Why should you care what your employees do privately? So he told people he got drunk and screwed a fat chic? So what? Maybe instead of concerning yourself with what-ifs, you should worry about what actually happens. People in your company right NOW could be doing those things, you just don't know about it.
You're not paying him when he's out partying so you should have zero say on how he conducts himself. If at some point he DOES do something stupid wearing your company logo, deal with it then. Although I don't see Nike getting upset when THEIR logo is worn by a some drunk college kid.
Well you should be happy to know that Imus is due back on the air next month. Of course he shouldn't have been fired anyway... especially not in the middle of doing a fundrasing event for charity.
This is exactly why I made the comment about hating this site sometimes. Get on the wrong side of public opinion, and IQ points drop by significant percentages. It is absolutely amazing to me that you couldn't picture somebody having a sudden heart attack. As if the imminence of all heart attacks could be determined because everybody looks sickley etc. Cripes.
If your dad has a sudden heart attack which proves fatal, its entirely likely you wouldn't get there in time no matter one. Seriously, go do some research. Its not that people are stupid, its that sudden things which cause death do so VERY quickly, so getting the call or not is moot.
Ah, more brain damage. Okay, I'll use a car analogy, that way you can argue with it without actually having to spend the time to process what I've said. Let's say you had an important interview one morning. But you couldn't get to it because I stole your car. Angry that you've missed something important, you tell me that I shouldn't have stolen your car. I reply with "But your car could have broken down anyway, so not having it now is acceptable, right? You can't always have a car! You could be stranded in the next city, you wouldn't have expected to have your car then! Why didnt you have the person interviewing you spend the night at your house, that way the interview would have happened on time!
Your analogy breaks down in that you can avoid places that jam cell phones, but I can't necessarily stop you from stealing my car. Which is the point. No, somebody shouldn't be walking around with a portable jammer, I was never arguing from that point of view. I'm solely talking about some business (like a movie theater) jamming the signal and informing you of that fact.
At any rate, even if you were to steal my car, I certainly have a backup that I could go to. My wife's car, other relatives' car, public transportation.
Maybe you should think your position through completely before going off calling others stupid because they disagree with you.
After owning an HD set, it's very very difficult to watch SD anything on it.
There lies your problem; owning the HD set. Now that you have it, you think it worthwhile. It may even be that it really is a big step up. However, given that my sets now are all working perfectly, I'm reluctant to simply throw them away because HD is now here. Why throw away something that works very well for me? Its not like upgrading a computer, where I can make use of the older parts as a testing station or a low power server. The TV necessarily must be thrown out (or given away or what have you). Given that HD tech STILL has not settled down, I'm even less inclined to make the investment. I can't get the same size screen for the same price as what I spent six years ago.
I'm not even saying its not a big deal. Honestly though, ALL of the HD sets I've seen look magnitudes WORSE than my SD set. And this is at BB, the cable company, etc. I noticed a HUGE jump in picture quality in fact just by switching from crapcast, which over compressed the hell out of everything, to my city's cable provider, which doesn't seem to compress anything (yay for IPTV!). However, as blown away as I might be by HD, I can't drop a few thousand to replace what I already have. There are LOTS of people in this position, I'm willing to bet.
"Fun" being such an subjective word, can be defined in many ways. Who says better visuals and sound are not part of this equation?
Its been a long time since I was playing with Artari and NES graphics. At this point though, my Wii have excellent graphics on my existing hardware. It looks quite good. Sound is not a factor for me; I already have a real 5.1 system (which I'd rather spend money on upgrading the speakers than a new TV).
Yes, gameplay counts as a huge part of the overall equation, but to snuff visuals and sound as being unimportant is simply turning a blind eye.
I didn't say they were unimportant; I said the Wiis graphics are good enough (quite good, actually) that graphics isn't as a major part of the equation as it used to be. Yes, graphics matter.. just that we reaching diminishing returns on graphics hardware at the moment. Until we get true lifelike picture quality (Star Trek holodeck perhaps?), what we have now seems to be fine for years to come at least.
HD set sales may be growing, but its going to be a LONG time before they are standard in homes. I have a 32" set from 2001, and no reason to replace it, and a 27" set purchased only a few years ago, again, no reason to replace it.
Besides, you act as if games are only going to be fun if they can be viewed in HD. I think people have spoken, and they'd rather have a standard-D console than an HD one. The Wiis graphics are good enough, what I really want is games that are fun.
