it's difficult to see how deciding to just start killing off people for being mouthy online is going to convince anyone who hates the US that they're somehow on the wrong track. It seems like it will only confirm their preheld opinions.
Such actions do not only confirm preheld positions, they also convince people who were sympathetic to you to stop being sympathetic.
Moral issues aside, these actions are counterproductive.
I experienced something very similar in the software industry a couple of lifetimes ago. I had built up a good reputation and was selling at a rate that allowed to me live very comfortably (although it wasn't making me wealthy -- but wealth has never been my goal). A large corporation took notice and made me a very seductive offer that I couldn't refuse.
The end result was the destruction of everything I had worked so hard to build and a loss of control over my career. It's a very difficult thing to recover from. If I could give advice to my earlier self, it would be "don't give up what's working for seductive promises".
And forget about the elegant fix of usage-based pricing, i.e., charging each customer according to his demand on the infrastructure. It’s clearly a nonstarter with regulators and activists.
No, it's not. I've not seen any regulators or activists opposing usage-based pricing on principle, as long as it's done fairly and honestly.
The people who object to usage-based pricing are the consumers.
You are a potential customer. It is your responsibility to judge them (and every other business) to determine if you want to do business with them.
All I'm saying is that I judge restaurants who have policies like this very harshly and refuse to do business with them. This is not only my right, but my responsibility.
Note that I am NOT saying that they should be forced to stop doing business that way. I'm saying that I refuse to be their customer if they do.
How successful their business model is doesn't enter into any of this.
" if a restaurant has a very loyal group of regular customers that show up and make them a lot of long term money they will, in all likelihood, give those people a pass if, on one occasion, they don't show up for whatever reason."
Perhaps, but that's not the sort of thing that can be relied on and so doesn't mean a thing.
"if you don't like it you can go to another restaurant and you're probably not the type of customer they want anyways even if they lose you."
What kind of customer is it they don't want? Paying customers? Customers unwilling to bend over?
Although I have never been a no-show to a restaurant, if I became aware that a restaurant had such a policy I would certainly never eat there. Those are restaurants who hold their customers in some degree of contempt.
Yes, the argument that a law is pointless because criminals don't obey laws is stupid no matter what law is being discussed. To make that argument is to argue that there should be no laws whatsoever.
"the infestation of propylene glycol. I don't eat industrial chemicals"
Why fixate on that? PG has been around and used in products consumed by humans for a long time. It's risks and toxicity are well established (very low, lower than many common "nonindustrial" food additives.)
If you're worried about food additives, PG should be toward the bottom of your list.
I think that the point is if you're doing the ripping, you can add any subtitles you like as part of that process. You'll end up with a video that plays just fine on Android devices.
"users by-passing the carrier imposed data throttle by rooting a phone so as to remove a carrier lock on the SIM"
Rooting your phone doesn't let you do this. It's also not what he's complaining about. He's complaining about people removing the hack T-Mobile put in to prevent you from tethering. Preventing this is so nonsensical both from a logical and technical point of view that even AT&T stopped doing it years ago.
"Technically Soviet Russia had much more pervasive surveillance on its own citizens back in the day"
I think that technically this is incorrect. The amount of surveillance the average US citizens is subjected to dwarfs what the USSR even thought possible.
" I'd guess most people aren't even aware there's a difference between enlisted and officers"
I'll bet most people are aware there's a difference, thanks to so many movies and TV shows that include a grizzled sargent growling at being called sir and saying "I'm not an officer, I work for a living!"
On the post: US Counterterrorism Official Says US Is 'The Angel Of Death' And Should Be Target Killing ISIS Tweeters
It's even worse than that
Such actions do not only confirm preheld positions, they also convince people who were sympathetic to you to stop being sympathetic.
Moral issues aside, these actions are counterproductive.
On the post: Early YouTube Musician Explains How Signing Major Label Deal 'Nearly Destroyed My Career'
Not just the music industry
The end result was the destruction of everything I had worked so hard to build and a loss of control over my career. It's a very difficult thing to recover from. If I could give advice to my earlier self, it would be "don't give up what's working for seductive promises".
On the post: Utterly Incoherent Wall Street Journal Missive Blames Netflix For, Well, Everything
Usage based pricing
No, it's not. I've not seen any regulators or activists opposing usage-based pricing on principle, as long as it's done fairly and honestly.
