Except they are selling access to the Internet, not some subset thereof. Now they are trying to say you have to pay more and/or get worse service for that some subset while they manage to get 'their' subset through with some cost/service advantage, which is often a higher cost.
Re: Seriously cops vs public is as bad as Rep vs Dem...
The problem with hiring cops from neighborhoods is that they are often not paid enough to live in the neighborhoods they patrol. I am not against the idea, nor am I suggesting that we give cops unilateral raises. I am suggesting that reality imposes itself in even the most sagacious of ideas.
I have over 40 years experience in Hospitality Management, and participated in managing groups as large as 4000+. Mostly in hotels, which are different than fast food, but still a part of the food service industry. There were some people with criminal backgrounds who were put in positions where they could do little harm, until they proved themselves (that takes years). Personally, I am not aware of any issues with any of those, at least so far as their backgrounds were concerned.
On the other hand, people are people and they do stupid things. I have had employees arrested for doing stupid things, but none of them had criminal backgrounds, at least until they did those stupid things.
It seems they think one should desire watching their product from birth and will do anything they ask, pay anything they want, endure any restriction they employ to do so. Wait till they come up with the pills that install the DNA to make it so. Somehow I am certain it is under development.
It's not like they would miss a security concern, they would just ask the FBI to make one up. Then, if one came along that they did in fact miss, and having failed to get the FBI to create it, they would either call it fake news or point fingers elsewhere. Like maybe a whistle-blower who failed to blow the correct whistle.
"because it's an incentive to license the material, right?"
No, because it is essential to license whatever one does as it must have been done before and is therefore under someones copyright. FIFA is just protecting 'copyright', not necessarily 'their copyright'.
Along with the IOC and the EU (as well as a long list of copyright maximalists) there is no greater purpose on this here Earth, doncha know!
To begin with, I would like to understand what the actual problem was, which could be different from what You Tube says it was.
After that, with an operation as big a You Tube, how is it that they could not predict the size of the expected audience, if that was in fact the problem? One would think they might have some ability to react to large changes in users that has been developed over time, or is it just the number of users requesting just one program?
Then, I have often wondered why other organizations did not just open a channel, subscription or pay per view or advertising or whatever, to the many folks offering content, then why don't those offering content take them up that. It appears that You Tube has such relationships, which brings up the question for those others as to why they would want to take on the cost of developing, maintaining, and supporting such an operation when a viable option already exists? Then it hit me...control.
There might be a cycle to user perception of funny and/or insightfullness. Then again, the cycle might belong to us, the commentors.
I do believe there are more advantages to having an account than not, the most significant being distinguishing oneself from other Anonymous Cowards (one becomes pseudo-anonymous unless you use your real name), and the second, a record under your username of what you said. I didn't have an account for the first 5+ or so years (I have been around for nigh on 15 or so years (could be a bit more) but don't remember when I actually took the plunge) and those posts are gone. Well not easily retrievable. Even when I called myself Anonymous Anonymous Coward, but didn't have an account.
I also contribute to Techdirt, with two different accounts. One to their Insider Shop and again to their Patreon (formerly Beacon) account. I find it to be similar to subscribing to a magazine, and about the same cost. The difference between Techdirt and a magazine is the articles I don't want to read that come with any magazine.
Yeah, he would be wearing a mask while doing the wreaking. Hand wave, "YOU CAN'T SEE ME".
At the same time he thinks that his posting as an Anonymous Coward protects him from those that really want to know who he is. So, parenthetically, all he has to do is 'whisper' and it WILL be secret.
I guess my premise is whether or not that is right, considering justice. I do understand that it is not the way we do things now. I am suggesting that justice demands something different.
Re: Sounds like his new job is giving up his rights
Money isn't the answer to everything. It is the answer to some things, but think about who would actually pay. Taxpayers, not the asshats that committed the wrongs. So money isn't the appropriate answer in this case. Personal pain, extreme pain on the other hand...
Can the police, prosecutor and the judge be charged with contempt of law? It sure seems that for justice to be done there needs to be some retribution for not following and/or stretching laws to get them to accomplish mere abuse of citizens.
The part I am not understanding is why the DOJ did NOT request a stay? They had to know at the time what AT&T would do. They had to know that the ruling left doors open. And they knew, but did not act upon the various economic theories that the failed to present to the court.
I can think of two possibilities. The DOJ is inept. Or they are playing a long game, and expect to lose, which makes the whole appeal merely an affirmation of their 'seriousness' in their attempt at preventing the merger.
Ask Congressman Dan Donovan. He is likely afraid of anyone who might protest things the powerful want, and not get arrested. This is a new excuse to arrest people, at least until the courts get a hold of this law and shred it.
Hollywood make-up artists would be endangered. No actors in costume nor with make-up to make them older/younger or playing say an extra-terrestrial (Good-bye Klingons) would be safe.
On the post: Netflix CEO Proclaims The Death Of Net Neutrality Is No Big Deal
Re: net-positive
On the post: If You Value The Reputation Of Your Restaurant, Maybe You Should Stop Serving Cops
Re: Seriously cops vs public is as bad as Rep vs Dem...
