Profits would be passed along to the people who own Amazon (shareholders), and those shareholders would pay income tax on those profits with their personal taxes. Why is it a good idea to tax profits twice, once with the corporation, and once with the shareholder? I could maybe see the value of taxing corporations that hold on to profits for a long time, and never return those profits to shareholders. But not otherwise.
would involve ME selling advertisers MY OWN attention, rather than everyone else selling it for me. I would happily give you a personal profile, and you can send me targeted ads that I would actually be interested in. I will willingly view those ads. In exchange, pay me directly by, say, giving me cable TV for free, or give me free movie rentals. How much would the attention of my whole family be worth? Do we really need middle-men for this any more?
The rule of thumb I use: After you cram each wire into the connector, if you can't see light glint off the cut end of each wire when looking through the end of the connector, they aren't in right. Looking at the sides or the top or bottom of the connector won't do.
Sometimes I think like you, that the Tivo subscription is too high. Other times I compare to the other things I spend my money on. My cost for a second Tivo (due to the multi-service discount) is only $6.95 per month. This is is about 75% of the cost of a single movie ticket. Today, I will probably spend around $6.95 on my lunch, and in 20 to 30 hours or so it will be in the sewer. But my Tivo will still be giving. There are very few things that I spend $6.95 on that give me as much as my Tivo. Even if I had to pay full price, it would be worth doing.
My stupid comcast DVR sucks compared to my Tivo. I estimate that at least 90% of the people who don't want a Tivo have never used one, and so don't know what they are missing.
thczv
They aren't talking about consumer bundling, where you get a price break because you buy DSL, local telephone, and long distance service from the same company. They are talking about network element unbundling, where federal regulatory power requires incumbent carriers like SBC and Verizon to sell network elements (like the local loop and DSLAM that makes DSL work) to competitors at really low prices.
thczv
They get indignant and act as if the government is trying to make them give away their wires to their competitors for free when that is not the case at all! Every CLEC pays the local telco for the use of their wires, and no one has ever suggested that they not.
This is not exactly true. With DSL, for example, a big issue is line sharing, where CLECs buy access the upper frequency portion of the local loop, the portion that is not used by telephone customers. Since TELRIC pricing applies, the ILECs (until recently) had to make that upper frequency portion of the loop available at their long term incremental cost. Since the CLECs were only buying a portion of a loop that had other purposes (providing voice), the long term cost for providing just that portion to the CLECs is essentially zero. So, the CLEC DSL providers were getting the upper frequency portion of the loop, the part that makes DSL possible, for free.
--thczv
According the SC, they receive 7000 cases per year. They only write 80-90 opinions, and decide an additional 50-60 cases. At most, 150 cases are actually decided. This is 2.1% of the appeals to the court. Assuming 100% are overturned, the Circuits get it right 98 times in a hundred. If only 50% of a circuits decisions were overturned, they would get it right 99 times in a hundred.
This is overstated. When the Supreme Court denies a petition for cert, that does not mean that the lower court was right. As a general matter, the Supreme Court is not in the business of correcting errors. Its main purposes in taking cases are (a) to resolve conflicts among the various courts of appeals, and (b) to provide clarity as to serious questions of federal or constitutional law.
It is a mistake to assume that whenever the Supreme Court doesn't take a case, the lower court was right. Sometimes it is just waiting for other lower courts to develop the issue in question more fully.
--thczv
I don't know whether you will consider this a "good intelligent recommendation," but I have both units, a Tivo and a ReplayTV. I am planning to sell my ReplayTV sometime in the near future. Whenever I saw the reviews that compared the two units, they usually favored the ReplayTV. But that has not been my experience. In my view, the Tivo is WAY better -- in an entirely different league. The interface is better, for one. The "to do" list alone is enough to choose Tivo. It lets you know for sure what is going to record, instead of hoping. Last night, for example, I wanted to record a basketball game. I had told the ReplayTV to always record the game whenever it is on. But at one minute before start time I couldn't figure out whether it would record. You never have this problem with a Tivo. The Season Pass feature is another killer feature on the Tivo. On the ReplayTV, if I choose to record something (with a guaranteed recording), and something else conflicts, the ReplayTV will tell me I have to go manually and cancel the other recording first. My Tivo gives me a bunch of choices that situation, and will take care of it automatically. But the Season Pass feature lets you assign every program a priority, so conflicts resolve themselves.