Compete with the PS3? You mean the system that is overwhelmingly easy to find, and mostly sitting on shelves? Sorry, I think the PS3 is the one that needs to compete, and I'm not sure its ever going to go anywhere.
Certainly BR is a non-issue for most; I suspect many that would like HD movies are waiting until there's a clear winner. I really don't care if the PS3 can play BR if HD-DVD comes out on top.
The PS3 is just all around too iffy at the moment to even consider touching it.
Any of the consoles can die; you miss the point. The point is that the 360 seems to have a bad habit of dying many times for a large number of people. Wiis die too, but the vast majority are just fine.
At any rate, if it was about money, they'd make more by allowing AO titles. Certainly adult DVDs didn't prevent DVD players from becoming popular; in fact, quite the other way around. Why would it hurt a console, especially one with the same controls as a DVD player?
I'm sorry, I thought you'd see that banning AO titles is censorship, much like it used to, which you DO talk about in your post. Certainly I thought you'd have picked up on that where my post states as much. The fact that they are censoring less does not change the fact that they are censoring.
If you got to the hospital an hour after he died, there'd be a large amount of 'matterin' about it. The difference is you being there when that person needs you.
If your dad was so close to death, what are you doing at the movies? What if you're two hours away with coverage? That would be acceptable, no cell wouldn't be? Get a grip, you CAN'T always be there for someone, even when its really important. Trying to think you can is absurd.
Boy do I agree with you about that. There was an article on that years ago on Slashdot. I brought up the 911 thing and was pulverized by rude comments and moderations. "They have payphones, go use those!" "Don't get bad news in a theater, I'm trying to watch!" "Why would you need to know about a loved one? You should be bringing them with you!" Yadda yadda yadda. I'd love to hear a damn good reason to justify all the bullshit I got over that.
I fail to see how a passive system would be any different than an active one. The nice part about the active solution is that it doesn't require ripping apart all the walls and trying to build a resonably working cage..
There are places though where I think the owner of an establishment should be able to block phones. Movie theathers come to mind. No need for anyone inside watching a movie to call 911, its easy enough to go to the lobby and get someone to call. In a large emergency, the theater could simply turn off the jammer.
If bars or other places want to do this, let them, as long as its only within their building. Don't like it, simply don't go to those places.
Your argument isn't all that strong either; you act as if cell phones are the only way to get an emergency message out at any place. That's simply not true.
No, the issue is the same. Whether they decide what content is censored, or leave it up to a third party to do so is not really relevent. The result is the same; no adults only content allowed on the console. The way it works now just shifts who's doing the work. There's no reason for them to ban AO titles on their console.
Huh? You realize they don't allow AO rated games to be sold on their system; third party developers will loss their license to develop games if they try to put one out. The other two consoles are the same, but don't pretend its not censorship.
I thought I was the only one that believes we should be responsible for our own defense. I didn't know until after I moved here that Vermont was a carry state, and honestly I never felt scared knowing people could be armed. Either most aren't, or they keep it consealed.
Giving someone power to do something for you which you should be able to do on your own only takes power from you, and that always leads to abuse.
The Toyota plant where the car is made? Perhaps you mean "assemblied," since I think most import cars are made overseas and simply put together in America.
No, it ensures that you're buying cheap crap. Believe it or not, the more expensive items many times ARE of better quality. I'd rather spend three times as much on say a lawnmower that will lasy YEARS instead of some shit walmart one that WON'T last through the winter, forcing me to buy another one.
I own a Wii, so maybe that makes a difference. Its immediately obvious to me which one is the fake.. from any angle. Somehow I think you'd have to be a total idiot to see somethings not right with the fake on.. since the Wiimote doesn't even have a screen.
Probably the fact that it won't say Nintendo or Wii anywhere on the box should be a huge clue too. Yes, they copied the design. Is it brand confusion? Only if you're a total moron.
I'm not sure about that either; it depends on what its replaced with. Silverlight though allows you to embed a movie player and buttons.. some common controls in MS' WPF. I think it may (or might) even allow access to your 3d card to render 3d scenes. I don't think a JS replacement would be quite as 'heavy.' Especially when silverlight is a scaled down version of the.Net runtime.
I do feel your pain.. have fun writing your function.:-)
Um, no. Silverlight is an add-in, just like flash. JS really doesn't enter into it much.
