When peoples of different race, culture, language or customs are brought together into the same geographic region and the conditions are created for intermixing, the ultimate result is naturally a blending of those ethnic groups. The identity and uniqueness of those original cultural groups becomes eroded over time with each passing generation and is progressively replaced by an overwhelming mono-culture. Analogously, if a can of black paint is mixed with a can of white paint in the same container, it forms one entirely new colour. The resulting grey paint doesn’t differ from any other colour because there is no other colour. There is only one colour left. One thing. One entity. If racial diversity is a good thing, as some of our leaders profess it to be, then why bring people of different races together in the same region when the ensuing race-mixing would only bring about less diversity, not more?
In order for democracy to function properly, one of its requirements is that the electorate have sufficient knowledge of all candidates running for any given political office. So what percentage of the modern public goes out of their way to research all competing candidates instead of just passively swallowing the political propaganda in the news and in the universities in small increments over time? Not enough.
It stands to reason that if suffrage is a vital human right, it follows that there should be a mandate that the citizen have a healthy knowledge of each candidate. Not only should the citizen know that, but he should have a solid understanding of economics, history, and the political process. What percentage of the public is defined by these attributes?
The physical non-living world around us is governed by the laws of nature. Water, due to the force of gravity, will move from a point of higher elevation to a point of lower elevation if it is permitted, but what if humans come along and erect a dam or divert the flow of water to go somewhere else? When we humans do something to our environment, is that action a complex manifestation of the physical and chemical laws of nature or are we separated from the non-living world in the sense that we choose to take a specific course of action through our own volition and free will? Does free will only exist for humans?
Today, we read in the news that four people have been killed in London, England by a middle-eastern assailant, three of whom were killed by a vehicle and the fourth, a policeman, stabbed to death. In the recent articles written about the event, it is frequently mentioned that “ISIS claimed responsibility for this attack on its propaganda platform, Amaq News Agency.”
Supporting article here: Isil claims responsibility
However, there is one concerning detail about this: the authenticity of the amaq news agency is extremely difficult to verify.
Upon researching “amaq news agency” through google, one of the top search results is a link to the following page: 5 Things to Know about Amaq News Agency , which basically explains that members of the public cannot download nor access the amaq news agency app.
So in other words: the media is claiming that ISIS is responsible for the London terrorist attack based on a message, which we cannot verify, that was posted on a terrorist organization’s android app, which we cannot download, an app that is only available to members of ISIS through invite only and somehow the media are the only people who have unrestricted access to it. That’s too convenient.
What is the media hiding? This would suggest in fact that there is no amaq news agency. Which, in turn, would suggest that ISIS claiming responsibility for the attacks in London never really happened. This would also question the validity of other attacks for which ISIS has reportedly taken responsibility. This would also draw into question the true culpability of ISIS in general. Does ISIS even exist? What is really going on here?
I think I may have an idea to help cable companies reduce the number of people cutting the cord. This won’t eliminate cord-cutters entirely because most people are probably cutting the cord because of financial circumstances anyway.
If we like a show, we want to know when it airs. To find out these air-times, waiting for televised ads which tell us what day and time they air is impractical. There are simply too many shows to keep track of. We need to see a schedule. An all-in-one that shows each individual episode for every show we like for every day for one month. It sounds like it will be a lot to squeeze into one or two screens, but it should filter down given that 99% of TV we don’t watch.
Don’t get me started with “just go through the guide and look at each channel that airs your shows and then write down the air-times for each show.” You’d have to do that for too many shows and it’s too much headache. I once made a list of the TV shows I liked. In short, I was left with a list of about 25 shows. I would have had to look up the network that finances and produces each of those 25 shows and then go to their respective websites and look at the schedules for that show. After researching three shows, I had already forgotten the air-times of the episodes of first show I looked up. It’s too complicated. It’s too much of a headache. It’s impractical.
People who are cable subcribers are inherently consenting to paying for episodes of shows that are NOT immediately watchable: episodes that air in the future. We need one thing, one on-screen visual that displays the episodes of the shows we want for a month. We need to have a menu-screen or some easy application in which you can simply enter all of the shows you want to watch and then it will show you in return the showtimes of all of the episodes of the shows you want to watch and on what channels they air for the next month. Maybe if one month of episodes packed into one screen is too crowded, it could show the episodes and air-times for the next two weeks. Or maybe there should be a way to switch back and forth between viewing the two-week schedule and the one-month schedule. You get the idea.
I know that cable companies have probably collected obscene amounts of data and have done research in every which way about the state of television and according to their own data, they probably project that cable will become inevitably obsolete in the next twenty years. Thus making the giant cable companies unprofitable. However, I believe my idea will lessen the number of people leaving by a small margin. I’m not some corporate think-tank. I’m just one guy and I’m being more innovative than the cable companies.
It’s no secret that the vast majority of television is garbage. Nobody is paying for what is on NBC or CBS at 2:00 in the morning. Cable subscribers are paying for 1 percent of the television they receive and 113 million households in the USA still elect to pay for cable. You, cable companies, are lucky to have those dollars at all. The least you could do is innovate.
Quite frankly, cable companies are quite lucky that other services like Netflix have a poor selection of movies and shows. If there existed a cheaper, paid-service where you could watch literally any show you wanted, anytime, for a price less than $50 per month, there wouldn’t be any more cable.