Netflix again

Everybody pissed at netflix.

Ok, exec made a stupid comment.  I think he must have been talking about his lattes, cause I sure don't drink them.  And I'm sure he'll be getting less lattes with the number of people leaving the subscription service -- at least they are saying they are leaving it.  Don't know how many I believe really are.

A while ago I did the math.  I was on the 3 DVDs out at a time plan.  Timed it so that we received a new DVD each day, sending back one each day and one in transit.  It came to about 24 DVDs a month (don't get them on Sundays or Holidays).

24 * .44 (postage one way) = 10.56.  And then they pay the return postage, which is another 10.56.  And yes, it is first class postage each way (USPS was complaining about the added cost of processing the Netflix mailers and Netflix's response was that they were paying for first class postage).  So 21.12 just in postage alone, and I was only paying $21 a month to Netflix. And then I get all the streaming....streaming I never asked for in the first place, they just started offering one day automatically with my plan. So that was basically a free add-on, which my kids have enjoyed immensely (no less then 3 to 4 movies/shows a day streamed during the summer).

I had been paying for 4 to 6 DVD rentals a week at blockbusters every other week (4 kids, 2 adults, everybody has to have their own), and that was coming to $40 / mo in DVD entertainment...way more than $24, the new cost of streaming + 3 DVDs out at a time.  And for that $40, I got half the number of DVDs and NO streaming other than youtube.

Still seems like a deal to me.

I'm on streaming only for a small period of time, see if it meets the demand well enough.  I was happy to see some stuff on streaming I'd been waiting for (such as Star Trek) and if we want to see something new, there's always blockbuster...or redbox.  Not that I've been all that impressed with hollywood offerings for a while now.

I laugh at the complaints of the streaming movies getting bogged down and going slow and what not making the streaming not worth it.  It isn't Netflix's fault.  My connection is great.  It is the ISP.  When we were on comcast, 2 at a time were not a problem.  Now we have to share nicely because our DSL is much slower.  But for those using wireless -- yeah, your ISP throttles you big time, it ain't netflix doing it!  LOL

Internet provider games

My broadband providers have been...interesting.  My first attempt was to use Qwest.  I got it all signed up, but cancelled after I found out that they were going to charge me extra for the DSL modem rental, unless I purchased one, which would also be extra.  So looking at my options, I figured out that it was less expensive to go with Earthlink for one year.  They'd give me the DSL modem, and a year at a discounted rate for the first 3 months and a bumped up rate thereafter ended up being cheaper than paying qwest for the same service at a lower price but then tacking on the modem.  I figured I could then switch to Qwest after a year, when it became cheaper to be with qwest and have no modem rental fee.

After 1 year, comcast ended up having the best deal available.  So I switched over to Comcast.  Again, figuring that after a year I'd switch back to Qwest when the Comcast deal ran out.  After a year, the Comcast deal ran out, but they gave me an even better offer.  So I stayed another year.  And this happened a third time.  Each time when I called to cancel my service with Comcast, they then gave me a good or better deal to keep me on.  Well, this year that ended.  No matter who I talked to, they were just unwilling to give me a good deal.  That's their game.  They try to work you into their regular, really bad deals when the good deals expire.  They gave me two deals.  1) Pay $18 more for the next 6 months to get the same level of service I have been getting, at which point then it bumps up another $8 for the remaining 6 months of the contract.  2) Pay only $8 more for substantially lower service than I currently get (much slower line).  I just could not get them to realize that having $0 from me is considerably less than keeping me at my current rate, which isn't exactly cheap to begin with.  But I'm not going to pay $46 for a 1.5 MB line.  Just no way.

So I checked out the wireless providers in my area.  Nobody had anything better than 1.5 MB and all of them were loaded with complaints on the forums.  Obviously wireless isn't going to work for me.  Kudos to Clear for admitting to me up front that I would probably not be happy with their service because I was right on the border of their "best" vs. "good" reception.  At least they were honest about it.  The other thing that bothered me was the huge upfront costs for the equipment and/or installation and/or activation.

