a three employee company is unlikely to be doing enough business to meet SD's thresholds, and since the SC talked about those thresholds it's not very likely for other states to impose a rule that doesn't have any thresholds.
Also, it seems unlikely that a state law is going to worry overmuch about sub-state regional taxes; they just want the state-level cut.
we don't have details on _which_ movies AMC will include in the program, so my first guess would be that the initial run of anything big will not be allowed, like with the free passes and such. Once the studio cut is down to the buck-and-change per, they can pay that from the 20 dollar fee and let the theater reap the profit from your snacks and drinks.
That would be nice. We used to have a situation like that when phone lines were the main medium for connecting to an ISP, because of the history that the phone company shouldn't/couldn't restrict who you called, but when we moved to the higher speed stuff using cable tv lines, the "we own the wire and we don't have to let anyone else use it to serve our customers" attitude cropped up, and then got copied when the phone companies started making non-telephony data services available.
I'd be delighted to have more ISPs. My question is about how small content providers who are not ISPs handle the situation.
Netflix does have a pretty decent bargaining position. You have not addressed the smaller scale players, however, and I brought them up specifically because Netflix does have the advantage of an existing large following. Hulu has an existing following as well, but not as large; Crunchyroll smaller yet, and the hypothetical upcoming startup has of course none.
okay, say Alphabet does built out fiber. Now there's 3 big ISPs. What does Netflix do, if Alphabet doesn't partner with them? What does Hulu do? Crunchyroll? The next streaming startup, who didn't exist when Alphabet was signing up partners?
letting prices rise doesn't really encourage development of new drugs either, as long as the old ones can still be milked. Lifetime treatment is more profitable than cures, too.
in the absence of the bill of rights the people _should_ still have the exact same rights... but after 200ish years of twisting verbiage (I'm looking at you, interstate commerce) it's not quite working out that way.
that's bad news. Because if the sun is the driver of the increase in world average temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it's basically slowly going nova and we're all toast.
Speaking strictly to the logic of the statements, they are not contradictory; it is possible to not know what value N has while being aware of some values that it is definitely not. For example: I don't know the number of grains of sand on the beach but I know it's not less than 12.
So for your assertion that we can't know it's less than 4, we have to assume that 3 or 2 might actually be the number. (0 or 1 results in no competition at all, which I think we can agree is less than optimal, no?) So, what reason do you have to believe that a market with 3 carriers would have the optimal amount of competition?
10 to 15 per month? I pay more than that to backup my data. If this would ameliorate the dozen or so one-second blackouts I've gotten in the past year it'd be a win.
the example was chosen for emotional value. It is entirely reasonable to disqualify it and remove that emotional value from the discussion if it does not belong. Otherwise, we can just contrive a scenario where I need google to make a call for me or the world will end, and things just get silly.
while I agree that if you send me widgets you should get paid, I have never in my life heard of the purchaser getting to ding the store for extra costs if they had to go elsewhere. I find it very interesting. Can you point me to cases?
I'm not certain of the exact content of his robocalls but it _sounds_ like he was presenting himself as an agent of a company that he was not actually affiliated with, and since I assume that in some way he's getting money out of this, that's a lie to get money. Which is, as far as I'm aware, pretty much the definition of fraud, no?
looked at from one way, yes, secret knowledge is a form of obscurity. However, that's not how the term is typically used in terms of computer security. A formal definition would be useful:) I think a first cut might be "if getting to the information requires knowledge of a secret that is closely held (like a password) it's not just obscurity. If it requires knowledge of a secret that's embedded in widely distributed and easily accessible code (like a default password in plaintext in firmware/accessible source), it's obscurity. If it doesn't require a secret at all (like web URLs) it's not security at all."
Slashdot Mirror
that kind of threshold is in the SD law and likely to be a necessity for any other state's law to pass muster.
a three employee company is unlikely to be doing enough business to meet SD's thresholds, and since the SC talked about those thresholds it's not very likely for other states to impose a rule that doesn't have any thresholds.
