I see a lot of assumptions in these comments, like the OP is an ass, doesn't know what he's talking about, etc.
How about this: Programmers are NOT gods, and contractors will ALWAYS try to get out with the minimal amount of work done that gets them paid.
If I hire a contracted programmer to build something and deliver it, and it turns out it has bugs in it, then I'm going to demand that they fix them - after all, the contract required that the deliverable actually WORK to the spec I provided. Why this is such a foreign concept to so many people on here I'll never understand.
If you're a freelance programmer - great, I think that's awesome. Working for yourself is incredibly rewarding. That said, if I contract you to complete a task, and you deliver something that's buggy and doesn't work right, you haven't fulfilled your contract until it meets the specifications that I provided and that were written into your contract, even if that means you have to spend more time on it than you originally estimated because you didn't do it right the first time. I'm not going to pay you for that extra time, as it's your fault.
If, on the other hand, I wrote a bad spec and the software you deliver works to the spec I gave you, but not what I actually need, and I need it changed, then I WILL pay you for the extra time to modify it, because I didn't do my part correctly.
I'm glad someone else noticed this. The Saturn V had a payload capacity of 260,000 pounds and peak thrust of at least 7,500,000 pounds. They may be saying that this is the biggest thrust and payload among operational rockets, but I'd still like to see the ratio of (thrust/payload)/cost. That is where I'd really like to see improvement.
Estimated to be around $1,000/ton to orbit. Nothing comes close at this point to that figure, and it's all down-hill from there once it's reached.
The Saturn V was/is a beautiful machine - but it was rather inefficient.
Except that the N1 never reached orbit (read your own article if you don't believe me).
Space-X has already launched, orbited, and successfully recovered a payload. For a private company using almost all private dollars, that's a significant achievement and I don't doubt that the Falcon Heavy will succeed.
Sincerely,
Person with a Ph.D. in EE who has worked with hardware development for 15 years who hates the fact that untrained monkey's working in their garages have come up with more cool stuff than he ever will.
Its a good game. I've been playing since the day it launched, but took a couple six to nine month breaks.
My fiancée totally got hooked on auctioning and crafting and playing as a healer while I like to gather and do 5 mans with either a warrior or warlock.
Precisely. I played the original Vanilla beta and then picked up the game about a month or so after launch and have had an active account since. I've taken plenty of breaks, weeks, months - whatever - but I come back. It's great for when I need a distraction and nothing else will do.
I would like to see them make crafting both more reasonable (in terms of mats - some things are insane) as well as usability. The best gear in the game continues to be what drops at end-level content; however, crafted gear should come at least a close 2nd or 3rd, but often times doesn't.
Blizzard has had some crap QA issues before, but 4.0.1 was one of their most atrocious releases to the point that they said some of the Mage glyph bugs just simply can't be fixed right now and that they had to just deal with it. How does crap like that get by their QA? We're not talking about some arcane feature with a small bug, we're talking about a major component of the system that is totally broken.
I think you really see it in the patch notes, which tend to contain about 1/10th of the actual changes made in a given patch. For example 4.0.1 includes a ton of new UI features such as graphical elements used to alert the user that a special ability is ready to be used. However nothing was ever disclosed about it nor were players given a chance to learn what each graphical identity means when its displayed. It becomes trial and error. Watch for the new graphic to appear, now look at your list of buffs to see if there's some new, temp buff there. Wait for it to go away and see if the graphic goes away as well. That's a lot of tedious crap to deal with, especially when you're in the middle of a boss fight.
I wonder if this guy's approach to development by keeping development teams small is responsible for the poor quality of both documentation and product.
Considering there's at least one more major patch (4.0.3 - The Sundering) before Cataclysm is released, I can see their point of view. The Beta servers are currently running post-Cata patches (obviously) and the Mage Glyph issues doesn't exist there - which would indicate it's been fixed, just not released yet.
I don't like him either. He's more lawyer than marine biologist, he does anything he wants and justifies it (I know it's funny when I say it too) but frankly there's nothing I hate more than running around in circles and WoW is doing exactly that.
Ruler of a game that has no idea what it wants to be.
