Don't take this post wrong, I really, really like netflix. It has saved me tons in the amount I was spending on DVD rentals from the local video store. And when streaming came to the Wii & PS3, I was very excited and happy.
But I do have some gripes. Things they could fix that would improve the service and make it so much better without that much effort.
1) Parental Controls. This is a major gripe on my part. Their controls totally suck. There are videos that are Not Rated and UnRated. Any videos in these categories are only playable if you have the parental control set to "everything". I prefer to have my parental controls set to PG-13, which removes all of the rated R stuff from my browsing selection. But it also removes all NR and UR, many of which are children's TV shows. I would also like the ability to set the parental controls for each activated device, so that I don't have to worry about my kindergartner picking up the Wii remote and selecting a mature video after he's finished watching Caillou. Even better would be to allow selecting a profile when you log on, with each profile able to have their own instant queue.
2) I think there is something seriously wrong with the NetFlix channel. When it first came out, I noticed I was getting several disconnections from Netflix. No problem, I'd just stick in the Disc and use the version off there and I didn't see anymore disconnects. But now that version has been disabled by Netflix, so I have no choice, I have to use the downloadable channel. Since these disconnects break the middle of the movie and the only way to get it to reconnect has been to exit the channel and relaunch it, only to have it happen again. Very frustrating.
3) PS3/Wii search is very limited. You cannot go beyond one page of search results. Which is a problem when there are more than one page full of shows that all start with the same name (like Mystery Science Theater). It's a nice feature that was added, and long overdue. Now go back and do it the right way.
4) Could really use the subtitles.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Earmarks
Congressional leaders like Harry Reid don't want to lose their earmarks. "It's less than 2% of the budget" they exclaim. "It's only symbolic".
2010, there was 2.38 trillion in revenue, 2.184 mandatory +1.368 discretionary = 3.552 trillion in expenditures. We have to cut the budget to 67% of the existing budget to balance it, or increase revenues to 150% of their existing amounts, and that's assuming a budget freeze at the existing levels.
Right. It's only symbolic. So if they can't even cut a measly 2% out of the budget, how in the world are they going to be able to cut 33% of the budget just to make it balance?
But earmarks are an important part of the congressional process. They can get senators/congressmen to support bills by adding the congressmen's earmarks into it, and those earmarks help get the congressmen reelected.
That's the gist of what the earmark defenders are saying. To this I say that I have another word for it -- bribery. There are so many things wrong with that process. First of all, if the bill isn't good enough to support, figure out a way to make it better -- not by adding earmarks, but actually making it a better bill that more congressmen can support. Those politicians are there to represent all of us, to do what's best for ALL americans, not just the ones in their own states, or more specifically, the ones that donated enough money to the congressmen to get them elected and are now being paid back by the earmarks. Second, if they didn't have earmarks, then the congressmen wouldn't hold out on supporting a bill they'd otherwise support just so they can get their earmarks into it. Third, those earmarks are specifically to make the congressmen look good so they can get reelected -- why are we allowing them to fund their campaigns with tax dollar money? Sure, it's very indirect, but it's still what is happening. Just because you're used to using earmarks to help get a bill through the senate, Harry Reid, doesn't mean you should CONTINUE to do it. It's a bad process, get rid of it.
All the more reason we need to limit all the terms, but I've already blogged about that.
2010, there was 2.38 trillion in revenue, 2.184 mandatory +1.368 discretionary = 3.552 trillion in expenditures. We have to cut the budget to 67% of the existing budget to balance it, or increase revenues to 150% of their existing amounts, and that's assuming a budget freeze at the existing levels.
Right. It's only symbolic. So if they can't even cut a measly 2% out of the budget, how in the world are they going to be able to cut 33% of the budget just to make it balance?
But earmarks are an important part of the congressional process. They can get senators/congressmen to support bills by adding the congressmen's earmarks into it, and those earmarks help get the congressmen reelected.
That's the gist of what the earmark defenders are saying. To this I say that I have another word for it -- bribery. There are so many things wrong with that process. First of all, if the bill isn't good enough to support, figure out a way to make it better -- not by adding earmarks, but actually making it a better bill that more congressmen can support. Those politicians are there to represent all of us, to do what's best for ALL americans, not just the ones in their own states, or more specifically, the ones that donated enough money to the congressmen to get them elected and are now being paid back by the earmarks. Second, if they didn't have earmarks, then the congressmen wouldn't hold out on supporting a bill they'd otherwise support just so they can get their earmarks into it. Third, those earmarks are specifically to make the congressmen look good so they can get reelected -- why are we allowing them to fund their campaigns with tax dollar money? Sure, it's very indirect, but it's still what is happening. Just because you're used to using earmarks to help get a bill through the senate, Harry Reid, doesn't mean you should CONTINUE to do it. It's a bad process, get rid of it.
All the more reason we need to limit all the terms, but I've already blogged about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)