It's why the Here is a $100,000 check, can you cash it and send me the change.... I'll let you have an extra $1,000 for your trouble, obvious as hell scam works. Most people brains shut off when the greed center in their brain is triggered.
The main problem here is that people think the bank has verified the authenticity of the check when they've "cleared" it and given you access to the money, and that any failure to spot a fake check is now their problem. Like if I go deposit some cash I got from a yard sale I expect the bank to either accept it or reject it. Not accept it now and two weeks later say "Hey, those bills you gave us a few weeks ago were counterfeit we're deducting $200 from your account". And you never get a second "real" confirmation that your bank got their money from the intra-bank system you only know when they don't. The system is pretty rigged against the somewhat clueless and gullible person who goes to a professional money handler that appears to say everything is okay.
In the US, banks have to make the funds available shortly after deposit, before the check clears; which makes people think the check is good when it isn't.
How valid is the survey and sample selection methodology? Are Reddit users typical of Netflix users? Just because they have a subscription doesn't necessarily mean they are a representative sample; given they self select into Reddit. While I would not pay for Netflix if they added commercials that doesn't mean 90% would cancel their subscription. I could see a free with ads or pay for no ads model so users could self select and Netflix could tailor ads based on what they know about the user.
The nature of insurance just changes, from covering individual drivers to insuring manufacturers and fleet operators for product liability. The biggest impact will be on the legal profession: a whole army of bottom feeders will disappear, to be replaced with smaller additions to corporate lawyer ranks. A whole genre of late-night TV advertising will be replaced by ads for body mods, escort services and medical tourism services.
I'm not sure things will change that much; other than some laws getting updated to cover driverless cars to clarify liability. Owners / lessors will still be responsible for any damages caused by vehicles they own or lease, even if they are self driving. Lawsuits may decide if the software developers and auto manufacturers share some liability; but even while that gets sorted out personal injury lawyers will still get clients and sue. Insurance companies will assess the risks form driverless cars and charge accordingly.
You know, any high school kid that demonstrates it knows more about computers than the average CIO and hacks a server that was secured as well as a barndoor with a hay stack in front of it gets some verdict where he can't get near a computer any time soon.
Why is that waste of oxygen still allowed near anything using electricity?
What I don't understand is once you've discovered your "business model" doesn't work you don't take what you've learned and try to sell your skills in a way that does't get you in trouble? even if your "skills" aren't viewed as particularly good by people who are techies you still could sell your knowledge about spam and how to fight it to corporations. He was one of the early spammers who who had notoriety when other's didn't and could have capitalized on that; after all along with the "Green Card Lottery" spammers was one of the early persons to capitalize on spam's potential. Others made the leap to being a consultant after being hammered by the law; follow Frank Abagnale's need and sell the ability to stop others from doing what you do. Maybe because it's hard for some people to admit they're wrong and get their kicks from beating the system?
It's not that different form going from being in government to being a lobbyist and helping people negotiate working with government to get what they want, or working in a field and then using the knowledge you gain to help others compete in the same field. Ethics side, that may not be viewed as a good way to make money but it beats prison, especially since you have your former adversaries now on your side.
The funny psrt of that is I am still able to captire encrypted signals where they go to my TV.m via the vifeo out via component output. I usevthat to captute shows I want to wstch later or missed via their GO aps or other streams. It's a bit of apain brcsuse I have to capture the in tesl time but at least I can time shift them. Quality may not be as hood as a d/l but that is ok since I can still eatch them when I want while traveling or get one that foe whatever reason my DVR missed them. I'm not intested in getting an archival copy, just watching them. If I want a good copy I buy the ementual DVD or Bluray when it is released. I don't mond paying but want to watch on mu schedule, not there's.
then there should have been an employee in Direct Control of the handsets.