Personally I think they should move to something new, for the sole reason to make a strongly typed scripting language. No more of that crap where you misspell a property and boom, you've added a new one by mistake.
A lot of POTS lines are twisted though. Cat3 anyone? A lot of phone cords aren't twisted because they're short and the quality of data a phone needs to carry is exceptionally limited.
I'd say that goes toward proving my point (I don't see much wiring that's inside the house). How much is cat3 compared to the same length of phone cord?
The point that the digital crowd are trying to make is that it doesn't matter if you have 100% of the signal remaining or 51% - as long as enough remains for the system to reconstruct the bits, you get the same signal out of the line as you put onto it. This isn't true with analogue(the run from the amp to the speaker). Better cables make sense there - longer runs, analogue, higher power.
Have digital speakers taken off? I haven't seen them anywhere, either in Best Buy or in a high end audio stores. If they haven't, which I suspect is the case, then the point the digital people are making is moot. That's the point I'm trying to make; since speakers are likely analog, you DO need some higher quality cables, either shielded or twisted. I'm not saying you need $1000 cables, but good cables DO make a difference.
In the digital case, losing 49% of the signal likely won't be enough to put the original signal back together.
Besides, we're generally not talking about the wire from the amp to the speaker, we're talking about the digital wire from the player to the receiver, which is a digital connection. There are people who claim that extremely expensive special digital cables costing hundreds of dollars a meter improve the sound for this connection. We're saying that it doesn't really matter as long as your cable meets specs. The extremely bad cheap cables might not work right, but a good quality generic will get the job done just as well as the monster cable+ crowd.
I did read half of the article, and it did sound like the cable from the speakers to the amp were being discussed. I agree that DVD to receiver you don't need super expensive cables, but they can make a difference as well. I replaced an old RCA stereo+video cable with a newer, higher quality one, and it made a HUGE difference. The old cables were of very low quality, and I certainly didn't spend a lot to replace it.
Not sure if its different in your area of the US (assuming that's where you are) but the big Video store chains (Blockbuster and Netflix's online services included) do not rent anything above an R rating.
Chain stores are overly paranoid. Fortunately there are a number of local video stores doing just fine and they do rent NC-17 and X movies. In fact, the NC-17s are on the floor in their own section near horror.
That said, Borders and B&N here stock a host of adult magazines and books, some very explicit. Still, there is no outrage. It just happened that in the chain video rental business, unfortnately one with fake morals became the dominante. I say fake because they've lost at least one unfair practice class action suit, where they were basically lying about the actual due date.
What could have been their main competitor (West Coast Video) seemed to be poorly managed and many locactions changed, but they also rented adult movies.
Oddly, even though you think there'd be outrage at XXX movies being rented at a store, the adult movie business is HUGE.
I live in a similar area where the government had to raise the speeding ticket fees (which are liberally handed out as cops only work to raise funds, not catch REAL bad guys, whom they seem to avoid as if they had the plague.) Imagine, if you will, a "minimum" fee of 1000 bucks for 10 miles over the speed limit, 750 for an unbuckled seat belt (instead of a darwin award nomination) and quite a bit more, and all aimed at RESIDENTS.
The worst part of traffic law is that speed enforcement and lowering limits actually INCREASE the amount of accidents in an area. But the IIHS and governments collude to make speeding a Very Bad thing, so that they can 1) raise fines and 2) raise your insurance rates when you get a ticket.
All because our wonderful governor blew through our state racket, ahem "tax" money to supposedly prevent Bush from using it to fund the Iraq war.
Ugh.. what state is that? I'm firmly in the camp that less government is good government.
As for the envelope, I was merely jesting that until I see financial documents, I don't take it to heart:) I've seen too much abuse in every place I've either lived in or traveled through, to ever believe that ANY government has its slave... ahem "constituents" best interests in mind (or ANY of their interests at all, for that matter).
I haven't seen their records, but they have discloused enough information that it seems ligit to me, such as the name of the bank. At any rate, a lot of my tax money goes to things I don't want, so personally even if they had used tax money, at least it was something I wanted for once.
Besides, wouldn't you gladly pay double in taxes if it meant that you got a REAL competitor to Comcast? I'd sell my soul to see them wiped off the map.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should you care what your employees do privately? So he told people he got drunk and screwed a fat chic? So what? Maybe instead of concerning yourself with what-ifs, you should worry about what actually happens. People in your company right NOW could be doing those things, you just don't know about it.