I can go on and on. In my view, owning both, there is no comparison.
> Verio has every right not to sell Internet > service to people who want to use it to run > open mail relays. John Gilmore has no right to > demand Internet service form Verio.
I think this is wrong. It sounds like the contract that governs Gilmore's internet service places NO content restrictions on his use of the service. That is what one of those links above says.
Slashdot Mirror
Profits would be passed along to the people who own Amazon (shareholders), and those shareholders would pay income tax on those profits with their personal taxes. Why is it a good idea to tax profits twice, once with the corporation, and once with the shareholder? I could maybe see the value of taxing corporations that hold on to profits for a long time, and never return those profits to shareholders. But not otherwise.
would involve ME selling advertisers MY OWN attention, rather than everyone else selling it for me. I would happily give you a personal profile, and you can send me targeted ads that I would actually be interested in. I will willingly view those ads. In exchange, pay me directly by, say, giving me cable TV for free, or give me free movie rentals. How much would the attention of my whole family be worth? Do we really need middle-men for this any more?
If I was the boss and you said this to me, I would fix the licenses and THEN fire you.
The rule of thumb I use: After you cram each wire into the connector, if you can't see light glint off the cut end of each wire when looking through the end of the connector, they aren't in right. Looking at the sides or the top or bottom of the connector won't do.
Jeff, is that you?
Sometimes I think like you, that the Tivo subscription is too high. Other times I compare to the other things I spend my money on. My cost for a second Tivo (due to the multi-service discount) is only $6.95 per month. This is is about 75% of the cost of a single movie ticket. Today, I will probably spend around $6.95 on my lunch, and in 20 to 30 hours or so it will be in the sewer. But my Tivo will still be giving. There are very few things that I spend $6.95 on that give me as much as my Tivo. Even if I had to pay full price, it would be worth doing. My stupid comcast DVR sucks compared to my Tivo. I estimate that at least 90% of the people who don't want a Tivo have never used one, and so don't know what they are missing. thczv
They aren't talking about consumer bundling, where you get a price break because you buy DSL, local telephone, and long distance service from the same company. They are talking about network element unbundling, where federal regulatory power requires incumbent carriers like SBC and Verizon to sell network elements (like the local loop and DSLAM that makes DSL work) to competitors at really low prices. thczv
I don't know whether you will consider this a "good intelligent recommendation," but I have both units, a Tivo and a ReplayTV. I am planning to sell my ReplayTV sometime in the near future. Whenever I saw the reviews that compared the two units, they usually favored the ReplayTV. But that has not been my experience. In my view, the Tivo is WAY better -- in an entirely different league. The interface is better, for one. The "to do" list alone is enough to choose Tivo. It lets you know for sure what is going to record, instead of hoping. Last night, for example, I wanted to record a basketball game. I had told the ReplayTV to always record the game whenever it is on. But at one minute before start time I couldn't figure out whether it would record. You never have this problem with a Tivo. The Season Pass feature is another killer feature on the Tivo. On the ReplayTV, if I choose to record something (with a guaranteed recording), and something else conflicts, the ReplayTV will tell me I have to go manually and cancel the other recording first. My Tivo gives me a bunch of choices that situation, and will take care of it automatically. But the Season Pass feature lets you assign every program a priority, so conflicts resolve themselves. I can go on and on. In my view, owning both, there is no comparison.
> Verio has every right not to sell Internet
> service to people who want to use it to run
> open mail relays. John Gilmore has no right to
> demand Internet service form Verio.
I think this is wrong. It sounds like the contract that governs Gilmore's internet service places NO content restrictions on his use of the service. That is what one of those links above says.
thczv