Maybe it's cheaper to lose 20k in phones every now and then than pay an employee at every store? Still it seems silly that they didn't have better security than they apparently had; though I bet if an employee saw someone stealing theft were told corporate policy is to let it go rather than confront the thief and risk escalating the situation.
if the transceiver is live the phone can be used to call 911
and why in the Ech Eee Double HockeySticks were the phones not in a "cage"??
While I agree on the 911 laws, which is why I found stores sell 911 calling devices silly, but depending on what bricked means it could conceivably not even power up. I agree, though, why aren't they locked up? Maybe a few are left out to allow quick turnaround and the thieves grabbed that?
For people who are not into Apple's Newspeak, what is a "Genius Bar"? Is it the sales counter?
It's a place you go to to be told your machine's behavior is normal. Apple users have to worship there once a year or so to remain active in the fanbase.
But the IMEI's are not necessarily statically inventoried, either.
Apple probably knows precisely which IMEIs were sent to which stores.
Too much trouble for a mere $20,000 or so. Plus, if they're sold overseas that adds to the complication. In addition, what if someone innocently gets one and doesn't realize it's stolen, either because it's a gift or they paid the going used price for a like new phone; and Apple nukes it and as a result they can't dial 911 and something bad happens. The lawsuit would cost a lot more than the value of the phone. A more likely response is to determine who to better keep people posing as employees out of the stock room; but still let Leonard go dressed in a t-shirt to meet girls.
Then it becomes an interesting question whether a sale actually took place when no money was paid.
I guess it would depend if a valid contract was made via Offer : I will sell you this at $0.00 Acceptance: Here's my click to buy Consideration: Here's your game, and I get access to your data since it runs on my server...
While I can understand MS made a mistake here and most ads include disclaimers about typos and MS probably has such a disclaimer somewhere in its TOS; I think there are two interesting factors at play:
1. In many online sales clicking Buy is merely an offer to purchase that the store still must accept and allows them to cancel erroneous purchases prior to shipping. In such cases no contract exits between the two since ether never was acceptance.
2. Digital downloads offer instant shipping of the product and you could argue this is acceptance of the offer to purchase since you delivered the consideration.
While the new Fallout would probably not be offered for free; companies often give away their software for periods off time for various reasons; so it would not be all that far fetched for someone to think MS has decided to run a limited time or limited quantity promotion. That gets to the idea of Mutuality; was there a meeting of the minds on the terms of the contract. I would guess MS would argue no there was no mutual agreement of the terms since the price was a mistake.
My favorite Apple II games: Wizardry, Choplifter, Aztec, Karateka, Flight Simulator... ah, good times. I also learned how to program on an Apple II as well. It wasn't all time wasted. Good ole Applesoft BASIC. But ugh, line numbers... It was a while before I realized why I could never create programs that ran as fast as my commercial games.
These days, I write commercial games in C++. I may not have become a videogame programmer were it not for my Apple II. I guess I'm just as old.
I'd add Castle Wolfenstein, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Stellar Trek and Super Stellar Trek to the list.
I am not arguing that it's easy to enable but it still warns you regardless if it is a "shiny button" to enable, but you'd think because it's a bad file you download from the net or a questionable email they would be smarter than to enable it. If you decide to enable it that's your fault. It's like going to some random questionable website "Oh I need a new codec to stream this video? sure i'll install it!"
The problem is the warning is "Macros have been disabled" next to a button labeled "Enable Content" A reasonable interpretation is that if I click on Enable Content the macros will be disabled and I get to see the file's contents; not that it will enable macros to run. That button would say Enable Macros.
Not every file with a malicious macro needs to come from a shady source directly; when I was doing some publishing we'd get files from writers that had been infected even though they were from a trusted source.
Does this mean you can blame the creator of javascript for creating pop-ups that allow you to install malware disguised as "codec downloads"? How about blaming your bank because someone set up a phishing site that looks just like the bank site. Yeah...
Very different scenarios. However, in reference to javascript; I would say the creator of javascript made a poor design decision if they decided to make the popup now have a button that says "Load Webpage" but actually installs the codec. The issue is not that MS developed a macro capability for Office; it's they've changed how they warn about running macros in a way that makes the protection less effective.