Well, when you have the title "Lead Systems Designer" you kinda get to do those things. And 12 Million people agree with him. And considering that ACTV's stock price is based over 50% solely on WoW, even though Activision-Blizzard have many other titles would suggest that most people disagree with you.
I'm suspecting Cataclysm is going to be a commercially disappointing expansion for WoW. I've been a WoW player since the original, and I'm not getting Cata. In fact, my subscription expires in a couple of days and I have no plans to renew.
Cataclysm has some major issues that are going to interfere with its commercial success. Healing specs are being nerfed very hard, to the point that playing a healer in PvE is not going to be fun for many players, and playing a healer in PvP will be even worse. Expect many players with healing mains to bail out. The PvE content is being made more difficult. While that may make the hardcore fringe happy, for the typical WoW player it only adds frustration. And remember, most of these player never finished the normal mode PvE content in WotLK; even that was too hard for them. The popular random LFD feature is going to be a wasteland.
Tremendous changes, larger than in any previous expansion, are being made to all classes and specs. It is unlikely these will be balanced adequately until well into the expansion, if then.
It doesn't take many defections from your circle of close in-game friends before you begin to question why you're still playing the game. When the stuff really hits the fan in after the next several months, SW:tOR will be coming along to snatch up the disgruntled.
If Cataclysm lives up to its name, I expect ATVI stock to take a considerable hit.
So, since I've been leveling toons from 1 to 65 and 70 at this point during my Beta Testing, I feel entitled to say this: Bullsh!t
I keep hearing these whining comments from people who are fundamentally incapable of adapting - get over yourselves. It's not your game - it's Blizzard's, and they have every right to do what they want.
That said, I've enjoyed Cataclysm immensely - the changes are pretty damn cool to the game world, and it's very interesting to see new takes on old quests and events. The Class changes are going to take some getting used to - I hated playing my toons I copied over or the pre-mades.
However, once I started a new toon from scratch and played through the leveling process and re-learned from the ground up, I was able to go back to those copies and pre-mades and kick ass. It's something I'm going to be recommending to everyone I know who plays - I think it'll help. Don't have to level one from scratch all the way - just 10 levels or so, which only takes about 1.5-2hrs.
Real ID lost me. I don't play online games so I can be stalked and harassed, and by failing to make privacy and security a priority from the start, you ruined any chance I'd trust you to handle it right,.
So I won't give you money.
I'm sure you miss me.
Don't pay much attention, do ya? Real ID isn't required, period, just a Battle.net login, which isn't the same thing. You don't have to share your Battle.Net login with anyone, thus they can't find you unless you willingly give it out - Blizzard is putting the responsibility for your safety and privacy in your hands, where it belongs.
Blizzard gains about 20 new customers for every one that quits - so, please, continue to quit - my stock price keeps going up.
I started with MUDs, moved on to Meridian 59, Ultima Online, Everquest, etc...I absolutely LOVED my time spent with MMOs, especially WoW (closed and open betas, continued until about 1.5 years after launch), but the genre got boring for me. Not even The Old Republic can get me excited about an MMO.
I still find it surprising when I hear so many people are still playing WoW. Anyone on here still playing since launch? What's kept you with it all this time? Gameplay, community, what?
Been playing since early 2005. Blizz has managed to keep it interesting, despite some missteps. About time for the old world revamp though. Bring on the Cataclysm!
As a Beta Tester, I gotta tell you - the water effects ALONE are worth the 4.0 patch. So much has changed, yet alot is still the same, or just slightly different - but it feels like a new game, truly.
WOW is just a game... But this choice of a release date is sure to generate controversy....
So? My daughter was born almost 59 years to the minute of the D-Day Invasion...
And, actually, it could be viewed as somewhat appropriate - Cataclysm is an upheaval for Azeroth in so many ways; much like the attack on Pearl Harbor was an upheaval both for America as a nation as well as the rest of the world.
"Regime change isn't very effective when you have the Keystone Kops trying to carry it out for you."
Regime change isn't going to happen due to a few protesting students, and the mullocracy can choose to kill them off if they threaten Islamic control of government.
The people who want to change Iran will have to display a greater will to power than the Islamocracy. That's a very tough act to follow. It would require a Maoist level of ruthlessness, not the trifling discontent of a few young people.
