Who wants a sports channel to be innovative? You watch a sports channel to watch sports. And no pocket is being picked. Companies willingly pay them for their channel because the vast majority of cable subscribers want it. They always want to pay less, of course, but the other option (no ESPN) just isn't viable in most cases. Maybe that will change sooner rather than later, but I doubt it. Sports are the only thing most people still watch live, so those types of channels are still valuable.
It's not a bad contract as in no company is getting screwed over due to ignorance of the law (or some other reason). Teams of lawyers certainly went over it in detail and both parties knew exactly what they were getting into. If ESPN got Verizon to sign something saying "your customers must keep ESPN for twelve consecutive months" then Verizon must oblige. Again, this sucks for the customer, but it is not a bad contract.
It's not a horrible contract if both parties agreed to it. It's not good for the customer, but no one is forced to sign up for cable. I understand why ESPN would want that language in there because if I were interested only in football, I could subscribe for those five months and not the others. What ESPN wants is my money year-round, and it sounds like Verizon agreed to promise ESPN just that by signing the contract. Maybe it says something different as Verizon claims, but ultimately I fear there will just be some settlement and we'll go back to the status quo.
Also, a shout out to Al Franken for being one of, if not the only top politicians to have questioned and criticized this merger from the beginning.
You just invalidated your entire argument there. If Ds were truly different than Rs in this regard, then more Ds would have been on Franken's side from the beginning.
Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom
That bullshit argument was rejected pretty soundly 50 years ago. It is reasonable in limited circumstances, for businesses which can only deal with a very limited range of customers. It is not considered reasonable for any business which claims to be open to the public--we decided long ago that you're either open to the public or you're not. You cannot be open to the public except for women; you cannot be open to the public except for blacks or latinos. Etc.
While a business shouldn't be allowed to not serve a segment of society, a business shouldn't be forced to contribute to something to which they object (on any grounds, but religious grounds for this argument). So while a bakery should have to sell a pre-made cake/cookie/whatever to any customer that walks in, it shouldn't have to make a cake promoting a gay wedding or a NAMBLA meeting or a Jihad Dance Party or Furry Orgy (I'm not equating those things, I'm just listing things that many people would object to being a part of). In an extreme example, a Jewish-owned bakery shouldn't have to make a cake with a swastika or "Death to Jews" written on it. Some people would see making a cake with a rainbow on it for a gay wedding as just as offensive. Let them believe that and take your business elsewhere - why would you want to give them money in the first place? Bring attention to that business, boycott them, do everything legally possible to embarrass them, but don't force them to go against their beliefs, no matter how wrong you think that those beliefs are.
Considering Republicans fought him at every turn - what did you expect.
Parties fight - it's what they do. If they didn't, their "constituents" might go from slightly upset to mildly upset. Good/great Presidents find a way to compromise through all of the fighting. Do you think Reagan didn't fight with Tip? Clinton didn't fight with Newt? You may not agree with what they got passed, but they got shit done.
Yes, but "smoke and fumes reaching the airplane's cockpit" is not the same as "blow up". It is possible that fumes from overheating batteries incapacitated the flight crew resulting in the plane flying on autopilot until it ran out of fuel.
Then why did the pilots not declare an emergency (or at the least radio someone/anyone) upon seeing the smoke/smelling the fumes? It's not like smoke and fumes make you unconscious immediately.
OK -- then I'll feel compassion for him when I see his property tax bills that he paid for his speculation.
Like annual domain registration fees?
I suggest that the market-based solution would be to have an annual auction of the domain name (and all non-trademarked names). Highest bidder gets it. Previous owner gets half the bid (ICANN or whomever gets the other half).
So whoever "owns" it gets a half price discount every year? Brilliant.
I like Simon Pegg, but I'm not sure if his writing CV is best suited for the genre...