You can only warn but you can't prevent stupid. It's not like the code gets executed right away. You have to PURPOSELY enable it. This is no different when people install whatever off the internet because they don't know better, while running an expired virus scanner that came with their computer when they bought it back in 2011. While I understand that Microsoft is a very user friendly OS compared to something like Linux, you can really only do so much without making it TOO user friendly where you can't do anything.
Very true, you can't fix stupid; to steal a line from Ron White. However, constantly canning how you present information in a UI is problematic and thus not a good idea. Users get used to seeing certain warnings and when they go away they assume whatever causes the warning is no longer occurring. Changing the wording of the warning can produce the same effect. Enable Content could be reasonably assumed to allow opening the file and seeing the content, not allowing it to Run Macros.
As for your internet and virus scanner example, poor human factors design is a bit different from user ignorance. While both can result in negative outcomes, poor design often leads people to make mistakes without realizing the impact of their actions because the design is confusing or misleading.
The problem with bringing up terms like "legally defend" is the fact that it's going to cost someone money to do so. And likely more than they can afford
Since the is the UK, US law clearly ins't applicable; however, in the US using such a service and then denying a tenant a lease would probably open up a landlord to a Fair Housing Act violation. Such lawsuits can be lucrative enough to warrant a contingency fee lawsuit.
Not just Microsoft, but I would think Google would get involved with this. I can understand why the patent troll would go after the app developers instead of Google (take on the small fish and hope they're intimidated enough to give you money instead of challenging the giant shark to a biting contest). That said, Google should want to protect their developers from lawsuits like this. At the very least, they should want to make sure that no legal precedent was set saying that this patent troll "patented app stores."
Let's get Apple in on this too. They have an app store also. Unite Apple, Google, and Microsoft to take the patent troll down. I'd pay to see that happen!
While I agree with you when they took on Minecraft they did't go after a small fish, they went after Microsoft. To use a/. car analogy, that's like deciding to challenge an F1 driver to a race to prove how good you are.
Given MS owns it and has a one or two lawyers, patents, and a little available cash to defend itself that seems to be an odd target to pick. Given MS also has an app store I would think they will fight this to protect their interests; a win would be good for everyone. MS and good, two things you never thought you'd hear together on/.
They call it a natural monopoly because it's a natural law. I know you seem to want to believe otherwise, but physics and engineering principles should trump faith. Your examples are very old and are from highly populated areas where running multiple cables was feasible and the main cost of running a telephone service would have been the switching stations with all those paid operators.
It's not faith but economics. In terms of real dollars, establishing infrastructure was expensive when the service was new and adoption rates were not well known. At first, you could only call subscribers on your network, although companies eventually allowed cross network calls. The reason one operator won out was government intervention, not some natural law of physics or engineering.
The physics and engineering principle is that for any cable run, there is exactly one optimal routing. Duplicate cables mean either the second set of cables must take a suboptimal routing, or both sets must be routed suboptimally. In established areas, it would cost a fortune to dig things up and establish a "competing" set of cables - far more than the first set cost. That's the reason.
That hasn't stopped ATT from running cables where I live for their Uverse service to compete with the existing cable company, nor Google from building out their fiber network in some areas. Absent government intervention, companies will build networks where they think there is a profit potential. Of course, that means some areas will never get competition simply because absent subsidies it's not economically viable and thus government intervention is needed to get service, which generally means one provider. In some cases, such as cell towers, incumbents decided the cost of maintaining infrastructure was too high and sold it to a third party, which then leased space to all comers since it was profitable, resulting in multiple providers. Antenna owners also sold bandwidth to competitors because it is profitable to sell untied bandwidth since it is a perishable commodity. If a natural monopoly was better none of that would happen. It has nothing to do with physics or engineering it's simply the profit motive; and there is no better way to ensure profit than being granted a monopoly by the government.