So I went to qwest, figuring I'd sign up for DSL.  Only, now they were telling me that I don't have DSL in my area.  Odd, since they used to provide it.  So I went to earthlink and ... presto, I have DSL again for average of about $33 a month until next year...in my area...provided by qwest.  I don't get how Qwest can tell me that I don't have DSL service but then send me a welcome packet and provide it.  They still don't think I have DSL in my area, even though my account clearly shows that I have it through them.  Don't know what their game is.  Maybe they are still upset at me for cancelling the day I signed up, several years ago.

Explanation of the dead birds

Surely you've seen this, birds dropping out of the sky in Louisiana, Arkansas, Italy, and Kentucky.  Now the move is on to link stories.  Tampa recently had to change the signage of their airport due to the magnetic poles, which have been constantly shifting for a while.

mysterious bird deaths

My wife suggested that it was due to pollution.  I think the some people are forgetting a very basic fact about these mysterious deaths:  Caused by BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA.  Do the moving magnetic poles prevent the birds from seeing things and therefore they run into them?  Anyway, it's my turn to link stories.

Nobody thought this was about China!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-military-20110107,0,3324067.story

So, that's it.  China has been secretly flying over the US and Italy undetected and the poor birds just can't see those stealth planes and fly right into them!

LOL, ok, I'm being facetious.  Obviously the birds are not blind, yet why would my explanation be any less convincing than "the magnetic poles are moving" which they've done for as long as we've had them. 

Netflix Rant

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. 

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.

How to solve identity theft

The largest problem with identity theft is CREDIT.  The credit bureaus started using our social security numbers, as did banks, hospitals, school system, etc. etc.  It was all based on the premise that only we would know our own SSNs and the associated name.  Obviously in the information age that is no longer true.  So our method of determining the credit worthiness of a person we don't know hinges entirely on an invalid premise, that the SSN + Name is a way to establish positive identification and authentication.

The solution is relatively simple.  Publish everybodies SSN and Name simultaneously.  Doing so will force banks, credit bureaus, hospitals, and even the government to find another means for authenticating the identity of the person.  No longer will it be assumed that just because you have the SSN that the information is reliable.  It will make it worthless to have an SSN and a name.  So what would be the new way to positively identify someone?

Maybe that method will be through some biometrics.  DNA markers,  fingerprints,  retinal scans.  Maybe it'll be through signatures.  I had a program on my Palm PDA (Sony Clie actually) that required me to sign my signature.  I'm not sure how they did it, but even when somebody else tried to copy my signature from something I had written down, they still could not get in.  I suspect it used timing in that it only authenticated if I signed my signature at the same rate.  It was also amazingly forgiving.  Sometimes my signature wasn't very good and it still let me get in.  But I challenged lots of people to try to break in and nobody was able to.  So maybe something as simple as that.  There are issues to consider, as somebody could have a stroke, or lose an eye, lose their hand, etc.  That's why DNA becomes so appealing, since you will always have it and you will generally know if somebody tries to steal it.  As a side bonus, it'll stop people from spitting on you since that would risk identity theft.  LOL!

The security my bank USED to have (so sad they got rid of it) was a device with a number that changed every 30 seconds.  You had to know your PIN and enter the number from that device.  Thus the security was two-fold -- something you know, and something you have.  But the device can easily be stolen.  If you did a DNA spit test, you could do something you HAVE and combine that with a PIN # (something you KNOW) and voila, you've just eliminated almost all identity theft.

The holdback right now is that DNA testing takes time.  But if the marketplace is demanding something right here right now that has to give DNA results accurately (at least to the 1 in 100,000 level) then you can be sure the current test providers will find a way to reduce that positive identification timeframe.