Also, it seems unlikely that a state law is going to worry overmuch about sub-state regional taxes; they just want the state-level cut.
we don't have details on _which_ movies AMC will include in the program, so my first guess would be that the initial run of anything big will not be allowed, like with the free passes and such. Once the studio cut is down to the buck-and-change per, they can pay that from the 20 dollar fee and let the theater reap the profit from your snacks and drinks.
That would be nice. We used to have a situation like that when phone lines were the main medium for connecting to an ISP, because of the history that the phone company shouldn't/couldn't restrict who you called, but when we moved to the higher speed stuff using cable tv lines, the "we own the wire and we don't have to let anyone else use it to serve our customers" attitude cropped up, and then got copied when the phone companies started making non-telephony data services available.
I'd be delighted to have more ISPs. My question is about how small content providers who are not ISPs handle the situation.
Netflix does have a pretty decent bargaining position. You have not addressed the smaller scale players, however, and I brought them up specifically because Netflix does have the advantage of an existing large following. Hulu has an existing following as well, but not as large; Crunchyroll smaller yet, and the hypothetical upcoming startup has of course none.
okay, say Alphabet does built out fiber. Now there's 3 big ISPs. What does Netflix do, if Alphabet doesn't partner with them? What does Hulu do? Crunchyroll? The next streaming startup, who didn't exist when Alphabet was signing up partners?
any one where the dictator realizes that letting the masses blow off steam doesn't actually hurt his power that much.
letting prices rise doesn't really encourage development of new drugs either, as long as the old ones can still be milked. Lifetime treatment is more profitable than cures, too.
in the absence of the bill of rights the people _should_ still have the exact same rights... but after 200ish years of twisting verbiage (I'm looking at you, interstate commerce) it's not quite working out that way.
that's bad news. Because if the sun is the driver of the increase in world average temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it's basically slowly going nova and we're all toast.
Why would they not want to merge? Optimal competition for the consumer is not optimal for the supplier; all suppliers really want to be a monopoly.
Speaking strictly to the logic of the statements, they are not contradictory; it is possible to not know what value N has while being aware of some values that it is definitely not. For example: I don't know the number of grains of sand on the beach but I know it's not less than 12.
So for your assertion that we can't know it's less than 4, we have to assume that 3 or 2 might actually be the number. (0 or 1 results in no competition at all, which I think we can agree is less than optimal, no?) So, what reason do you have to believe that a market with 3 carriers would have the optimal amount of competition?
10 to 15 per month? I pay more than that to backup my data. If this would ameliorate the dozen or so one-second blackouts I've gotten in the past year it'd be a win.
If they vote at all. If they don't, nobody notices.
you appear to be implying that class actions don't involve the government. Would you care to clarify?
Can be worked around manually but yeah, that's a pita.
a bill... which can be vetoed by the current administration?
if they made a law, that would be subject to veto.
the example was chosen for emotional value. It is entirely reasonable to disqualify it and remove that emotional value from the discussion if it does not belong.
Otherwise, we can just contrive a scenario where I need google to make a call for me or the world will end, and things just get silly.
a machine I own, doing what I told it to do, is counted as me doing it for lots of things legally. Why would this be different?
while I agree that if you send me widgets you should get paid, I have never in my life heard of the purchaser getting to ding the store for extra costs if they had to go elsewhere. I find it very interesting. Can you point me to cases?
last I heard CA was still a net exporter of federal tax money.
I'm not certain of the exact content of his robocalls but it _sounds_ like he was presenting himself as an agent of a company that he was not actually affiliated with, and since I assume that in some way he's getting money out of this, that's a lie to get money. Which is, as far as I'm aware, pretty much the definition of fraud, no?
looked at from one way, yes, secret knowledge is a form of obscurity. However, that's not how the term is typically used in terms of computer security. A formal definition would be useful :) I think a first cut might be "if getting to the information requires knowledge of a secret that is closely held (like a password) it's not just obscurity. If it requires knowledge of a secret that's embedded in widely distributed and easily accessible code (like a default password in plaintext in firmware/accessible source), it's obscurity. If it doesn't require a secret at all (like web URLs) it's not security at all."
You didn't ask what they would do that's problematic, you asked what causes them to have to name a DPO.