Precisely. As much as I want to shoot myself in the face for saying this, those "young people" would have a better chance if they read Mao's Little Red Book and took it to heart than doing what they're doing.
We all live our lives as we wish to live them, and realize that statistics are incredibly important to making the world a better, easier place to live in. Sure, they can be wrong sometimes, but I would imagine the general public trusts them a lot less than they should actually be trusted. I mean, global warming is like 99.99999% true, same with evolution, but we still have people who don't have a clue and doubt blatant facts because they don't understand things like the specific heat capacity of water, or that evolution isn't globs of crap off the ground suddenly turning into animals and people.
Sure, the numbers can sometimes be wrong, but they are not wrong 75% of the time. Not even 50% or 25%, but less. And yes, sometimes we are further off, but it is rare. Should we really ignore important numbers because their is a small chance they are wrong? I am not saying anyone should change everything about their lives due to a single number, but common, this is a bit crazy. I am not trying to be debatative here, just saying hey, it is what it is.
A wise man once said that 99% of Statistics are made up on the spot...
Tell you what... You think this is a brilliant way to make money? Open your own bank. It's actually legal (and relatively easy) in this country. It's a good time to open a small bank, too - people are sick of the big banks. Find a backer and let them know that there's this underserved banking market out there. I'm sure you'll find plenty of takers if the idea is a good one.
But, in general, the main reason a banking service isn't offered to you is because the service isn't profitable enough to offer it to the market you're part of.
I would second this. Seriously, if someone were to start a geek-friendly bank, with reasonable terms, I would seriously consider using it, and I've got quite a few friends who would as well.
The issue, as mentioned, is finding a backer. To open a bank, you have to have a certain amount of cash on-hand, and that's where the sticking point comes for most of us, otherwise we'd all open banks.
[the murdoch media like to call this the coalition of the defeated but aslong as i get my electoral reform i don't give a shit]
Looks like what we really need then is a hanged Murdoch rather than a hanged Parliament. If you guys could take care of that, we in the US would be ever so grateful.
However, no matter how poorly enforced, all corporate charters are contingent on their being in the public interest. In theory, it means any of then can be dis-incorporated at any time if as a whole they do more harm than good.
That's true - to a point. For that particular "feature" to be enforced, it has to be proven that overwhelming majority of the public has been harmed - not that they might be.
You're not playing Devil's Advocate. You're just a corporate shill, Republican wing-nut. That much is obvious.
Which is why I vote against repubs, right? And dems too. No, I just don't believe it's right to "convict" a Company or a person of something they have yet to do - BitTorrent interference is one thing, the NBC deal is another.
Congress by its very nature is incompetent because they put politics ahead of principle. Case in point, look at taxation and the new health care reform. They're both disasters of epic proportions. In fact, I'm willing to bet the only portion of the bill they read is their own amended riders they put into them, not the bill itself.
And you guys want Congress to regulate the Internet? I can only see this going from bad to worse!
Except that without Congress, it can be argued that at times in this Nation's history, things would've been much worse. When the stars and planets align, they can do intelligent things, though not everyone at that moment may agree that they're intelligent. Problem is, it just doesn't happen that often.
And note that it's not about Congress regulating the Internet - it's about giving the FCC the authority and the tools to do so, which they currently don't have.
Yes, but corporations still can't act against the interests of the public. Try making dangerous products. In such cases, the corporation would be making money, their suppliers would be making money and 401(k) accounts would be making money, but it would be dwarfed by the long term costs from people would end up injured. Making money in the short term is not a justification for bad behavior in the least.
Yes, but who defines the best interests of the public? I'm not saying you're wrong, simply playing Devil's Advocate here. True, dangerous products affect all - either directly, by those who are harmed, or indirectly - families who suffer from a loved one's death or injury, etc. Common Social Morality tells us that those products should be blocked, and companies stopped. However, you then get into gray areas - products that can cause harm when used incorrectly, or even when used correctly, but the choice to use them is left up to purchaser.
The problem when trying to use this argument with the Comcast/NBC deal is that the FCC/FTC/etc. have to quantify actual damages - they can't simply say "Well, they might do this or they might do that" and use that as the justification. You can't convict someone (and bear in mind that U.S. Law treats Companies as individuals with individual's rights) of something that they haven't done yet - even if there is some evidence that they might.