In a place where it takes a large investment to set up an infrastructure, that tactic of lowering prices whenever a competitor arises - to kill them before they can collect enough profit to expand - means there will always be only one provider. This is why there is not 2 or mores sets of electric wires, (snip) or phone cables...
There used to be at the early stages of electrification in the US, as companies competed for customers and AC fought DC for supremacy. It was only until utilities pushed for regulation and monopoly status did that change. As for phones, many cities had competing phone companies (as they did telegraph companies). Cleveland had 2 around 1900, as well as several local only ones; and Cleveland was not the only city that had multiple phone companies, many large ones did. It wasn't until the US nationalized phone companies during WWI did competition vanish and MA Bell eventually won monopoly status afterward.
The problem with lowering prices to keep out competitors is unless you can make up the loses elsewhere to keep prices low where ether is a threat of competition is you will go out of business, and raising prices elsewhere leads to the threat of competitors there. You need the government to secure your monopoly position.
I agree there are ways to fix the internet setup we now have; but the idea of "natural monopolies" is more the result of collusion between companies and politicians for their own ends than an economic rational for exclusive franchise.
You just gave a textbook definition of a natural monopoly.
Not really. It's simply the textbook response by a company to keep out new entrants. Monopolists can go one step further and raise prices in areas where there are currently no threats of entrants to cover losses in others; I believe that was one of Standard Oil's tactics under Rockerfeller. The arguement for a natural monopoly is that the costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to provide service is so high and disruptive to consumers that only one company should be allowed to provide service; in reality it is simply another way to limit entry and enjoy above market returns.
Is internet service not effectively also a natural monopoly?
In most areas there are at most 2 sets of wires, and it costs money to maintain both.
There is very little economic reason for a competitor to arise, because the existing monopolies can squeeze out any competitor trying to move in easily using well known tactics. The only reason there are 2 sets of wires is that originally, the cable TV wire could not be used to replace analog phones until technology developed in the 1990s.
Not really. As long as the existing companies keep prices low enough that a new entrant could not get their desired return on the capital investment competitors would stay out. The existing companies goal would be to convince any potential customers that they will cut prices to make new investments unprofitable; if they don't the opportunity to make a profit would bring in competition. When that does't work, such as when a city decides to build out the infrastructure and aren't really worried about profits, they turn to legislative solutions; which it is why it is important to own a few key legislators.
I suspect this is more about taking away a $250 fare from the airlines.
I doubt it. When I was flying I made all the calls about weather, etc. Add in a Cost sharing passenger and some pilots may decide to go when their gut says no, especially if the passenger is pressing the pilot because "there are no thunderstorms here..." In addition, who knows if the maintained ace is actually up to date or just "a bit" overdue? Or if the pilot has a medical condition but is still flying?In this case, the FAA is right in banning the practice.
I simply disagree that is censorship. Private organization's can chose what they want to say and how, simply because they chose not to speak is not censorship since it is a personal choice
You're looking at this wrong: it's not Facebook which is expressing the deleted opinion, it's the user. The user has no say on whether or not his opinion remains visible so it's not "personal choice". It's censorship.
To me it is irrelevant who originally posted the content; the site owner gets to decide the rules and users can accept them or go elsewhere. The assumption that a site has an obligation to allow anyone to post what they want and not to remove it lest they be accused of censorship is, IMHO, incorrect. People throw around terms like censorship to make someone appear to being doing something evil in an attempt to get them to do what they want; but what they are really doing is limiting their freedom of speech.
Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.
I simply disagree that is censorship. Private organization's can chose what they want to say and how, simply because they chose not to speak is not censorship since it is a personal choice; I only consider it censorship if a governmental body prevents them from speaking.
Slashdot Mirror
It's why the Here is a $100,000 check, can you cash it and send me the change.... I'll let you have an extra $1,000 for your trouble, obvious as hell scam works. Most people brains shut off when the greed center in their brain is triggered.