You're not paying him when he's out partying so you should have zero say on how he conducts himself. If at some point he DOES do something stupid wearing your company logo, deal with it then. Although I don't see Nike getting upset when THEIR logo is worn by a some drunk college kid.
Well you should be happy to know that Imus is due back on the air next month. Of course he shouldn't have been fired anyway... especially not in the middle of doing a fundrasing event for charity.
This is exactly why I made the comment about hating this site sometimes. Get on the wrong side of public opinion, and IQ points drop by significant percentages. It is absolutely amazing to me that you couldn't picture somebody having a sudden heart attack. As if the imminence of all heart attacks could be determined because everybody looks sickley etc. Cripes.
If your dad has a sudden heart attack which proves fatal, its entirely likely you wouldn't get there in time no matter one. Seriously, go do some research. Its not that people are stupid, its that sudden things which cause death do so VERY quickly, so getting the call or not is moot.
Ah, more brain damage. Okay, I'll use a car analogy, that way you can argue with it without actually having to spend the time to process what I've said. Let's say you had an important interview one morning. But you couldn't get to it because I stole your car. Angry that you've missed something important, you tell me that I shouldn't have stolen your car. I reply with "But your car could have broken down anyway, so not having it now is acceptable, right? You can't always have a car! You could be stranded in the next city, you wouldn't have expected to have your car then! Why didnt you have the person interviewing you spend the night at your house, that way the interview would have happened on time!
Your analogy breaks down in that you can avoid places that jam cell phones, but I can't necessarily stop you from stealing my car. Which is the point. No, somebody shouldn't be walking around with a portable jammer, I was never arguing from that point of view. I'm solely talking about some business (like a movie theater) jamming the signal and informing you of that fact.
At any rate, even if you were to steal my car, I certainly have a backup that I could go to. My wife's car, other relatives' car, public transportation.
Maybe you should think your position through completely before going off calling others stupid because they disagree with you.
After owning an HD set, it's very very difficult to watch SD anything on it.
There lies your problem; owning the HD set. Now that you have it, you think it worthwhile. It may even be that it really is a big step up. However, given that my sets now are all working perfectly, I'm reluctant to simply throw them away because HD is now here. Why throw away something that works very well for me? Its not like upgrading a computer, where I can make use of the older parts as a testing station or a low power server. The TV necessarily must be thrown out (or given away or what have you). Given that HD tech STILL has not settled down, I'm even less inclined to make the investment. I can't get the same size screen for the same price as what I spent six years ago.
I'm not even saying its not a big deal. Honestly though, ALL of the HD sets I've seen look magnitudes WORSE than my SD set. And this is at BB, the cable company, etc. I noticed a HUGE jump in picture quality in fact just by switching from crapcast, which over compressed the hell out of everything, to my city's cable provider, which doesn't seem to compress anything (yay for IPTV!). However, as blown away as I might be by HD, I can't drop a few thousand to replace what I already have. There are LOTS of people in this position, I'm willing to bet.
"Fun" being such an subjective word, can be defined in many ways. Who says better visuals and sound are not part of this equation?
Its been a long time since I was playing with Artari and NES graphics. At this point though, my Wii have excellent graphics on my existing hardware. It looks quite good. Sound is not a factor for me; I already have a real 5.1 system (which I'd rather spend money on upgrading the speakers than a new TV).
Yes, gameplay counts as a huge part of the overall equation, but to snuff visuals and sound as being unimportant is simply turning a blind eye.
I didn't say they were unimportant; I said the Wiis graphics are good enough (quite good, actually) that graphics isn't as a major part of the equation as it used to be. Yes, graphics matter.. just that we reaching diminishing returns on graphics hardware at the moment. Until we get true lifelike picture quality (Star Trek holodeck perhaps?), what we have now seems to be fine for years to come at least.
HD set sales may be growing, but its going to be a LONG time before they are standard in homes. I have a 32" set from 2001, and no reason to replace it, and a 27" set purchased only a few years ago, again, no reason to replace it.
Besides, you act as if games are only going to be fun if they can be viewed in HD. I think people have spoken, and they'd rather have a standard-D console than an HD one. The Wiis graphics are good enough, what I really want is games that are fun.