The people who object to usage-based pricing are the consumers.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Linux
On the post: Restaurant Adds Anti-Disparagement Clause Because Its Anti-No Show Clause Wasn't Obnoxious Enough
Re: Re:
On the post: Restaurant Adds Anti-Disparagement Clause Because Its Anti-No Show Clause Wasn't Obnoxious Enough
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure you did, right here: "and you're probably not the type of customer they want anyways"
On the post: Restaurant Adds Anti-Disparagement Clause Because Its Anti-No Show Clause Wasn't Obnoxious Enough
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are a potential customer. It is your responsibility to judge them (and every other business) to determine if you want to do business with them.
All I'm saying is that I judge restaurants who have policies like this very harshly and refuse to do business with them. This is not only my right, but my responsibility.
Note that I am NOT saying that they should be forced to stop doing business that way. I'm saying that I refuse to be their customer if they do.
How successful their business model is doesn't enter into any of this.
On the post: Restaurant Adds Anti-Disparagement Clause Because Its Anti-No Show Clause Wasn't Obnoxious Enough
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps, but that's not the sort of thing that can be relied on and so doesn't mean a thing.
On the post: Restaurant Adds Anti-Disparagement Clause Because Its Anti-No Show Clause Wasn't Obnoxious Enough
Re: Re: Re:
My point is that I am a paying customer who keeps reservations. And I object to these policies and won't go to restaurants that have them.
Yet you said that restaurants don't want my business anyway, so I'm wondering what it is they don't want.
On the post: Restaurant Adds Anti-Disparagement Clause Because Its Anti-No Show Clause Wasn't Obnoxious Enough
Re:
What kind of customer is it they don't want? Paying customers? Customers unwilling to bend over?
Although I have never been a no-show to a restaurant, if I became aware that a restaurant had such a policy I would certainly never eat there. Those are restaurants who hold their customers in some degree of contempt.
On the post: HP Drops Support For Hacking Competition As Wassenaar Arrangement Continues To Make Computing Less Safe
Re:
On the post: Can You Really Be A Copyright Expert If You Think Copyright Should Last Forever?
Re: Re:
On the post: Can You Really Be A Copyright Expert If You Think Copyright Should Last Forever?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
WIllingness to die for something does not in any way indicate whether or not that something is truth.
On the post: FTC Spotlights The Reputation Hole Machinima Dug For Itself With Undisclosed Paid Xbox Pimp-Posts
Re: Re: Microsoft?
Which excuses nothing. The idea that marketers are "expected" to lie and cheat is one of the primary reasons why marketers are so hated.
"it's the customer that ultimately will provide the push-back to both should either be anti-consumer in their practices"
This is charmingly naive.
On the post: DailyDirt: I Scream, You Scream... At These Ice Creams?
Re: Real vs Fake Fluffy Stuff
Why fixate on that? PG has been around and used in products consumed by humans for a long time. It's risks and toxicity are well established (very low, lower than many common "nonindustrial" food additives.)
If you're worried about food additives, PG should be toward the bottom of your list.
On the post: Microsoft Retrofitting Windows 7, 8.1 With Windows 10's Privacy-Invading 'Features'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I don't.
On the post: The MPAA Will Let Amazon Touch Its Stuff, But Only If It Agrees To A Ton Of Stipulations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DO NOT WANT!
On the post: T-Mobile CEO Vows To Hunt Down 'Thieves' And 'Clever Hackers' That 'Abuse' Company's Unlimited Data Plans
Re: To the Local T-Mobile Office's Credit
Rooting your phone doesn't let you do this. It's also not what he's complaining about. He's complaining about people removing the hack T-Mobile put in to prevent you from tethering. Preventing this is so nonsensical both from a logical and technical point of view that even AT&T stopped doing it years ago.
On the post: Canadian Scientist Muzzled For Writing And Performing Song About Canadian Government Muzzling Scientists
Re: Re:
I think that technically this is incorrect. The amount of surveillance the average US citizens is subjected to dwarfs what the USSR even thought possible.
On the post: West Point Prof Who Called For Killing Of Academics Opposed To US Terror War Resigns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll bet most people are aware there's a difference, thanks to so many movies and TV shows that include a grizzled sargent growling at being called sir and saying "I'm not an officer, I work for a living!"
Next >>