The App Store on the Apple TV should be just as revolutionary as it was on the iPhone 3 when it came out. Instead of making a deal with Apple or Comcast or Roku to get your content on TV, you'll just write an app. This should open up TV to a whole new universe of niche providers and accelerate the trend of shrinking audiences for cable and broadcast shows.
Prices have been going down lately due to intense competition. Sprint and T-Mobile are aggressively competing on price, and V and T are cutting prices to keep from losing too many customers. Meanwhile, Sprint and T-Mobile are steadily building out their networks to compete with V and T coverage advantage, but they have a long way to go.
And Dish Network has bought a huge amount of spectrum at auction. They will be entering the business in a major way sometime in the next few years.
They're not acting the way you describe. Not anymore.
Verizon is the only good choice for good coverage outside of cities. You will pay a lot. If you don't want to pay a lot, then get something cheap and spend your time looking for free wifi. There's no really good, inexpensive option.
The US is vast. It will be a long time before all the networks fill in their coverage holes and have to mostly compete on price. If bandwidth keeps increasing, it may be forever.
Almost all people who vote want their own personal idea's and beliefs to be put into government. That's why we should all vote, so the super crazy hopefully doesn't bubble to the top.
That's two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
Rather than government hurting whichever group has the minority of votes every year, government power should be decreased so they don't hurt people when it's not absolutely, critically necessary -- and then only with due process, with an absolute commitment to do the least harm. But that idea won't be popular with a certain sort of people who want to use government to get stuff and to stick it to people who aren't like them.
If they "know" there's no basis for regulation, they should be able to explain why these citizens' complaints don't matter while they're sure other citizens' complaints do.
Unless they base their opinions on their day-to-day feelings -- and thoughtful people should all be able to agree that day-to-day feelings aren't a wise or just basis for government to regulate and police (and hence bully and punish) anyone.
Come on. Answer the question. Why shouldn't the FCC regulate this?
I know the answer can't be "free speech rights", because the government fans told me corporations like Time Warner aren't people and therefore don't have free speech rights.
Citizens seek regulation of this corporation. Are government fans taking this corporation's side against the people?
Why shouldn't the FCC regulate HBO and address these citizens' complaints about Game of Thrones? Regulation is good, isn't it? HBO (Time Warner) is a huge corporate machine. These citizen have complaints.
Slashdot government fans want regulations on everything else. Why not this?
If you didn't choose this, then the government can't be trusted with power. If you did choose this, then the government can't be trusted with power because you can't be trusted.
Obviously we should give the government more power. After all, as Barney Frank says, "Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”
You do understand that mentality comes from the world doing its best to suck out your wealth at every turn, right? What you call spoiled and entitled I call defensive and savvy.
I don't call it reasoned or thoughtful. It an understandable emotional reaction though.
Its a hard check on greed.
It IS greed. To want something for nothing, or to want something for below the cost of providing it is greedy. It may also be a reaction to perceptions of others' greed, but that doesn't make it any less self-serving.
People will complain about anything more expensive than the absolute cheapest they've ever seen it. They're spoiled and entitled. Also, some people can't sleep at night thinking that someone, somewhere might be making a profit on something.
The real problem is that so many people take the complaining seriously without asking the complainers to justify it with rational arguments and propose a better alternative.
Who is "selfish"? Is the guy who wants to keep the wages he earned in his paycheck "selfish"? Is the guy who wants benefit money for doing nothing "selfish"?
Maybe labeling people "selfish" and then thoughtlessly dismissing their concerns isn't really a useful way to analyze policy preferences.
Minimum income programs could also help us address the benefit cliff, which can cause low income workers who get a pay raise to end up much worse off financially.
I don't think anything like this (or anything different at all really) can happen in the US unless there's a major, extremely disruptive change in government. The "insiders serving insiders" government culture will stop any substantial changes.
Slashdot Mirror
The App Store on the Apple TV should be just as revolutionary as it was on the iPhone 3 when it came out. Instead of making a deal with Apple or Comcast or Roku to get your content on TV, you'll just write an app. This should open up TV to a whole new universe of niche providers and accelerate the trend of shrinking audiences for cable and broadcast shows.
I'm looking forward to all the new choices.
By 2050, nearly all articles posted on "news" sites will be hyped-up predictions of the distant future.
Prices have been going down lately due to intense competition. Sprint and T-Mobile are aggressively competing on price, and V and T are cutting prices to keep from losing too many customers. Meanwhile, Sprint and T-Mobile are steadily building out their networks to compete with V and T coverage advantage, but they have a long way to go.