Compete with the PS3? You mean the system that is overwhelmingly easy to find, and mostly sitting on shelves? Sorry, I think the PS3 is the one that needs to compete, and I'm not sure its ever going to go anywhere.
Certainly BR is a non-issue for most; I suspect many that would like HD movies are waiting until there's a clear winner. I really don't care if the PS3 can play BR if HD-DVD comes out on top.
The PS3 is just all around too iffy at the moment to even consider touching it.
Any of the consoles can die; you miss the point. The point is that the 360 seems to have a bad habit of dying many times for a large number of people. Wiis die too, but the vast majority are just fine.
Since when do corporations care about image?
At any rate, if it was about money, they'd make more by allowing AO titles. Certainly adult DVDs didn't prevent DVD players from becoming popular; in fact, quite the other way around. Why would it hurt a console, especially one with the same controls as a DVD player?
I'm sorry, I thought you'd see that banning AO titles is censorship, much like it used to, which you DO talk about in your post. Certainly I thought you'd have picked up on that where my post states as much. The fact that they are censoring less does not change the fact that they are censoring.
If you got to the hospital an hour after he died, there'd be a large amount of 'matterin' about it. The difference is you being there when that person needs you.
If your dad was so close to death, what are you doing at the movies? What if you're two hours away with coverage? That would be acceptable, no cell wouldn't be? Get a grip, you CAN'T always be there for someone, even when its really important. Trying to think you can is absurd.
Boy do I agree with you about that. There was an article on that years ago on Slashdot. I brought up the 911 thing and was pulverized by rude comments and moderations. "They have payphones, go use those!" "Don't get bad news in a theater, I'm trying to watch!" "Why would you need to know about a loved one? You should be bringing them with you!" Yadda yadda yadda. I'd love to hear a damn good reason to justify all the bullshit I got over that.
Well, I personally think either option is fine.
Going to a rated "R" movie without an adult when under 17 is not legal.
Yes it is.
I fail to see how a passive system would be any different than an active one. The nice part about the active solution is that it doesn't require ripping apart all the walls and trying to build a resonably working cage..
There are places though where I think the owner of an establishment should be able to block phones. Movie theathers come to mind. No need for anyone inside watching a movie to call 911, its easy enough to go to the lobby and get someone to call. In a large emergency, the theater could simply turn off the jammer.
If bars or other places want to do this, let them, as long as its only within their building. Don't like it, simply don't go to those places.
Your argument isn't all that strong either; you act as if cell phones are the only way to get an emergency message out at any place. That's simply not true.
No, the issue is the same. Whether they decide what content is censored, or leave it up to a third party to do so is not really relevent. The result is the same; no adults only content allowed on the console. The way it works now just shifts who's doing the work. There's no reason for them to ban AO titles on their console.
My Windows laptop can do the same thing. What's your point?
Huh? You realize they don't allow AO rated games to be sold on their system; third party developers will loss their license to develop games if they try to put one out. The other two consoles are the same, but don't pretend its not censorship.
I thought I was the only one that believes we should be responsible for our own defense. I didn't know until after I moved here that Vermont was a carry state, and honestly I never felt scared knowing people could be armed. Either most aren't, or they keep it consealed.
Giving someone power to do something for you which you should be able to do on your own only takes power from you, and that always leads to abuse.
The Toyota plant where the car is made? Perhaps you mean "assemblied," since I think most import cars are made overseas and simply put together in America.
No, it ensures that you're buying cheap crap. Believe it or not, the more expensive items many times ARE of better quality. I'd rather spend three times as much on say a lawnmower that will lasy YEARS instead of some shit walmart one that WON'T last through the winter, forcing me to buy another one.
I own a Wii, so maybe that makes a difference. Its immediately obvious to me which one is the fake.. from any angle. Somehow I think you'd have to be a total idiot to see somethings not right with the fake on.. since the Wiimote doesn't even have a screen.
Probably the fact that it won't say Nintendo or Wii anywhere on the box should be a huge clue too. Yes, they copied the design. Is it brand confusion? Only if you're a total moron.
I'm not sure about that either; it depends on what its replaced with. Silverlight though allows you to embed a movie player and buttons.. some common controls in MS' WPF. I think it may (or might) even allow access to your 3d card to render 3d scenes. I don't think a JS replacement would be quite as 'heavy.' Especially when silverlight is a scaled down version of the .Net runtime.