If Comcast thinks that its actions related to FCC v. Comcast and other unrelated behavior should have no bearing on its current attempt at acquiring NBC, I assure you that both the FCC and FTC will have something to say about that. Either agency can and potentially even object to or block the sale of NBC to Comcast.
Sure they can - I wasn't saying that they couldn't. But Comcast can, and will, most assuredly, appeal any decision to block the sale. My point was, the FCC/FTC/etc. will most likely loose on appeal - and they have to stop and question if that is the kind of precedent they want to set - appeal our decisions and they'll be overturned if we can't quantify them. What kind of enforcement power would they have then?
This is a failure of Congress.
What is needed is clear legislation from Congress that enumerate what exactly the FCC is allowed to regulate. Regulation should come from our elected officials, not from the policy statements of unelected commissions.
Exactly. But unfortunately, Congress isn't interest, at least not very much, at the moment. And you always run the risk of over-regulation when Congress gets involved. The correct way to do this is to give the FCC the authority, with a high and low limits, and then let the FCC run with it. I'm afraid, however, that Congress will end up setting the exact rules, and as a result, things might get too tightly regulated.
Easy decision for the FCC. Sorry Comcast, your purchase of NBC will harm consumers. No Deal.
Except that under the Law, they have to be able to PROVE that - not just have a feeling. Plus Comcast would have a perfect avenue of appeal, should the FCC make that determination without evidence - to any jury, regardless of their feelings about Comcast, it'll look like the FCC is saying "Well, since we can't hurt you there, we can do this instead." Would you really want the FCC's authority to be further diminished by loosing two appeals against the same company? What kind of precedent do you think that would set?
Slashdot Mirror
I see a lot of assumptions in these comments, like the OP is an ass, doesn't know what he's talking about, etc.
How about this: Programmers are NOT gods, and contractors will ALWAYS try to get out with the minimal amount of work done that gets them paid.
If I hire a contracted programmer to build something and deliver it, and it turns out it has bugs in it, then I'm going to demand that they fix them - after all, the contract required that the deliverable actually WORK to the spec I provided. Why this is such a foreign concept to so many people on here I'll never understand.
If you're a freelance programmer - great, I think that's awesome. Working for yourself is incredibly rewarding. That said, if I contract you to complete a task, and you deliver something that's buggy and doesn't work right, you haven't fulfilled your contract until it meets the specifications that I provided and that were written into your contract, even if that means you have to spend more time on it than you originally estimated because you didn't do it right the first time. I'm not going to pay you for that extra time, as it's your fault.
If, on the other hand, I wrote a bad spec and the software you deliver works to the spec I gave you, but not what I actually need, and I need it changed, then I WILL pay you for the extra time to modify it, because I didn't do my part correctly.
I'm glad someone else noticed this. The Saturn V had a payload capacity of 260,000 pounds and peak thrust of at least 7,500,000 pounds. They may be saying that this is the biggest thrust and payload among operational rockets, but I'd still like to see the ratio of (thrust/payload)/cost. That is where I'd really like to see improvement.
Estimated to be around $1,000/ton to orbit. Nothing comes close at this point to that figure, and it's all down-hill from there once it's reached. The Saturn V was/is a beautiful machine - but it was rather inefficient.
the Soviet N1?
Except that the N1 never reached orbit (read your own article if you don't believe me).
Space-X has already launched, orbited, and successfully recovered a payload. For a private company using almost all private dollars, that's a significant achievement and I don't doubt that the Falcon Heavy will succeed.
Sincerely, Person with a Ph.D. in EE who has worked with hardware development for 15 years who hates the fact that untrained monkey's working in their garages have come up with more cool stuff than he ever will.
Fixed that for you.
Its a good game. I've been playing since the day it launched, but took a couple six to nine month breaks.
My fiancée totally got hooked on auctioning and crafting and playing as a healer while I like to gather and do 5 mans with either a warrior or warlock.
Precisely. I played the original Vanilla beta and then picked up the game about a month or so after launch and have had an active account since. I've taken plenty of breaks, weeks, months - whatever - but I come back. It's great for when I need a distraction and nothing else will do.