And Dish Network has bought a huge amount of spectrum at auction. They will be entering the business in a major way sometime in the next few years.
They're not acting the way you describe. Not anymore.
Verizon is the only good choice for good coverage outside of cities. You will pay a lot. If you don't want to pay a lot, then get something cheap and spend your time looking for free wifi. There's no really good, inexpensive option.
The US is vast. It will be a long time before all the networks fill in their coverage holes and have to mostly compete on price. If bandwidth keeps increasing, it may be forever.
If it were the first two, you'd need more than a 3-part tutorial to learn to interact with them.
Communicating without using cliches is hard for some (very annoying) people.
Almost all people who vote want their own personal idea's and beliefs to be put into government. That's why we should all vote, so the super crazy hopefully doesn't bubble to the top.
That's two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.
Rather than government hurting whichever group has the minority of votes every year, government power should be decreased so they don't hurt people when it's not absolutely, critically necessary -- and then only with due process, with an absolute commitment to do the least harm. But that idea won't be popular with a certain sort of people who want to use government to get stuff and to stick it to people who aren't like them.
If they "know" there's no basis for regulation, they should be able to explain why these citizens' complaints don't matter while they're sure other citizens' complaints do.
Unless they base their opinions on their day-to-day feelings -- and thoughtful people should all be able to agree that day-to-day feelings aren't a wise or just basis for government to regulate and police (and hence bully and punish) anyone.
Come on. Answer the question. Why shouldn't the FCC regulate this?
I know the answer can't be "free speech rights", because the government fans told me corporations like Time Warner aren't people and therefore don't have free speech rights.
Citizens seek regulation of this corporation. Are government fans taking this corporation's side against the people?
Why shouldn't the FCC regulate HBO and address these citizens' complaints about Game of Thrones? Regulation is good, isn't it? HBO (Time Warner) is a huge corporate machine. These citizen have complaints.
Slashdot government fans want regulations on everything else. Why not this?
Don't do it at the Federal or State level either. Stop governing and policing every minute of everyone's life.
Automate the cop. The car can drive by itself, but traffic control at the intersection needs a human?
This is why local governments should do less.
But when they absolutely must do something to serve the public (and this is not one of those times), they should probably contract it out.
Marriage is the oldest and most universal human tradition. Puritanism has nothing to do with marital fidelity.
What's your problem with Google and MS and Trump? Do you think they're not enjoyable and engaged in psychological warfare?
Lay off Ray Bradbury then. WTF is wrong with you?
If you didn't choose this, then the government can't be trusted with power. If you did choose this, then the government can't be trusted with power because you can't be trusted.
Obviously we should give the government more power. After all, as Barney Frank says, "Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”
You chose this, right?
You do understand that mentality comes from the world doing its best to suck out your wealth at every turn, right? What you call spoiled and entitled I call defensive and savvy.
I don't call it reasoned or thoughtful. It an understandable emotional reaction though.
Its a hard check on greed.
It IS greed. To want something for nothing, or to want something for below the cost of providing it is greedy. It may also be a reaction to perceptions of others' greed, but that doesn't make it any less self-serving.
People will complain about anything more expensive than the absolute cheapest they've ever seen it. They're spoiled and entitled. Also, some people can't sleep at night thinking that someone, somewhere might be making a profit on something.
The real problem is that so many people take the complaining seriously without asking the complainers to justify it with rational arguments and propose a better alternative.
There's no money to hire police. The money goes to pensions for people who worked for the city in the past.
did anyone suggest spending a few $ less on food and using the money to get someone from #3 into rehab so he could get work and buy his own food?
Also, people in the USSR were expected to work. They didn't get to decide to just stay home and collect a check.
Who is "selfish"? Is the guy who wants to keep the wages he earned in his paycheck "selfish"? Is the guy who wants benefit money for doing nothing "selfish"?
Maybe labeling people "selfish" and then thoughtlessly dismissing their concerns isn't really a useful way to analyze policy preferences.
I don't know about Finland, but in the US the government is spending an amount that equates to $60k per household in poverty (though that figure is somewhat misleading). Some sort of minimum income could let us shrink 90+ government programs into just a few and cut the agencies that hand out the money.
Minimum income programs could also help us address the benefit cliff, which can cause low income workers who get a pay raise to end up much worse off financially.
I don't think anything like this (or anything different at all really) can happen in the US unless there's a major, extremely disruptive change in government. The "insiders serving insiders" government culture will stop any substantial changes.