Well, gee, if it is legal for the cops to use it without a warrant, then it is legal for a civilian like me to use it. Anyone want to build me one of these gadgets?
Well, gee, if it is legal for the cops to use it without a warrant, then it is legal for a civilian like me to use it. Anyone want to build me one of these gadgets?
Essentially, the requirement to preserve is a seizure of your private archives. As it is not based on probable cause determined by a magistrate, it is an illegal seizure.
Verizon is doing the same in Pittsburgh.
This could be the death of cable monopolies. Over the years cable companies have enjoyed huge profits from their monopolistic abilities to control, bundle and parcel out content, at a hefty premium. Essentially, the cable company is a mandatory middleman between the content provider and the end customer. The cable company makes big profits of the premium it forces customers to pay over the cost of content, a lot of which are unwanted parts of the bundle. (The way you used to have to buy the whole CD to get the good stuff.)
However, the internet is the great un-bundler, permitting direct relations between the producer of content (or other products) and the end customer. Assuming enough bandwidth, these relations can - and will - include transfers of video - the cable company's nest egg.
Therefore, to the extent the Verizon cable company, provides wide broadband, it self-destroys itself by becoming an involuntary common carriers of its core product - essentially selling the rope to hang themselves.
The result - The fitful, and spectacular demise of some really big conglomerates, and cheaper and more choice in content for the rest of us.
Verizon announced the same for Pittsburgh. It will start with broadband, and then Verizon intends to negotiate with local municipalities as to "cable_type" TV services. What is exciting to me is that once the broadband is in, it seems probable that cable and other monopolistic bundlers will wither away. Over the years cable companies have enjoyed huge profits from their shared monopolistic abilities to control, bundle and parcel out content, at a hefty premium. Essentially, the cable company is a mandatory middleman between the content provider and the end customer. The cable company makes big profits of the premium it forces customers to pay over the cost of content, a lot of which are unwanted parts of the bundle. (The way you used to have to buy the whole CD to get the good stuff.)
However, the internet is the great un-bundler, permitting direct relations between the producer of content (or other products) and the end customer. Assuming enough bandwidth, these relations can - and will - include transfers of video - the cable company's nest egg.
The result - The fitful, and spectacular demise of some really big conglomerates, and cheaper and more choice in content for the rest of us.
Whether the rebates are from the manufacturer or not, the FTC is correct in making the retailer responsible. Usually the manufacturer is far away and out of reach of the consumer. And all the customer screw-ups you refer to are really about info that is readily available at the point of purchase. The retailers and manufacturers want to make it difficult, because they have a real incentive to do so - they get to keep the money (or delay while they collect interest), even for hypertechnical mistakes.
One negative incentive for retailers to honor rebates would be for the FTC to deem that that ownership of the rebates is vested in the buyer at the point of purchase: If the rebates were not honored within a given time, they would escheat to the state (with hefty interest). The retailer would have to send the rebate and interest to the treasury, and the purchaser could still claim them from the state treasury. To get the system to work, any necessary puchaser information, which would be minimal,could easily be gathered at the time of purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, gee, if it is legal for the cops to use it without a warrant, then it is legal for a civilian like me to use it. Anyone want to build me one of these gadgets?
Well, gee, if it is legal for the cops to use it without a warrant, then it is legal for a civilian like me to use it. Anyone want to build me one of these gadgets?
The biggest problem, as is disclosed in the inquiry transcripts, is that the lookouts were unbelievably not issued binoculars.
In Chicago there should be a surveillance camera in every politician's office.
Essentially, the requirement to preserve is a seizure of your private archives. As it is not based on probable cause determined by a magistrate, it is an illegal seizure.
It is ironic that an open-source proposal was placed in a huge bill that was converted to pdf format in order to make the bill inaccessible.
What's wrong with aluminum? I like aluminum.
Verizon is doing the same in Pittsburgh. This could be the death of cable monopolies. Over the years cable companies have enjoyed huge profits from their monopolistic abilities to control, bundle and parcel out content, at a hefty premium. Essentially, the cable company is a mandatory middleman between the content provider and the end customer. The cable company makes big profits of the premium it forces customers to pay over the cost of content, a lot of which are unwanted parts of the bundle. (The way you used to have to buy the whole CD to get the good stuff.) However, the internet is the great un-bundler, permitting direct relations between the producer of content (or other products) and the end customer. Assuming enough bandwidth, these relations can - and will - include transfers of video - the cable company's nest egg. Therefore, to the extent the Verizon cable company, provides wide broadband, it self-destroys itself by becoming an involuntary common carriers of its core product - essentially selling the rope to hang themselves. The result - The fitful, and spectacular demise of some really big conglomerates, and cheaper and more choice in content for the rest of us.
Verizon announced the same for Pittsburgh. It will start with broadband, and then Verizon intends to negotiate with local municipalities as to "cable_type" TV services. What is exciting to me is that once the broadband is in, it seems probable that cable and other monopolistic bundlers will wither away. Over the years cable companies have enjoyed huge profits from their shared monopolistic abilities to control, bundle and parcel out content, at a hefty premium. Essentially, the cable company is a mandatory middleman between the content provider and the end customer. The cable company makes big profits of the premium it forces customers to pay over the cost of content, a lot of which are unwanted parts of the bundle. (The way you used to have to buy the whole CD to get the good stuff.) However, the internet is the great un-bundler, permitting direct relations between the producer of content (or other products) and the end customer. Assuming enough bandwidth, these relations can - and will - include transfers of video - the cable company's nest egg. The result - The fitful, and spectacular demise of some really big conglomerates, and cheaper and more choice in content for the rest of us.
Whether the rebates are from the manufacturer or not, the FTC is correct in making the retailer responsible. Usually the manufacturer is far away and out of reach of the consumer. And all the customer screw-ups you refer to are really about info that is readily available at the point of purchase. The retailers and manufacturers want to make it difficult, because they have a real incentive to do so - they get to keep the money (or delay while they collect interest), even for hypertechnical mistakes.
One negative incentive for retailers to honor rebates would be for the FTC to deem that that ownership of the rebates is vested in the buyer at the point of purchase: If the rebates were not honored within a given time, they would escheat to the state (with hefty interest). The retailer would have to send the rebate and interest to the treasury, and the purchaser could still claim them from the state treasury. To get the system to work, any necessary puchaser information, which would be minimal,could easily be gathered at the time of purchase.