I would like to see them make crafting both more reasonable (in terms of mats - some things are insane) as well as usability. The best gear in the game continues to be what drops at end-level content; however, crafted gear should come at least a close 2nd or 3rd, but often times doesn't.
Blizzard has had some crap QA issues before, but 4.0.1 was one of their most atrocious releases to the point that they said some of the Mage glyph bugs just simply can't be fixed right now and that they had to just deal with it. How does crap like that get by their QA? We're not talking about some arcane feature with a small bug, we're talking about a major component of the system that is totally broken.
I think you really see it in the patch notes, which tend to contain about 1/10th of the actual changes made in a given patch. For example 4.0.1 includes a ton of new UI features such as graphical elements used to alert the user that a special ability is ready to be used. However nothing was ever disclosed about it nor were players given a chance to learn what each graphical identity means when its displayed. It becomes trial and error. Watch for the new graphic to appear, now look at your list of buffs to see if there's some new, temp buff there. Wait for it to go away and see if the graphic goes away as well. That's a lot of tedious crap to deal with, especially when you're in the middle of a boss fight.
I wonder if this guy's approach to development by keeping development teams small is responsible for the poor quality of both documentation and product.
Considering there's at least one more major patch (4.0.3 - The Sundering) before Cataclysm is released, I can see their point of view. The Beta servers are currently running post-Cata patches (obviously) and the Mage Glyph issues doesn't exist there - which would indicate it's been fixed, just not released yet.
I don't like him either. He's more lawyer than marine biologist, he does anything he wants and justifies it (I know it's funny when I say it too) but frankly there's nothing I hate more than running around in circles and WoW is doing exactly that.
Ruler of a game that has no idea what it wants to be.
Well, when you have the title "Lead Systems Designer " you kinda get to do those things. And 12 Million people agree with him. And considering that ACTV's stock price is based over 50% solely on WoW, even though Activision-Blizzard have many other titles would suggest that most people disagree with you.
I'm suspecting Cataclysm is going to be a commercially disappointing expansion for WoW. I've been a WoW player since the original, and I'm not getting Cata. In fact, my subscription expires in a couple of days and I have no plans to renew.
Cataclysm has some major issues that are going to interfere with its commercial success. Healing specs are being nerfed very hard, to the point that playing a healer in PvE is not going to be fun for many players, and playing a healer in PvP will be even worse. Expect many players with healing mains to bail out. The PvE content is being made more difficult. While that may make the hardcore fringe happy, for the typical WoW player it only adds frustration. And remember, most of these player never finished the normal mode PvE content in WotLK; even that was too hard for them. The popular random LFD feature is going to be a wasteland.
Tremendous changes, larger than in any previous expansion, are being made to all classes and specs. It is unlikely these will be balanced adequately until well into the expansion, if then.
It doesn't take many defections from your circle of close in-game friends before you begin to question why you're still playing the game. When the stuff really hits the fan in after the next several months, SW:tOR will be coming along to snatch up the disgruntled.
If Cataclysm lives up to its name, I expect ATVI stock to take a considerable hit.
So, since I've been leveling toons from 1 to 65 and 70 at this point during my Beta Testing, I feel entitled to say this: Bullsh!t
I keep hearing these whining comments from people who are fundamentally incapable of adapting - get over yourselves. It's not your game - it's Blizzard's, and they have every right to do what they want.
That said, I've enjoyed Cataclysm immensely - the changes are pretty damn cool to the game world, and it's very interesting to see new takes on old quests and events. The Class changes are going to take some getting used to - I hated playing my toons I copied over or the pre-mades.
However, once I started a new toon from scratch and played through the leveling process and re-learned from the ground up, I was able to go back to those copies and pre-mades and kick ass. It's something I'm going to be recommending to everyone I know who plays - I think it'll help. Don't have to level one from scratch all the way - just 10 levels or so, which only takes about 1.5-2hrs.
Real ID lost me. I don't play online games so I can be stalked and harassed, and by failing to make privacy and security a priority from the start, you ruined any chance I'd trust you to handle it right,.
So I won't give you money.
I'm sure you miss me.
