I'm not sure which is more obnoxious -- Facebook's lengthy resistance to fixing the problem, or their continued spin that this feature was born from some altruistic desire to help people share more information. Can't they just admit that the genesis of this feature was a plan to further monetize their users' social networks?
How are the major record labels a "cartel?" Given the multitude of independent labels around the globe, access to inexpensive CD duplication and network-based distribution, how do these labels act as a cartel to set pricing or control the distribution of other's wares?
"To say that this is an antiquated concept in a time of several-hundred-channel cable TV, satellite TV, satellite radio, and of course our little Internet, is to state the obvious."
Fails to acknowledge that not all communication media are created equal. Broadcast frequencies, which are easily received by inexpensive, common televisions and radios, are fundamentally different than satellite channels that are vended by select providers, which are in turn wholly different than Internet channels that mostly blend into the wallpaper.
Perhaps a better approach would be to reverse the concentration of private ownership of public frequencies, and to revoke the lifelong leases of public frequencies given to corporations. Why, for instance, can Clear Channel buy and sell these allocations? Why is there a secondary market for public resources? Why doesn't this money flow back to the owners of the airwaves?
"People bringing cases against McDonald's because... they spilled their hot coffee on themselves are frivoulous at best."
Except that McDonald's had already settled many such lawsuits in the past, and their analysis suggested the low frequency of scalded customers (and requisite payouts) didn't merit a change in business practice -- even though they were aware it would lead to additional burns. Given that McDonald's had decided this was a cost of doing business, perhaps the lawuit wasn't entirely frivoulous.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure which is more obnoxious -- Facebook's lengthy resistance to fixing the problem, or their continued spin that this feature was born from some altruistic desire to help people share more information. Can't they just admit that the genesis of this feature was a plan to further monetize their users' social networks?
You can find the contact e-mail addresses of all five FCC commissioners here.
See this story for more detail on the museum's choice of actor to play Adam, and his real life sexual exploits.
Essjay needs to get a Ph.D. in English so he'll learn that possessive pronouns (such as "its") do not contain apostrophes.
How are the major record labels a "cartel?" Given the multitude of independent labels around the globe, access to inexpensive CD duplication and network-based distribution, how do these labels act as a cartel to set pricing or control the distribution of other's wares?
The Republican rebuttal argument:
"To say that this is an antiquated concept in a time of several-hundred-channel cable TV, satellite TV, satellite radio, and of course our little Internet, is to state the obvious."
Fails to acknowledge that not all communication media are created equal. Broadcast frequencies, which are easily received by inexpensive, common televisions and radios, are fundamentally different than satellite channels that are vended by select providers, which are in turn wholly different than Internet channels that mostly blend into the wallpaper.
Perhaps a better approach would be to reverse the concentration of private ownership of public frequencies, and to revoke the lifelong leases of public frequencies given to corporations. Why, for instance, can Clear Channel buy and sell these allocations? Why is there a secondary market for public resources? Why doesn't this money flow back to the owners of the airwaves?
"People bringing cases against McDonald's because ... they spilled their hot coffee on themselves are frivoulous at best."
s _Restaurants.
Except that McDonald's had already settled many such lawsuits in the past, and their analysis suggested the low frequency of scalded customers (and requisite payouts) didn't merit a change in business practice -- even though they were aware it would lead to additional burns. Given that McDonald's had decided this was a cost of doing business, perhaps the lawuit wasn't entirely frivoulous.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald'