messy issue in his last (while alive) novel Next, and really makes the reader see all the angles. I think DNA patents shouldn't exist at all regardless of the species, genus, etc., because no one outside of a major deity can take credit for evolution or the miracle of life (cater to your personal beliefs). Regarding particular breeds of plants, animals, etc, I do think there should some set of incentives to keep master breeders from getting years of trial and error and hard work motivated.
However, I don't think DNA should be collected and used from humans without consent either (it gets done in incredibly sneaky and underhanded ways). A key example: CIA hosting fake vaccination drives to steal Pakistani DNA in the hunt for Bin Laden. Ends did not justify the means. Furthermore, an individual shouldn't find out that some of their genes got patented by a biotech firm they had never heard of, let alone gave permission to take DNA.
This is a hugely messy issue, with no easy answers. I highly recommend Crichton's book (and be sure to read the epilogue, the guy was a decade ahead of society on this one).
"The Planet Money podcast discusses how these regulators need lobbyists to actually understand what they're regulating."
Disagree, Most Regulators are/were lobbyists (the FDA being a shining example). If a regulator can't keep up to speed with the issues then we have no business regulating that area. Our current system of regulation simply protects the interest of campaign contributors.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Tallbonez.
This explains so much...
Extorting old ladies and stealing their computers should have been the original tip off
Not every but...
most arguments in the media and on the internet are. Having not seen the original argument and it's rhetorical value, he could very well be accurate.
Golden Goose
I think all big content succeeded in squeezing Netflix is driving more people to piracy. Blockbuster is trying to make hay on pissed off customers, but how long can they operate at a loss to keep them (there is a reason they went to Netflix). The perpetual fail of the USPS (who keeps kicking around the novel idea of working less to save money) should be another concern for Netflix, due to the number of streaming luddites.
RE: Losing Starz, I think the biggest hit is to fans of Sparticus, as their movie selection never impressed me. Guess where fans of that show will go...
No CLIPS for YOU!
It would seriously hamper their ability to steer polls and the primaries if people actually saw what went down.
No CLIPS for YOU!
It would seriously hamper their ability to steer polls and the primaries if people actually saw what went down.
Change
Because Nixon 2.0 is indeed a change.
Plastic Disc? No Thanks
I don't finish about 70% of the movies I start because they stink. Streaming allows you to sample a wider variety of content with lower risk (in this case the risk of losing your time, which in the case of a subscription mailed DVD, adds up quickly).
Can't throw $ at problems
Budget does not equal competence. Otherwise, every Government service would be unparalleled, and we'd all be driving a GM, that is, when not enjoying our incredible public transportation services.
Camera issue
If people running red lights are so deadly or so frequent, then why do we need to set up robots to monitor intersections? Have you ever been stuck at an intersection for 3 minutes where no one is moving because of a poorly programmed light? Plain and simple law enforcement needs to do their job, not some automated ticket spambot. Who gets harmed when the frustrated driver decides to turn on Red at an empty 5 way intersection after sitting 2 minutes watching the lights go through it's sequence optimized for 9AM traffic? If a law is stupid and not based in the real world, it SHOULD be broken.
"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"-MLK
(and yes, a stupid disguised toll that protects no one, and encourages more reckless driving on a yellow light, is an unjust law)
Scientific American
Scientific American has been losing more and more credibility over the years (I think Scientific Political Agenda would be a better title). I do enjoy their coverage of evolution and psychology, but they show extreme bias and slanted opinions on just about any topic that can be politically biased. On other topics I tend to follow their sources and read what I can on those since I have little or no trust in their journalistic integrity (which in their defense is generally par for the course in the US media)
Mixed Feelings
Michael Crichton touched on this messy issue in his last (while alive) novel Next, and really makes the reader see all the angles. I think DNA patents shouldn't exist at all regardless of the species, genus, etc., because no one outside of a major deity can take credit for evolution or the miracle of life (cater to your personal beliefs). Regarding particular breeds of plants, animals, etc, I do think there should some set of incentives to keep master breeders from getting years of trial and error and hard work motivated.
However, I don't think DNA should be collected and used from humans without consent either (it gets done in incredibly sneaky and underhanded ways). A key example: CIA hosting fake vaccination drives to steal Pakistani DNA in the hunt for Bin Laden. Ends did not justify the means. Furthermore, an individual shouldn't find out that some of their genes got patented by a biotech firm they had never heard of, let alone gave permission to take DNA.
This is a hugely messy issue, with no easy answers. I highly recommend Crichton's book (and be sure to read the epilogue, the guy was a decade ahead of society on this one).
These Chicks Don't Even Know the Name of My Band
That's actually exactly why my hip hop group went with the name Streisand FX
These Chicks Don't Even Know the Name of My Band
That's actually exactly why my hip hop group went with the name Streisand FX
Regulators need lobbyists?
"The Planet Money podcast discusses how these regulators need lobbyists to actually understand what they're regulating."
Disagree, Most Regulators are/were lobbyists (the FDA being a shining example). If a regulator can't keep up to speed with the issues then we have no business regulating that area. Our current system of regulation simply protects the interest of campaign contributors.