Forget genre - his writing is very strong (unless it's mostly written by Wright, and Pegg is taking too much credit, which is doubtful). Take any of the films in the Cornetto trilogy and try and find a serious flaw. I don't mean whether or not you thought it was funny. The screenplays are solid pieces of writing. Just look at the opening scene of Shaun of the Dead: We learn very quickly all we need to know about each main character, the dialogue of the characters completes others sentences in a clever and funny way, and it sets the (I would argue actual) plot in motion by establishing that Shaun is slacker who needs to start caring more about his girlfriend. The zed-words are just the MacGuffin to help show that Shaun really does care. I for one am ecstatic that he'll be on board for the next Star Trek, because I was done with the franchise otherwise.
I like my board games to be based purely on chance. #LifeforLife
I actually don't mind games that have a high degree of luck involved, though I prefer somewhere around "low" luck. What I do mind is if that luck knocks a player out of a game well before all of the other participants are out, so that there is extreme downtime for one or more players. Games like Ticket to Ride, Lords of Vegas, Power Grid, etc... deal with this by having all players play until the scoring phase at the end. I played Risk Legacy once, and lost before I even took a turn (!). Sure I got back into the game with reduced resources, but I had already really lost the game. Letting people play (mostly) until the end is probably the single biggest requirement aside from actual fun/interesting mechanics.
Those proposals would hardly make things more efficient. Certainly for the traveler, but (as another reply pointed out) ticket prices would skyrocket and the amount of work each airline has to do would similarly increase. The first part of #2 is already present on every airline's website - there are no hidden fees waiting for you at checkout, unless you count options like wi-fi and early boarding. But every single other proposal (especially #4) would be a nightmare for airlines to implement. If airline travel was the only way to get somewhere, then more regulation would make sense, but we can go by car, train, bus, or boat, so forcing airlines to change their product so drastically because most deem it inconvenient is just not reasonable.
Just implementing this aspect would likely not result in airlines not making a profit, but they would make less of a profit than they currently do, and the point of a business is to make as much profit as possible. There's nothing wrong with charging as much as the market will bear. We all want cheap and plentiful non-stops to every point in the country, but that's just not realistic.
Yes, there are insanities about their pricing models
I truly don't get this. How can you claim that a pricing model is insane when people freely pay that amount? The fare from A to B is directly related to demand for the route flown, and not for how many miles the journey is or how many stops the plane makes. It may not be ideal for the traveler, but there are many alternative methods of travel, so go another way if the price doesn't suit you. There are many things that I don't like about air travel, but weird/high pricing is not the fault of the airlines.
They have to find your bag and remove it from the airplane if you're not on it. So yes, that will cause delays and add cost.
That's not true, or at least it isn't for some airlines. I missed a flight after checking my bag once due to an extraordinarily stupid airline employee and an unusually long security line, and my luggage went without me. To make matters worse, I was put on another airline's plane, and when I got to my destination, I had to wait four hours for my original airline's baggage office to re-open because they only operated two flights a day into/out of that airport, and didn't have full time staff. So delays and costs were involved, but certainly not for the airline.
No, I don''t think so. If it was? Brilliant "stunt" releasing all of that embarrassing information and getting the five largest cinema chains to not show their film. They still get my $12 x 2.
I honestly hope that this has The Streisand Effect and breaks every box office record ever. I know that that won't happen, but it would be nice. I was on the fence about seeing this movie before all of the hoopla (Rogen and Franco can be funny, but they can also be not funny at all), but now that some asshole of a dictator says I can't, I'm going to pay for it at least twice. Thankfully, The Plaza Theater (yay Atlanta!?!) has stepped up so that I can.
Sorry I travel 2 sometimes 3 times a month to Vegas and I have to say outside of NYC it's the biggest taxi racket out there. Because of the terminal locations, it's a guaranteed $10 sometimes $15 bucks before you even get to the Strip because of the circuitous routing and roads. One time I had a driver "miss" the airport exit and then had to argue with him over the extra $13 bucks on the meter because of his mistake. So now I rent cars when I go there and again, Vegas leads this category in stupidity. Hike to the Rental Car Shuttle Bus, ride for 10 minutes, more lines, more hassle and oh yeah nice "Franchise" fees on top of "Airport Taxes" to pile onto the car. Still, it's better than a taxi there.