Don't pay much attention, do ya? Real ID isn't required, period, just a Battle.net login, which isn't the same thing. You don't have to share your Battle.Net login with anyone, thus they can't find you unless you willingly give it out - Blizzard is putting the responsibility for your safety and privacy in your hands, where it belongs.
Blizzard gains about 20 new customers for every one that quits - so, please, continue to quit - my stock price keeps going up.
I started with MUDs, moved on to Meridian 59, Ultima Online, Everquest, etc...I absolutely LOVED my time spent with MMOs, especially WoW (closed and open betas, continued until about 1.5 years after launch), but the genre got boring for me. Not even The Old Republic can get me excited about an MMO.
I still find it surprising when I hear so many people are still playing WoW. Anyone on here still playing since launch? What's kept you with it all this time? Gameplay, community, what?
Been playing since early 2005. Blizz has managed to keep it interesting, despite some missteps. About time for the old world revamp though. Bring on the Cataclysm!
As a Beta Tester, I gotta tell you - the water effects ALONE are worth the 4.0 patch. So much has changed, yet alot is still the same, or just slightly different - but it feels like a new game, truly.
WOW is just a game ... But this choice of a release date is sure to generate controversy....
So? My daughter was born almost 59 years to the minute of the D-Day Invasion...
And, actually, it could be viewed as somewhat appropriate - Cataclysm is an upheaval for Azeroth in so many ways; much like the attack on Pearl Harbor was an upheaval both for America as a nation as well as the rest of the world.
"Regime change isn't very effective when you have the Keystone Kops trying to carry it out for you."
Regime change isn't going to happen due to a few protesting students, and the mullocracy can choose to kill them off if they threaten Islamic control of government.
The people who want to change Iran will have to display a greater will to power than the Islamocracy. That's a very tough act to follow. It would require a Maoist level of ruthlessness, not the trifling discontent of a few young people.
Precisely. As much as I want to shoot myself in the face for saying this, those "young people" would have a better chance if they read Mao's Little Red Book and took it to heart than doing what they're doing.
A wise man once said that 99% of Statistics are made up on the spot...
Hrmm. I always thought it was 87%
Well another one said it was 54.9834%, but they all claim to be experts, so who really knows?
We all live our lives as we wish to live them, and realize that statistics are incredibly important to making the world a better, easier place to live in. Sure, they can be wrong sometimes, but I would imagine the general public trusts them a lot less than they should actually be trusted. I mean, global warming is like 99.99999% true, same with evolution, but we still have people who don't have a clue and doubt blatant facts because they don't understand things like the specific heat capacity of water, or that evolution isn't globs of crap off the ground suddenly turning into animals and people.
Sure, the numbers can sometimes be wrong, but they are not wrong 75% of the time. Not even 50% or 25%, but less. And yes, sometimes we are further off, but it is rare. Should we really ignore important numbers because their is a small chance they are wrong? I am not saying anyone should change everything about their lives due to a single number, but common, this is a bit crazy. I am not trying to be debatative here, just saying hey, it is what it is.
A wise man once said that 99% of Statistics are made up on the spot...
Tell you what... You think this is a brilliant way to make money? Open your own bank. It's actually legal (and relatively easy) in this country. It's a good time to open a small bank, too - people are sick of the big banks. Find a backer and let them know that there's this underserved banking market out there. I'm sure you'll find plenty of takers if the idea is a good one.
But, in general, the main reason a banking service isn't offered to you is because the service isn't profitable enough to offer it to the market you're part of.
I would second this. Seriously, if someone were to start a geek-friendly bank, with reasonable terms, I would seriously consider using it, and I've got quite a few friends who would as well.
The issue, as mentioned, is finding a backer. To open a bank, you have to have a certain amount of cash on-hand, and that's where the sticking point comes for most of us, otherwise we'd all open banks.
Looks like what we really need then is a hanged Murdoch rather than a hanged Parliament. If you guys could take care of that, we in the US would be ever so grateful.
^^ + this
I would be perfectly happy letting a piece of software BE the government.
Vote 'Skynet' in the October elections!
Fixed that for you.
Why is coalition government called "risk"? It's quite common in continental Europe and in European Parliament too. What is the problem here?
Because neither of the major parties are willing to work with each other.
