High Fives and Root Beer Floats

While Blockbuster goes through bankruptcy provisions, Amazon puts the pedal to the floor in its competition with Netflix.

Combining its already existing Amazon Prime service (which costs $79 per year) with unlimited, commercial-free instant streaming of over 5,000 movies and TV shows, Amazon seems to be the one legit challenger to Netflix's throne.

It was bound to happen. By someone. Amazon already has a giant built-in user base, though it remains to be seen how many customers will leave Netflix for Amazon. Perhaps those who have both Prime and Netflix accounts will choose to consolidate. But here's why I'm staying with Netflix:

1. Physical discs. Call me old school, but I didn't get a Blu-ray for nothing. I love streaming for plenty of films - especially ones that I might not normally watch otherwise but since they're available, why not - but for others, I want the highest quality possible.
2. More streaming titles. Yes, this will most likely change in the coming months as Amazon catches up, but for now, Netflix has more streaming titles available, therefore I get more for my money.
3. Already a Netflix subscriber. Change is hard.
4. Blu-ray connectivity. My Blu-ray player connects via wi-fi to my Netflix account, making streaming to my TV as easy as cable's On-Demand.

I admit: the free shipping perks of Amazon Prime that come along with streaming video is tempting for my other online purchasing endeavors; but, it's not enough to trump the above four items for me.

Yet.

THE BREACH OF trust—and the logistical nightmare of contacting 1.5 million users—is humiliating and harmful to Gawker in the short term, but not fatal. Ditto for the possibility that the hackers have up to four gigabytes of the Gawker newsroom's internal chat logs. Staffers said those conversations would be embarrassing if made public, but few if any great secrets are traded there.

In this day and age, online privacy is the topic du jour. Companies like Facebook make their billions off our personal information, claiming that your info is safe with them yet at the same time urging transparency as the way of the future.

That's fine for me with my photos and the info that I put up on Facebook because I want exposure for my own blogs and content. But for those who want to sign up to a site and comment in privacy knowing that their true identity will remain hidden, that's not so good.

As with all forms of security, there is no 100%. No one can provide guaranteed protection. What goes for national security is the same with online security -- no matter what provisions we put into place, someone will find away around it. Just the way it goes.

What I found amusing about the whole Gawker thing (with which I'm inherently connected since I have a Lifehacker account) is that when they emailed me to say that my password and email information had been compromised, they directed me back to the Lifehacker site to change my login information, during which they asked me for an email address -- apparently I had created an account previously without one? Meaning this: they just lost over a million emails and passwords and now they think that I'm just going to willingly hand over my previously untarnished email address to them in the guise of better security?

I think not.

I don't need to comment on Lifehacker badly enough to entrust them with more of my information that they clearly have little control over protecting.

Then again -- how many other sites do I trust that could easily become the next Gawker? Probably all of them.

Facebook’s putting up some big numbers in terms of U.S. web traffic. Right now, the site accounts for one out of every four pageviews in the United States — that’s 10% of all Internet visits.

What better stat do you need to realize that Facebook isn't just for teenagers anymore?

25% of all page views in America go to Facebook.

If you figure that most people are also checking out their email online, you could even assume that 33% of all non-email page views are to Facebook.

Facebook is even five times more popular than Google.com.

Still think that this whole social media thing is just a fad? Or that search isn't going to be taken over by social media in the near future?

I'd been fascinated by space since I was a kid, so I leaped at the chance to take an Astronomy class in college. And it nearly changed my life.

Yes, had I had any math skills beyond using my fingers and toes to do simple arithmetic, I may have continued down a path toward becoming an astrophysicist.

Okay. Full disclosure: there was no way that I was ever going to become a scientist. The furthest I got with it was thinking about having an astro minor; but, again, the math thing.

This article, though, from Gizmodo explains how the ancient Greeks were able to figure out how far away the moon is from the Earth by just using simple geometry and plenty of imagination. A simple (now, at least) calculation that we figured out 2,000 years ago has lead us to what we're now attempting to explain today:

Dark Matter.

I can only imagine what those Greek astronomers would've discovered had they had the tools available to them like the Hubble Telescope. All I know is that space still fascinates me and I'm glad that there are people out there with the numerical prowess to study the cosmos for a living.

Part 2, for your viewing pleasure.

Once upon a time... okay, six years ago, my buddy Matt Cassatta and I had a dream.  That dream was Edison Price, a homeless vampire hunter, down on his luck, looking for a break. 

I became Edison.  Matt became Jack, the man who may or may not save him from his peril.  And we put it to haphazard celluloid (read: mini-DV tape -- this was pre-HD being super affordable, okay?) and loved it.

Only a few dozen people had the fortune to see this, since we made it before YouTube was relevant and enormous.  (How time flies in the digital era!)  Now it's here for you to see, segmented into 4 parts.  We hope you enjoy it.

If the city looks a lot better today, one thing that hasn’t changed about downtown is its flat skyline. The boxy look of the city’s buildings isn’t due to lack of architectural creativity, but the result of a Los Angeles Fire Department code requiring helicopter landing pads on all tall buildings

I had no idea that there was a city ordinance that requires all tall buildings to have a flat roof. That seems a bit excessive, no?

I mean, does EVERY SINGLE tall building (what constitutes tall, I wonder) need a heli-pad? I'd be curious to know how often those get used by the emergency services.

Regardless, it sure would be nice to freshen up the skyline. LA doesn't have the most impressive downtown as it is (sorry, it's true) -- least we can do is have the few tall buildings there come with some architectural and visual flair.