:-)
I do feel your pain.. have fun writing your function.
Um, no. Silverlight is an add-in, just like flash. JS really doesn't enter into it much.
Personally I think they should move to something new, for the sole reason to make a strongly typed scripting language. No more of that crap where you misspell a property and boom, you've added a new one by mistake.
A lot of POTS lines are twisted though. Cat3 anyone? A lot of phone cords aren't twisted because they're short and the quality of data a phone needs to carry is exceptionally limited.
I'd say that goes toward proving my point (I don't see much wiring that's inside the house). How much is cat3 compared to the same length of phone cord?
The point that the digital crowd are trying to make is that it doesn't matter if you have 100% of the signal remaining or 51% - as long as enough remains for the system to reconstruct the bits, you get the same signal out of the line as you put onto it. This isn't true with analogue(the run from the amp to the speaker). Better cables make sense there - longer runs, analogue, higher power.
Have digital speakers taken off? I haven't seen them anywhere, either in Best Buy or in a high end audio stores. If they haven't, which I suspect is the case, then the point the digital people are making is moot. That's the point I'm trying to make; since speakers are likely analog, you DO need some higher quality cables, either shielded or twisted. I'm not saying you need $1000 cables, but good cables DO make a difference.
In the digital case, losing 49% of the signal likely won't be enough to put the original signal back together.
Besides, we're generally not talking about the wire from the amp to the speaker, we're talking about the digital wire from the player to the receiver, which is a digital connection. There are people who claim that extremely expensive special digital cables costing hundreds of dollars a meter improve the sound for this connection. We're saying that it doesn't really matter as long as your cable meets specs. The extremely bad cheap cables might not work right, but a good quality generic will get the job done just as well as the monster cable+ crowd.
I did read half of the article, and it did sound like the cable from the speakers to the amp were being discussed. I agree that DVD to receiver you don't need super expensive cables, but they can make a difference as well. I replaced an old RCA stereo+video cable with a newer, higher quality one, and it made a HUGE difference. The old cables were of very low quality, and I certainly didn't spend a lot to replace it.
Not sure if its different in your area of the US (assuming that's where you are) but the big Video store chains (Blockbuster and Netflix's online services included) do not rent anything above an R rating.
Chain stores are overly paranoid. Fortunately there are a number of local video stores doing just fine and they do rent NC-17 and X movies. In fact, the NC-17s are on the floor in their own section near horror.
That said, Borders and B&N here stock a host of adult magazines and books, some very explicit. Still, there is no outrage. It just happened that in the chain video rental business, unfortnately one with fake morals became the dominante. I say fake because they've lost at least one unfair practice class action suit, where they were basically lying about the actual due date.
What could have been their main competitor (West Coast Video) seemed to be poorly managed and many locactions changed, but they also rented adult movies.
Oddly, even though you think there'd be outrage at XXX movies being rented at a store, the adult movie business is HUGE.
I live in a similar area where the government had to raise the speeding ticket fees (which are liberally handed out as cops only work to raise funds, not catch REAL bad guys, whom they seem to avoid as if they had the plague.) Imagine, if you will, a "minimum" fee of 1000 bucks for 10 miles over the speed limit, 750 for an unbuckled seat belt (instead of a darwin award nomination) and quite a bit more, and all aimed at RESIDENTS.
:) I've seen too much abuse in every place I've either lived in or traveled through, to ever believe that ANY government has its slave... ahem "constituents" best interests in mind (or ANY of their interests at all, for that matter).
The worst part of traffic law is that speed enforcement and lowering limits actually INCREASE the amount of accidents in an area. But the IIHS and governments collude to make speeding a Very Bad thing, so that they can 1) raise fines and 2) raise your insurance rates when you get a ticket.
All because our wonderful governor blew through our state racket, ahem "tax" money to supposedly prevent Bush from using it to fund the Iraq war.
Ugh.. what state is that? I'm firmly in the camp that less government is good government.
As for the envelope, I was merely jesting that until I see financial documents, I don't take it to heart
I haven't seen their records, but they have discloused enough information that it seems ligit to me, such as the name of the bank. At any rate, a lot of my tax money goes to things I don't want, so personally even if they had used tax money, at least it was something I wanted for once.
Besides, wouldn't you gladly pay double in taxes if it meant that you got a REAL competitor to Comcast? I'd sell my soul to see them wiped off the map.