The main problem here is that people think the bank has verified the authenticity of the check when they've "cleared" it and given you access to the money, and that any failure to spot a fake check is now their problem. Like if I go deposit some cash I got from a yard sale I expect the bank to either accept it or reject it. Not accept it now and two weeks later say "Hey, those bills you gave us a few weeks ago were counterfeit we're deducting $200 from your account". And you never get a second "real" confirmation that your bank got their money from the intra-bank system you only know when they don't. The system is pretty rigged against the somewhat clueless and gullible person who goes to a professional money handler that appears to say everything is okay.
In the US, banks have to make the funds available shortly after deposit, before the check clears; which makes people think the check is good when it isn't.
How valid is the survey and sample selection methodology? Are Reddit users typical of Netflix users? Just because they have a subscription doesn't necessarily mean they are a representative sample; given they self select into Reddit. While I would not pay for Netflix if they added commercials that doesn't mean 90% would cancel their subscription. I could see a free with ads or pay for no ads model so users could self select and Netflix could tailor ads based on what they know about the user.
The nature of insurance just changes, from covering individual drivers to insuring manufacturers and fleet operators for product liability. The biggest impact will be on the legal profession: a whole army of bottom feeders will disappear, to be replaced with smaller additions to corporate lawyer ranks. A whole genre of late-night TV advertising will be replaced by ads for body mods, escort services and medical tourism services.
I'm not sure things will change that much; other than some laws getting updated to cover driverless cars to clarify liability. Owners / lessors will still be responsible for any damages caused by vehicles they own or lease, even if they are self driving. Lawsuits may decide if the software developers and auto manufacturers share some liability; but even while that gets sorted out personal injury lawyers will still get clients and sue. Insurance companies will assess the risks form driverless cars and charge accordingly.
You know, any high school kid that demonstrates it knows more about computers than the average CIO and hacks a server that was secured as well as a barndoor with a hay stack in front of it gets some verdict where he can't get near a computer any time soon.
Why is that waste of oxygen still allowed near anything using electricity?
What I don't understand is once you've discovered your "business model" doesn't work you don't take what you've learned and try to sell your skills in a way that does't get you in trouble? even if your "skills" aren't viewed as particularly good by people who are techies you still could sell your knowledge about spam and how to fight it to corporations. He was one of the early spammers who who had notoriety when other's didn't and could have capitalized on that; after all along with the "Green Card Lottery" spammers was one of the early persons to capitalize on spam's potential. Others made the leap to being a consultant after being hammered by the law; follow Frank Abagnale's need and sell the ability to stop others from doing what you do. Maybe because it's hard for some people to admit they're wrong and get their kicks from beating the system?
It's not that different form going from being in government to being a lobbyist and helping people negotiate working with government to get what they want, or working in a field and then using the knowledge you gain to help others compete in the same field. Ethics side, that may not be viewed as a good way to make money but it beats prison, especially since you have your former adversaries now on your side.
The funny psrt of that is I am still able to captire encrypted signals where they go to my TV.m via the vifeo out via component output. I usevthat to captute shows I want to wstch later or missed via their GO aps or other streams. It's a bit of apain brcsuse I have to capture the in tesl time but at least I can time shift them. Quality may not be as hood as a d/l but that is ok since I can still eatch them when I want while traveling or get one that foe whatever reason my DVR missed them. I'm not intested in getting an archival copy, just watching them. If I want a good copy I buy the ementual DVD or Bluray when it is released. I don't mond paying but want to watch on mu schedule, not there's.
then there should have been an employee in Direct Control of the handsets.
Maybe it's cheaper to lose 20k in phones every now and then than pay an employee at every store? Still it seems silly that they didn't have better security than they apparently had; though I bet if an employee saw someone stealing theft were told corporate policy is to let it go rather than confront the thief and risk escalating the situation.
911 laws
if the transceiver is live the phone can be used to call 911
and why in the Ech Eee Double HockeySticks were the phones not in a "cage"??