You wouldn't need to do a spit test for everything.  You'd need it for major identifications.  For instance, you apply for credit, you'll need a spit test / PIN # to identify which credit information is used.  But once you've got the credit card, everyday purchases using the card would not require the spit test. 



This also requires giving up some level of privacy, as a national database would need to be tapped into for validating this information.  A one way hash to prevent the PIN # from being reverse engineered.


Alternatives would include having a chip ID placed into our bodies for positive ID.  Between the two, I'd choose the spit test.

I'm sure eventually the thieves would be able to come up with some way of obtaining what you know and a piece of you...but if it is too hard and too costly, it would have to have a huge payoff to make it worthwhile.  Certainly it would be more than the cost of an SSN, which is worth less than $1 on the black market.

This does amount to a certain level of privacy being given up.  But privacy is another topic for another day.

Gay Marriage

This is quite a controversial topic.

For the record, I'm not gay.  Despite once having a boss that was gay, a boss I enjoyed working with and felt a friendship toward, I still harbor negative feelings for gay people.  I'm not going to try to justify them or deny them.  It's the way I feel, and I have that right to feel that way.  But I'm being truthful so that my bias is known up front.

From that background comes this thought, "Gay and straight people have the same rights and are denied the same rights.  I can marry whomever I please from the opposite sex and so can they.  They just don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex.  They complain that they don't have the right to marry a person of the same sex.  Well, I don't have that right either.  It just happens to be something I don't want to do anyway.."

But then I got thinking about it.  What if the government only recognized marriage between classes of people. The rich could only marry the rich, the poor could only marry the poor.  Or the Asians could only marry the Asians and the blacks could only marry the blacks.  That would be pretty regressive, but that is our history.  We used to have laws that restricted our freedoms on whom we could marry due to their race.

But let's get to the real heart of the matter.  The simple reason why gay marriage is opposed is because us straight men don't want to see other men kissing or holding each other in public.  It's disgusting.  And if gay marriage is allowed, then those public displays of affection may become more frequent. 

Back in the times of the thirteen colonies, it was disgusting to see interracial public displays of affection.  In fact, that's still the case today with some people.  Being truthful to myself, I can acknowledge that I've had those same feelings.  I don't like seeing dark skinned and light skinned people kissing each others.  It grates against me internally.  But I would not deny them that right.  Just as it grates against me to see two unattractive people kissing in public too.  

I remember a movie a friend and I watched "What's eating Gilbert Grape."  At the time, we both liked the actor Johnny Depp and figured that movie would be another good one.  One of the actresses was cast to be very unattractive, repulsive even.  I remember when it got to the "make out" scene where it showed all the couples french kissing we both knew what was coming up and it was like "oh no, Oh No!" and sure enough, they showed that very unattractive couple french kissing and knew it would take a long time to forget that scene.  It still gives me shivers.

These feelings are all rooted together, stemming from the same source. I'd say that less public displays of sexual attraction would be one way to solve this, but I know that would never happen.  Guys like showing everybody they can who they are trying to mate with.  It's a primal urge to establish your territory and put other guys on notice to stay away from your woman.  I'm not saying guys "own women" but that is how guys feel about it.

The main complaint by gay people is that there are privileges afforded to married people that gay couples cannot have.  For instance, the ability to visit an unconscious partner in the hospital, medical insurance coverage, inheritance rights, and so on. 

So I think, what would it be like if the world were opposite of what it is today?  What if same sex marriage was the only acceptable form.  My attraction is to females.  It repulses me to think of being in the arms of another man.  How could I deal with that?  I could maybe pretend, even try it out, but deep down I know it just isn't the way I want to be.  So I could cohabitate with my opposite sex sweetie, but I wouldn't be able to put her on my insurance policy.  I wouldn't be able to hold her hand in public without getting glares from same sex couples.  I'd have to file my taxes separately from her as single.  And not being able to see her at the hospital after an accident because I had no way to prove the relationship would be hard.  And just the stigma of not being in the "traditional family unit" would be dispiriting.  