On the post: If You Value The Reputation Of Your Restaurant, Maybe You Should Stop Serving Cops
Re:
On the other hand, people are people and they do stupid things. I have had employees arrested for doing stupid things, but none of them had criminal backgrounds, at least until they did those stupid things.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: FIFA's Overaggressive Copyright Takedowns Target Fans Celebrating And Pussy Riot Protesting
Re:
On the post: DHS Tells Records Requester It Can't Find Documents It Posted To Its Own Website
Re: Hanlon's Razor
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: FIFA's Overaggressive Copyright Takedowns Target Fans Celebrating And Pussy Riot Protesting
Re: I happily follow their request.
Ahh, seems simple doesn't it? But what about those things that aren't FIFA's intellectual property that they block?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: FIFA's Overaggressive Copyright Takedowns Target Fans Celebrating And Pussy Riot Protesting
Nothing is new anymore
No, because it is essential to license whatever one does as it must have been done before and is therefore under someones copyright. FIFA is just protecting 'copyright', not necessarily 'their copyright'.
Along with the IOC and the EU (as well as a long list of copyright maximalists) there is no greater purpose on this here Earth, doncha know!
On the post: Progress Isn't Linear: YouTube TV's World Cup Flub Threatens Public's Trust For Sports Streaming
One Mother of All F'ups.
After that, with an operation as big a You Tube, how is it that they could not predict the size of the expected audience, if that was in fact the problem? One would think they might have some ability to react to large changes in users that has been developed over time, or is it just the number of users requesting just one program?
Then, I have often wondered why other organizations did not just open a channel, subscription or pay per view or advertising or whatever, to the many folks offering content, then why don't those offering content take them up that. It appears that You Tube has such relationships, which brings up the question for those others as to why they would want to take on the cost of developing, maintaining, and supporting such an operation when a viable option already exists? Then it hit me...control.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
There might be a cycle to user perception of funny and/or insightfullness. Then again, the cycle might belong to us, the commentors.
I do believe there are more advantages to having an account than not, the most significant being distinguishing oneself from other Anonymous Cowards (one becomes pseudo-anonymous unless you use your real name), and the second, a record under your username of what you said. I didn't have an account for the first 5+ or so years (I have been around for nigh on 15 or so years (could be a bit more) but don't remember when I actually took the plunge) and those posts are gone. Well not easily retrievable. Even when I called myself Anonymous Anonymous Coward, but didn't have an account.
I also contribute to Techdirt, with two different accounts. One to their Insider Shop and again to their Patreon (formerly Beacon) account. I find it to be similar to subscribing to a magazine, and about the same cost. The difference between Techdirt and a magazine is the articles I don't want to read that come with any magazine.
On the post: Guy Gets Tossed In Jail For Contempt Charges Because Cops Say They Need To Unlock His Phones To Get Evidence Of Drug Possession
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like his new job is giving up his rights
To be fair, he's right. The problem lays with how they get there. See!
On the post: Congressman Introduces Legislation To Criminalize Protesting In A Mask
Re: Re:
At the same time he thinks that his posting as an Anonymous Coward protects him from those that really want to know who he is. So, parenthetically, all he has to do is 'whisper' and it WILL be secret.
Welcome to his world. We should remain in ours.
On the post: Guy Gets Tossed In Jail For Contempt Charges Because Cops Say They Need To Unlock His Phones To Get Evidence Of Drug Possession
Re: Re: Re: Sounds like his new job is giving up his rights
Maybe we should look at the system of elections...hard. Parties, money, patronage, get rid of them. Then we might get somewhere.
On the post: Guy Gets Tossed In Jail For Contempt Charges Because Cops Say They Need To Unlock His Phones To Get Evidence Of Drug Possession
Re: Re: Payback would be nice
On the post: Congressman Introduces Legislation To Criminalize Protesting In A Mask
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Gets Tossed In Jail For Contempt Charges Because Cops Say They Need To Unlock His Phones To Get Evidence Of Drug Possession
Re: Sounds like his new job is giving up his rights
On the post: Guy Gets Tossed In Jail For Contempt Charges Because Cops Say They Need To Unlock His Phones To Get Evidence Of Drug Possession
Payback would be nice
On the post: After AT&T Jacks Up Prices Post Merger, DOJ Decides To Appeal Court Loss
Where's the stay?
I can think of two possibilities. The DOJ is inept. Or they are playing a long game, and expect to lose, which makes the whole appeal merely an affirmation of their 'seriousness' in their attempt at preventing the merger.
On the post: Congressman Introduces Legislation To Criminalize Protesting In A Mask
Re: He really didn't think this through,
On the post: Congressman Introduces Legislation To Criminalize Protesting In A Mask
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Congressman Introduces Legislation To Criminalize Protesting In A Mask
He really didn't think this through,
or has no Hollywood benefactors
Hollywood make-up artists would be endangered. No actors in costume nor with make-up to make them older/younger or playing say an extra-terrestrial (Good-bye Klingons) would be safe.
Next >>