While I agree on the 911 laws, which is why I found stores sell 911 calling devices silly, but depending on what bricked means it could conceivably not even power up. I agree, though, why aren't they locked up? Maybe a few are left out to allow quick turnaround and the thieves grabbed that?
For people who are not into Apple's Newspeak, what is a "Genius Bar"? Is it the sales counter?
It's a place you go to to be told your machine's behavior is normal. Apple users have to worship there once a year or so to remain active in the fanbase.
But the IMEI's are not necessarily statically inventoried, either.
Apple probably knows precisely which IMEIs were sent to which stores.
Too much trouble for a mere $20,000 or so. Plus, if they're sold overseas that adds to the complication. In addition, what if someone innocently gets one and doesn't realize it's stolen, either because it's a gift or they paid the going used price for a like new phone; and Apple nukes it and as a result they can't dial 911 and something bad happens. The lawsuit would cost a lot more than the value of the phone. A more likely response is to determine who to better keep people posing as employees out of the stock room; but still let Leonard go dressed in a t-shirt to meet girls.
Was the free Windows 10 upgrade a mistake too?
Yes, but not because it was free.
Will this be revoked?
One can hope
Then it becomes an interesting question whether a sale actually took place when no money was paid.
I guess it would depend if a valid contract was made via Offer : I will sell you this at $0.00 Acceptance: Here's my click to buy Consideration: Here's your game, and I get access to your data since it runs on my server...
While I can understand MS made a mistake here and most ads include disclaimers about typos and MS probably has such a disclaimer somewhere in its TOS; I think there are two interesting factors at play:
1. In many online sales clicking Buy is merely an offer to purchase that the store still must accept and allows them to cancel erroneous purchases prior to shipping. In such cases no contract exits between the two since ether never was acceptance.
2. Digital downloads offer instant shipping of the product and you could argue this is acceptance of the offer to purchase since you delivered the consideration.
While the new Fallout would probably not be offered for free; companies often give away their software for periods off time for various reasons; so it would not be all that far fetched for someone to think MS has decided to run a limited time or limited quantity promotion. That gets to the idea of Mutuality; was there a meeting of the minds on the terms of the contract. I would guess MS would argue no there was no mutual agreement of the terms since the price was a mistake.
My favorite Apple II games: Wizardry, Choplifter, Aztec, Karateka, Flight Simulator... ah, good times. I also learned how to program on an Apple II as well. It wasn't all time wasted. Good ole Applesoft BASIC. But ugh, line numbers... It was a while before I realized why I could never create programs that ran as fast as my commercial games.
These days, I write commercial games in C++. I may not have become a videogame programmer were it not for my Apple II. I guess I'm just as old.
I'd add Castle Wolfenstein, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Stellar Trek and Super Stellar Trek to the list.
I am not arguing that it's easy to enable but it still warns you regardless if it is a "shiny button" to enable, but you'd think because it's a bad file you download from the net or a questionable email they would be smarter than to enable it. If you decide to enable it that's your fault. It's like going to some random questionable website "Oh I need a new codec to stream this video? sure i'll install it!"
The problem is the warning is "Macros have been disabled" next to a button labeled "Enable Content" A reasonable interpretation is that if I click on Enable Content the macros will be disabled and I get to see the file's contents; not that it will enable macros to run. That button would say Enable Macros.
Not every file with a malicious macro needs to come from a shady source directly; when I was doing some publishing we'd get files from writers that had been infected even though they were from a trusted source.
Does this mean you can blame the creator of javascript for creating pop-ups that allow you to install malware disguised as "codec downloads"? How about blaming your bank because someone set up a phishing site that looks just like the bank site. Yeah...
Very different scenarios. However, in reference to javascript; I would say the creator of javascript made a poor design decision if they decided to make the popup now have a button that says "Load Webpage" but actually installs the codec. The issue is not that MS developed a macro capability for Office; it's they've changed how they warn about running macros in a way that makes the protection less effective.