If you go the non-highway route, it's pretty direct. There's not much "circuitous routing" at all. And compare the airport-to-where-most-people-go fares to other cities' fares - it's quite low. I'm not defending anyone trying to make your ride longer and charging for it, I'm just saying Las Vegas is one of the best cities in the country for cabs if everything's honest. Next time you get in a cab in non-peak times, say "Take Tropicana" if you're going to the South side of the strip, and say, "Take Swenson" if you're going anywhere north of City Center/Planet Hollywood. The cabbie will think you know where you're going and won't take you out of the way.
As far as renting a car goes, it takes an extremely long time unless you go to Hertz or Avis, who invariably charge double or more what the discount places charge. I made the mistake of renting from Dollar one time, and I certainly got what I pad for. At least a dozen people in line and one agent. On subsequent rentals, I see the same thing at Dollar/Fox/etc... - hideous lines and one or maybe two agents. I'd rather spend $15-20 each way on cab fare and save an hour, but if your time is worth nothing, then the discount places may be worth it to you.
I've never seen a limo driver hawking is service there - I'm usually already in a cab, but they do like to negotiate, especially if they're idle (An aisde - always call for a limo and negotiate a free ride when taking multiple people to a strip club. The club pays the driver for each person that enters.) I guess in the case of six people it makes sense (plus, saving time). But six is an exception - usually it's two, or maybe four, people arriving at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
Who wants a sports channel to be innovative? You watch a sports channel to watch sports. And no pocket is being picked. Companies willingly pay them for their channel because the vast majority of cable subscribers want it. They always want to pay less, of course, but the other option (no ESPN) just isn't viable in most cases. Maybe that will change sooner rather than later, but I doubt it. Sports are the only thing most people still watch live, so those types of channels are still valuable.
It's not a bad contract as in no company is getting screwed over due to ignorance of the law (or some other reason). Teams of lawyers certainly went over it in detail and both parties knew exactly what they were getting into. If ESPN got Verizon to sign something saying "your customers must keep ESPN for twelve consecutive months" then Verizon must oblige. Again, this sucks for the customer, but it is not a bad contract.
It's not a horrible contract if both parties agreed to it. It's not good for the customer, but no one is forced to sign up for cable. I understand why ESPN would want that language in there because if I were interested only in football, I could subscribe for those five months and not the others. What ESPN wants is my money year-round, and it sounds like Verizon agreed to promise ESPN just that by signing the contract. Maybe it says something different as Verizon claims, but ultimately I fear there will just be some settlement and we'll go back to the status quo.
I wasn't actually arguing that he was wrong. I was pointing out that he invalidated his own argument.
Also, a shout out to Al Franken for being one of, if not the only top politicians to have questioned and criticized this merger from the beginning.
You just invalidated your entire argument there. If Ds were truly different than Rs in this regard, then more Ds would have been on Franken's side from the beginning.
So maybe not the norm, but it does happen.
I guess I'll have to roll out my usual feedback to Google when they change something: "Stop fixing shit that isn't broken."
Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom
That bullshit argument was rejected pretty soundly 50 years ago. It is reasonable in limited circumstances, for businesses which can only deal with a very limited range of customers. It is not considered reasonable for any business which claims to be open to the public--we decided long ago that you're either open to the public or you're not. You cannot be open to the public except for women; you cannot be open to the public except for blacks or latinos. Etc.