Well, that's how gays feel.  I'm sure I haven't covered the full depth of the feelings, but it's enough to somewhat understand their view.

What about the government's interest in marriage?  Marriage, though often associated with religious groups, is technically a civil contract tying the finances and privacy together of two people.  The benefit to society is that when there are two adults in a family, it offers more protection and a better environment to the children. It's just common sense, two people thinking of the families future is better than one.

So taking all of this into account, here's what I've come up with.

And I know this will raise the ire of many, but it is the most logical thing I could think of.  And it makes sense to do this as well.  Do away with the civil marriage.  

By not having the government recognize marriage, many things will have to change.  First, people in families will need the laws altered to give them the same rights that they had when they were married.  An interesting article I read talked about a similar issue.  Single people do not have the rights that married people do, regardless of sexual orientation.  By eliminating marriage, these privileges will have to be reassigned.

Now just for clarity, I said to do away with civil marriages.  However, religious marriages would still be allowed, with the religions allowed to specify who can be married and who can't.  They are private organizations, they have that privilege for their private ceremonies.  There are already religions which fully accept all sexual orientations freely, so it is likely that they would have their own marriage ceremonies (assuming they don't already have ones).  All other religions will be able to marry as they currently do.  It allows all of us to practice our religious beliefs without interfering or imposing them on others.  

I know there is also some fear from religious groups that if we start condoning gay marriage then our cities may end up like Sodom and Gomorrah.  That's one of the beauties of this approach.  It allows the religions to condemn other religions that permit gay marriage, thus showing that they oppose gay marriage and therefore they themselves should be spared the fire and brimstone and how much superior their religion is to the other one and so on.  Remember, Lot was spared because he did not approve.

The government is neither taking a stand for or against gay marriage.  So the government and its elected leaders cannot be held responsible for the decisions of the churches that permit gay marriage.  In this neutral stance, it leaves the MORAL decision of gay marriage up to the churches, as it should be.

One issue that remains is how to promote the much healthier family unit (already shown in studies to be a better way to raise children and apparently one of the justifications as to why there is marriage today).  I believe there should be "family contracts".  In these family contracts, anybody can be added.  All benefits that we currently see in marriage would likely be given to the entire family in the family contract.  So the family contract would tie together the finances of those in the family -- debt for one is debt for all.  Inheritance automatically goes to those in the family contract as outlined.  HIPAA restrictions on privacy could be lifted for those in the family contract.  Kids born into the family could be automatically added to the contract.  And people in the biological family can be specifically excluded (like disinheritance).  Responsibilities would be spelled out, which family members are responsible for the well being of the others.  And that's all optional -- the family contract can be customized to fit each family.  That's gotta make the lawyers smile, thinking of all of the additional contracts people will be making.  It'll be like having a mandatory prenuptial agreement.  It spells out the exact benefits, duration, and conditions of the family contract.  Insurance for family coverage would apply to all of those in the family contract.  Taxes would be paid based on the family instead of on individuals.  And you could only be in one family contract at a time. In this way, government would recognize families instead of married couples, thus there is no recognition of gay marriage, only of groups of people willing to assume the financial risks of being a family in order to improve their overall status.

So what would be the purpose of the religious marriage?  To spell out the commitments one person makes with another.  Specifically, sexual commitments.  That's part of what marriage is all about -- saying that you will forgo any sexual contact with someone to whom you are not married.  That you will love, honor, and cherish the other person, and you state this in the presence of your deity that you profess to believe in.  So the marriage is not dimmed at all.  Quite the opposite.  A religious marriage would be considered a higher commitment, a testament of the intent of the person to remain faithful.  It has no meaning outside of the ones involved in the marriage, so the only purpose would be to truly demonstrate the level of love you have.  Isn't that better, since the marriages "to get away from parents" or marriages "for a greencard" or marriages for financial status only will no longer need to be done since the family contracts will cover that.