You can only warn but you can't prevent stupid. It's not like the code gets executed right away. You have to PURPOSELY enable it. This is no different when people install whatever off the internet because they don't know better, while running an expired virus scanner that came with their computer when they bought it back in 2011. While I understand that Microsoft is a very user friendly OS compared to something like Linux, you can really only do so much without making it TOO user friendly where you can't do anything.
Very true, you can't fix stupid; to steal a line from Ron White. However, constantly canning how you present information in a UI is problematic and thus not a good idea. Users get used to seeing certain warnings and when they go away they assume whatever causes the warning is no longer occurring. Changing the wording of the warning can produce the same effect. Enable Content could be reasonably assumed to allow opening the file and seeing the content, not allowing it to Run Macros.
As for your internet and virus scanner example, poor human factors design is a bit different from user ignorance. While both can result in negative outcomes, poor design often leads people to make mistakes without realizing the impact of their actions because the design is confusing or misleading.
It's too bad most don't give a shit about privacy anymore.
Reminds me of the mid 90s and BBSs... you NEVER gave your real name out, or your photo (it would've taken forever anyway)
Then look at how things are today...
I really miss the 90's. I hate having to give my real name, Attila Thehun, to every website where I create an account.
The problem with bringing up terms like "legally defend" is the fact that it's going to cost someone money to do so. And likely more than they can afford
Since the is the UK, US law clearly ins't applicable; however, in the US using such a service and then denying a tenant a lease would probably open up a landlord to a Fair Housing Act violation. Such lawsuits can be lucrative enough to warrant a contingency fee lawsuit.
Not just Microsoft, but I would think Google would get involved with this. I can understand why the patent troll would go after the app developers instead of Google (take on the small fish and hope they're intimidated enough to give you money instead of challenging the giant shark to a biting contest). That said, Google should want to protect their developers from lawsuits like this. At the very least, they should want to make sure that no legal precedent was set saying that this patent troll "patented app stores."
Let's get Apple in on this too. They have an app store also. Unite Apple, Google, and Microsoft to take the patent troll down. I'd pay to see that happen!
While I agree with you when they took on Minecraft they did't go after a small fish, they went after Microsoft. To use a /. car analogy, that's like deciding to challenge an F1 driver to a race to prove how good you are.
Given MS owns it and has a one or two lawyers, patents, and a little available cash to defend itself that seems to be an odd target to pick. Given MS also has an app store I would think they will fight this to protect their interests; a win would be good for everyone. MS and good, two things you never thought you'd hear together on /.
They call it a natural monopoly because it's a natural law. I know you seem to want to believe otherwise, but physics and engineering principles should trump faith. Your examples are very old and are from highly populated areas where running multiple cables was feasible and the main cost of running a telephone service would have been the switching stations with all those paid operators.
It's not faith but economics. In terms of real dollars, establishing infrastructure was expensive when the service was new and adoption rates were not well known. At first, you could only call subscribers on your network, although companies eventually allowed cross network calls. The reason one operator won out was government intervention, not some natural law of physics or engineering.
The physics and engineering principle is that for any cable run, there is exactly one optimal routing. Duplicate cables mean either the second set of cables must take a suboptimal routing, or both sets must be routed suboptimally. In established areas, it would cost a fortune to dig things up and establish a "competing" set of cables - far more than the first set cost. That's the reason.
That hasn't stopped ATT from running cables where I live for their Uverse service to compete with the existing cable company, nor Google from building out their fiber network in some areas. Absent government intervention, companies will build networks where they think there is a profit potential. Of course, that means some areas will never get competition simply because absent subsidies it's not economically viable and thus government intervention is needed to get service, which generally means one provider. In some cases, such as cell towers, incumbents decided the cost of maintaining infrastructure was too high and sold it to a third party, which then leased space to all comers since it was profitable, resulting in multiple providers. Antenna owners also sold bandwidth to competitors because it is profitable to sell untied bandwidth since it is a perishable commodity. If a natural monopoly was better none of that would happen. It has nothing to do with physics or engineering it's simply the profit motive; and there is no better way to ensure profit than being granted a monopoly by the government.