While a business shouldn't be allowed to not serve a segment of society, a business shouldn't be forced to contribute to something to which they object (on any grounds, but religious grounds for this argument). So while a bakery should have to sell a pre-made cake/cookie/whatever to any customer that walks in, it shouldn't have to make a cake promoting a gay wedding or a NAMBLA meeting or a Jihad Dance Party or Furry Orgy (I'm not equating those things, I'm just listing things that many people would object to being a part of). In an extreme example, a Jewish-owned bakery shouldn't have to make a cake with a swastika or "Death to Jews" written on it. Some people would see making a cake with a rainbow on it for a gay wedding as just as offensive. Let them believe that and take your business elsewhere - why would you want to give them money in the first place? Bring attention to that business, boycott them, do everything legally possible to embarrass them, but don't force them to go against their beliefs, no matter how wrong you think that those beliefs are.
Considering Republicans fought him at every turn - what did you expect.
Parties fight - it's what they do. If they didn't, their "constituents" might go from slightly upset to mildly upset. Good/great Presidents find a way to compromise through all of the fighting. Do you think Reagan didn't fight with Tip? Clinton didn't fight with Newt? You may not agree with what they got passed, but they got shit done.
Yes, but "smoke and fumes reaching the airplane's cockpit" is not the same as "blow up". It is possible that fumes from overheating batteries incapacitated the flight crew resulting in the plane flying on autopilot until it ran out of fuel.
Then why did the pilots not declare an emergency (or at the least radio someone/anyone) upon seeing the smoke/smelling the fumes? It's not like smoke and fumes make you unconscious immediately.
Yes.
OK -- then I'll feel compassion for him when I see his property tax bills that he paid for his speculation.
Like annual domain registration fees?
I suggest that the market-based solution would be to have an annual auction of the domain name (and all non-trademarked names). Highest bidder gets it. Previous owner gets half the bid (ICANN or whomever gets the other half).
So whoever "owns" it gets a half price discount every year? Brilliant.
I like Simon Pegg, but I'm not sure if his writing CV is best suited for the genre...
Forget genre - his writing is very strong (unless it's mostly written by Wright, and Pegg is taking too much credit, which is doubtful). Take any of the films in the Cornetto trilogy and try and find a serious flaw. I don't mean whether or not you thought it was funny. The screenplays are solid pieces of writing. Just look at the opening scene of Shaun of the Dead: We learn very quickly all we need to know about each main character, the dialogue of the characters completes others sentences in a clever and funny way, and it sets the (I would argue actual) plot in motion by establishing that Shaun is slacker who needs to start caring more about his girlfriend. The zed-words are just the MacGuffin to help show that Shaun really does care. I for one am ecstatic that he'll be on board for the next Star Trek, because I was done with the franchise otherwise.
I like my board games to be based purely on chance. #LifeforLife
I actually don't mind games that have a high degree of luck involved, though I prefer somewhere around "low" luck. What I do mind is if that luck knocks a player out of a game well before all of the other participants are out, so that there is extreme downtime for one or more players. Games like Ticket to Ride, Lords of Vegas, Power Grid, etc... deal with this by having all players play until the scoring phase at the end. I played Risk Legacy once, and lost before I even took a turn (!). Sure I got back into the game with reduced resources, but I had already really lost the game. Letting people play (mostly) until the end is probably the single biggest requirement aside from actual fun/interesting mechanics.
Those proposals would hardly make things more efficient. Certainly for the traveler, but (as another reply pointed out) ticket prices would skyrocket and the amount of work each airline has to do would similarly increase. The first part of #2 is already present on every airline's website - there are no hidden fees waiting for you at checkout, unless you count options like wi-fi and early boarding. But every single other proposal (especially #4) would be a nightmare for airlines to implement. If airline travel was the only way to get somewhere, then more regulation would make sense, but we can go by car, train, bus, or boat, so forcing airlines to change their product so drastically because most deem it inconvenient is just not reasonable.
Just implementing this aspect would likely not result in airlines not making a profit, but they would make less of a profit than they currently do, and the point of a business is to make as much profit as possible. There's nothing wrong with charging as much as the market will bear. We all want cheap and plentiful non-stops to every point in the country, but that's just not realistic.