But isn't that still to be tested? I don't think it should be called a hung parliament until they get to a point where legislation isn't being passed.
Except they don't have enough votes for a supermajority for a new PM.
Why is coalition government called "risk"? It's quite common in continental Europe and in European Parliament too. What is the problem here?
Because neither of the major parties are willing to work with each other.
However, no matter how poorly enforced, all corporate charters are contingent on their being in the public interest. In theory, it means any of then can be dis-incorporated at any time if as a whole they do more harm than good.
That's true - to a point. For that particular "feature" to be enforced, it has to be proven that overwhelming majority of the public has been harmed - not that they might be.
You're not playing Devil's Advocate. You're just a corporate shill, Republican wing-nut. That much is obvious.
Which is why I vote against repubs, right? And dems too. No, I just don't believe it's right to "convict" a Company or a person of something they have yet to do - BitTorrent interference is one thing, the NBC deal is another.
Congress by its very nature is incompetent because they put politics ahead of principle. Case in point, look at taxation and the new health care reform. They're both disasters of epic proportions. In fact, I'm willing to bet the only portion of the bill they read is their own amended riders they put into them, not the bill itself.
And you guys want Congress to regulate the Internet? I can only see this going from bad to worse!
Except that without Congress, it can be argued that at times in this Nation's history, things would've been much worse. When the stars and planets align, they can do intelligent things, though not everyone at that moment may agree that they're intelligent. Problem is, it just doesn't happen that often.
And note that it's not about Congress regulating the Internet - it's about giving the FCC the authority and the tools to do so, which they currently don't have.
Yes, but corporations still can't act against the interests of the public. Try making dangerous products. In such cases, the corporation would be making money, their suppliers would be making money and 401(k) accounts would be making money, but it would be dwarfed by the long term costs from people would end up injured. Making money in the short term is not a justification for bad behavior in the least.
Yes, but who defines the best interests of the public? I'm not saying you're wrong, simply playing Devil's Advocate here. True, dangerous products affect all - either directly, by those who are harmed, or indirectly - families who suffer from a loved one's death or injury, etc. Common Social Morality tells us that those products should be blocked, and companies stopped. However, you then get into gray areas - products that can cause harm when used incorrectly, or even when used correctly, but the choice to use them is left up to purchaser.
The problem when trying to use this argument with the Comcast/NBC deal is that the FCC/FTC/etc. have to quantify actual damages - they can't simply say "Well, they might do this or they might do that " and use that as the justification. You can't convict someone (and bear in mind that U.S. Law treats Companies as individuals with individual's rights) of something that they haven't done yet - even if there is some evidence that they might.
If Comcast thinks that its actions related to FCC v. Comcast and other unrelated behavior should have no bearing on its current attempt at acquiring NBC, I assure you that both the FCC and FTC will have something to say about that. Either agency can and potentially even object to or block the sale of NBC to Comcast.
Sure they can - I wasn't saying that they couldn't. But Comcast can, and will, most assuredly, appeal any decision to block the sale. My point was, the FCC/FTC/etc. will most likely loose on appeal - and they have to stop and question if that is the kind of precedent they want to set - appeal our decisions and they'll be overturned if we can't quantify them. What kind of enforcement power would they have then?
This is a failure of Congress. What is needed is clear legislation from Congress that enumerate what exactly the FCC is allowed to regulate. Regulation should come from our elected officials, not from the policy statements of unelected commissions.
Exactly. But unfortunately, Congress isn't interest, at least not very much, at the moment. And you always run the risk of over-regulation when Congress gets involved. The correct way to do this is to give the FCC the authority, with a high and low limits, and then let the FCC run with it. I'm afraid, however, that Congress will end up setting the exact rules, and as a result, things might get too tightly regulated.
Easy decision for the FCC. Sorry Comcast, your purchase of NBC will harm consumers. No Deal.
Except that under the Law, they have to be able to PROVE that - not just have a feeling. Plus Comcast would have a perfect avenue of appeal, should the FCC make that determination without evidence - to any jury, regardless of their feelings about Comcast, it'll look like the FCC is saying "Well, since we can't hurt you there, we can do this instead." Would you really want the FCC's authority to be further diminished by loosing two appeals against the same company? What kind of precedent do you think that would set?