In a place where it takes a large investment to set up an infrastructure, that tactic of lowering prices whenever a competitor arises - to kill them before they can collect enough profit to expand - means there will always be only one provider. This is why there is not 2 or mores sets of electric wires, (snip) or phone cables...
There used to be at the early stages of electrification in the US, as companies competed for customers and AC fought DC for supremacy. It was only until utilities pushed for regulation and monopoly status did that change. As for phones, many cities had competing phone companies (as they did telegraph companies). Cleveland had 2 around 1900, as well as several local only ones; and Cleveland was not the only city that had multiple phone companies, many large ones did. It wasn't until the US nationalized phone companies during WWI did competition vanish and MA Bell eventually won monopoly status afterward.
The problem with lowering prices to keep out competitors is unless you can make up the loses elsewhere to keep prices low where ether is a threat of competition is you will go out of business, and raising prices elsewhere leads to the threat of competitors there. You need the government to secure your monopoly position.
I agree there are ways to fix the internet setup we now have; but the idea of "natural monopolies" is more the result of collusion between companies and politicians for their own ends than an economic rational for exclusive franchise.
You just gave a textbook definition of a natural monopoly.
Not really. It's simply the textbook response by a company to keep out new entrants. Monopolists can go one step further and raise prices in areas where there are currently no threats of entrants to cover losses in others; I believe that was one of Standard Oil's tactics under Rockerfeller. The arguement for a natural monopoly is that the costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to provide service is so high and disruptive to consumers that only one company should be allowed to provide service; in reality it is simply another way to limit entry and enjoy above market returns.
Is internet service not effectively also a natural monopoly?
In most areas there are at most 2 sets of wires, and it costs money to maintain both.
There is very little economic reason for a competitor to arise, because the existing monopolies can squeeze out any competitor trying to move in easily using well known tactics. The only reason there are 2 sets of wires is that originally, the cable TV wire could not be used to replace analog phones until technology developed in the 1990s.
Not really. As long as the existing companies keep prices low enough that a new entrant could not get their desired return on the capital investment competitors would stay out. The existing companies goal would be to convince any potential customers that they will cut prices to make new investments unprofitable; if they don't the opportunity to make a profit would bring in competition. When that does't work, such as when a city decides to build out the infrastructure and aren't really worried about profits, they turn to legislative solutions; which it is why it is important to own a few key legislators.
I suspect this is more about taking away a $250 fare from the airlines.
I doubt it. When I was flying I made all the calls about weather, etc. Add in a Cost sharing passenger and some pilots may decide to go when their gut says no, especially if the passenger is pressing the pilot because "there are no thunderstorms here..." In addition, who knows if the maintained ace is actually up to date or just "a bit" overdue? Or if the pilot has a medical condition but is still flying?In this case, the FAA is right in banning the practice.
I simply disagree that is censorship. Private organization's can chose what they want to say and how, simply because they chose not to speak is not censorship since it is a personal choice
You're looking at this wrong: it's not Facebook which is expressing the deleted opinion, it's the user. The user has no say on whether or not his opinion remains visible so it's not "personal choice". It's censorship.
To me it is irrelevant who originally posted the content; the site owner gets to decide the rules and users can accept them or go elsewhere. The assumption that a site has an obligation to allow anyone to post what they want and not to remove it lest they be accused of censorship is, IMHO, incorrect. People throw around terms like censorship to make someone appear to being doing something evil in an attempt to get them to do what they want; but what they are really doing is limiting their freedom of speech.
Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.
You're wrong here. Censorship can also be carried out by private entities. References: ACLU, Oxford dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia.
I simply disagree that is censorship. Private organization's can chose what they want to say and how, simply because they chose not to speak is not censorship since it is a personal choice; I only consider it censorship if a governmental body prevents them from speaking.