Here's an idea: Start your own airline with these features and see how long it lasts.
Is Air Canada going to sue me?
No, but if you do that multiple times, they will likely ban you from flying with them.
Yes, there are insanities about their pricing models
I truly don't get this. How can you claim that a pricing model is insane when people freely pay that amount? The fare from A to B is directly related to demand for the route flown, and not for how many miles the journey is or how many stops the plane makes. It may not be ideal for the traveler, but there are many alternative methods of travel, so go another way if the price doesn't suit you. There are many things that I don't like about air travel, but weird/high pricing is not the fault of the airlines.
They have to find your bag and remove it from the airplane if you're not on it. So yes, that will cause delays and add cost.
That's not true, or at least it isn't for some airlines. I missed a flight after checking my bag once due to an extraordinarily stupid airline employee and an unusually long security line, and my luggage went without me. To make matters worse, I was put on another airline's plane, and when I got to my destination, I had to wait four hours for my original airline's baggage office to re-open because they only operated two flights a day into/out of that airport, and didn't have full time staff. So delays and costs were involved, but certainly not for the airline.
No, I don''t think so. If it was? Brilliant "stunt" releasing all of that embarrassing information and getting the five largest cinema chains to not show their film. They still get my $12 x 2.
Called 'The Inner View'?
I honestly hope that this has The Streisand Effect and breaks every box office record ever. I know that that won't happen, but it would be nice. I was on the fence about seeing this movie before all of the hoopla (Rogen and Franco can be funny, but they can also be not funny at all), but now that some asshole of a dictator says I can't, I'm going to pay for it at least twice. Thankfully, The Plaza Theater (yay Atlanta!?!) has stepped up so that I can.
America! Fuck Yeah!
Sorry I travel 2 sometimes 3 times a month to Vegas and I have to say outside of NYC it's the biggest taxi racket out there. Because of the terminal locations, it's a guaranteed $10 sometimes $15 bucks before you even get to the Strip because of the circuitous routing and roads. One time I had a driver "miss" the airport exit and then had to argue with him over the extra $13 bucks on the meter because of his mistake. So now I rent cars when I go there and again, Vegas leads this category in stupidity. Hike to the Rental Car Shuttle Bus, ride for 10 minutes, more lines, more hassle and oh yeah nice "Franchise" fees on top of "Airport Taxes" to pile onto the car. Still, it's better than a taxi there.
If you go the non-highway route, it's pretty direct. There's not much "circuitous routing" at all. And compare the airport-to-where-most-people-go fares to other cities' fares - it's quite low. I'm not defending anyone trying to make your ride longer and charging for it, I'm just saying Las Vegas is one of the best cities in the country for cabs if everything's honest. Next time you get in a cab in non-peak times, say "Take Tropicana" if you're going to the South side of the strip, and say, "Take Swenson" if you're going anywhere north of City Center/Planet Hollywood. The cabbie will think you know where you're going and won't take you out of the way.
As far as renting a car goes, it takes an extremely long time unless you go to Hertz or Avis, who invariably charge double or more what the discount places charge. I made the mistake of renting from Dollar one time, and I certainly got what I pad for. At least a dozen people in line and one agent. On subsequent rentals, I see the same thing at Dollar/Fox/etc... - hideous lines and one or maybe two agents. I'd rather spend $15-20 each way on cab fare and save an hour, but if your time is worth nothing, then the discount places may be worth it to you.
I've never seen a limo driver hawking is service there - I'm usually already in a cab, but they do like to negotiate, especially if they're idle (An aisde - always call for a limo and negotiate a free ride when taking multiple people to a strip club. The club pays the driver for each person that enters.) I guess in the case of six people it makes sense (plus, saving time). But six is an exception - usually it's two, or maybe four, people arriving at the same time.