Samsung is doing as well as it does because it's a huge company that makes almost everything including many of the components that are used to build its other products. If there's one particular division that's a complete and ongoing money pit they could consider selling it off or just shutting it down, but splitting up the entire company is just short-sighted profiteering.
Have you stopped to consider that because the media spends so much time focusing on his twitter shit posts, they aren't spending time focusing on legitimate criticisms.
It's a bit like why Obama didn't release his birth certificate. Sure it would have stopped the crazies (well some of them) from carrying on about it, but they would have just found something else to complain about and they looked really stupid to everyone else.
If you want to go after Trump, do so on policy, because he doesn't really have one and that's going to hit harder and stick rather than playing into his hand and being distracted by something irrelevant.
This assumes that everyone who uses Linux cares about open-source software and isn't using it because of the price (free) or because it's just a good tool/solution for their problem. You can get more people to use Linux for the latter reasons than because of FOSS principles.
Even if I were an FOSS zealot, if you could prove to me that using Windows 10 to develop my FOSS software made me considerably more productive, I'd be a bit of a fool not to use it. Ideology is worth less in my book that being pragmatic. Maybe you feel different, but I would imagine that even most people here don't live in such a black and white world.
Sure, for the first 3 months or so, but eventually new accounts become old accounts and how much trust differential do you assign to an account that is 4 years old as opposed to one that is only 3 years old?
Furthermore, how much time and effort will people put into reviewing the reviewers? At a certain point it eats up more time than its worth for most people. If I'm buying a $10 cable or something similarly priced, it's not worth spending a few hours to research it in the same way I'd be more careful as when buying a $1,000 appliance.
Even if you make some analytics that are easily available to help share that information with users, the fake reviewers will just figure out how to game that system. It's a never-ending cat and mouse problem that doesn't have a good solution because the underlying problem isn't one of technology, but one of human nature. The only way I could see this problem being fixed is to make laws requiring real IDs and strict penalties for financially motivated reviews, but that cure is probably worse than the current disease.
The overall result is that instead of 20 fake reviews from a single account, there are now 20 fake reviews spread over four different accounts. This just makes it more inconvenient for the people posting fake reviews, but doesn't really do anything to stop them. Maybe that makes it economically infeasible for a few of them and they go on to something more economically viable for them like pimping their grandmother, but this isn't going to be that big of a shakeup.
Does that really fix anything though? If I'm a company who wants fake reviews I can reimburse the person writing the fake review for their purchase of my product which they just return to me or have shipped back to me. It's slightly more expensive, but now supposedly comes with the legitimacy that the "Verified Purchase" stamp of approval supposedly comes with.
Maybe that kills off the lowest, of low-hanging fruit, but some companies will still find a way to exploit it. Here's an example from just this year of a company doing something very similar (buying their own product to try to drum up marketing and drive demand) but they even did it in meat-space. Imagine how much easier it would be to do online.
The problem with TDD is that it's not a tool you can apply to all problems. Some things are sufficiently complex and not well understood enough that trying to build them to incrementally pass more tests is just asking for headaches. There's a famous example of Ron Jeffries trying to use TDD to implement a Sudoku solver that didn't turn out well.
It's good in that it ensures some unit tests get developed and those can be a great asset if it's software that's going to stick around and will probably be enhanced, refactored, or reused later on because it makes it a lot easier to do regression testing if you've already got a good set of tests. Some developers can be trusted to write those after they've written the code and others just rush off to the next thing.
Like a lot of other things TDD probably fails mostly because people can't use it properly or try to treat every problem like a nail that can be pounded in with their shiny new TDD hammer.
They might not go after you for criticizing Theresa May, but they might take a good hard look at your internet history and discover that you've done something else illegal. Of course that was all just discovered during a routine investigation that wasn't triggered by any action on your part. Modern society has so many laws that it's utterly impossible to know whether or not you're breaking one or not.
If you've worked enough jobs you've probably had one where someone was let go because of a number of small violations that piled up. Normally no one cares about those, but if management wants to legally can someone, they'll use those as an excuse because their real reason (usually something petty or personal) won't pass muster.
If you think this has a good ending, you've failed to learn from past history and are now doomed to repeat it.
Bush wouldn't have done any of what he did were it not for Osama, which to me makes Osama a better candidate. Good or evil don't really come into it at all, just the influence the person had on the world.
I'd probably argue that Trump would be the best candidate this year. If you look at the historical results, there's a pretty strong tendency for newly elected presidents to receive the award as everyone since H.W. Bush received the award the year of their election, and both George W. Bush and Obama received it on reelection as well.
Actually, in looking at the list of winners on Wikipedia to verify that bit about the former presidents getting it on their election, they list the 2001 winner as Giuliani. While he's not quite as detestable as Osama, he apparently was the PotY for being mayor during 9/11. Really though it should have been bin Laden as you point out as it makes a hell of a lot more sense.
yet oddly, that is exactly what people like you focused on. Not the story itself, but the source.
I'd prefer it if you didn't put political leanings in my mouth. I didn't vote for Trump (or Clinton for that matter) but once again you attack the messenger rather than the message. Also, if you're going to complain about the other side doing something (rightly or not) you probably shouldn't also do that thing yourself.
Also for what it's worth, you probably posted stories that confirm to your biases. It doesn't make you a bad person, actually it just makes you an ordinary person. You probably ignored factual stories that didn't support your preconceived notions or tried to find some reason to ignore them (like wrong messenger) so that your brain didn't have to consider information that conflicts with its existing choice.
Pretty much everyone (my own self included) does this, but it's not really helpful. It's the same reason why there are some people who wouldn't be convinced of climate change if their dear lord Jeebus himself descended from heaven and told them it was all true. I suspect you'd agree with me that those people are acting rather silly, so wouldn't it be better if we tried not to act like them?
If you get modded down its probably for going off-topic while essentially trying to rationalize why it's okay for you to attack the messenger, but not those other silly people. You even ended by creating a scenario in which you expect to use any perceived victimization as further proof that you're correct and everyone else is just out to get you. As far as that line of reasoning is concerned both a +5 and -1 moderation support your idea that you're correct. Seems like a rather flawed test does it not?
This sounds a lot like the "but he started it" argument that I witnessed some of my cousin's young children have this Thanksgiving. If that's the level of political discourse we're capable of as an electorate, it's little wonder why the election came down to two of the most odious candidates we've ever seen, and as the saying goes, in a democracy people get the government that they deserve.
Hey the poor fella just wants a safe space as all the harassment against him is just a bunch of Orangism, though I have no idea what the hell it has to do with the Dutch.
As the grant parent pointed out, perhaps the left will realize what a shit idea clamping down on speech is and stop pushing for that so called kind of progressivism. At the least the Republicans spun off their ultra-loony and fringe elements into the Tea Party. Democrats tried to embrace their own inner crazy instead of pondering whether something with such a bilious taste might not be good for them.
It doesn't really matter what country the bored young adults doing this are from. I highly doubt fucking with a useless online poll is on the radar for Russian state actors. If anything it's people who would like you to think it's Russian state actors because they'd find it more amusing that way or independent hackers from Russia that are just trying to dick wave in front of the international community.
Here's the same story from USA Today. In case they're a state-sponsored mouthpiece for Russia or some other government here's the same story from Fortune. I'll leave it up to you to do a quick web search to find dozens of other sites reporting on the story. Even Fox has a version of the story and while they're a mouthpiece, it's not a state-sponsored Russian one.
Of course you focus on the messenger far too much and ignore the more obvious. What guarantee do we have that Assange is telling the truth or that he is capable of knowing that for a fact. Let's suppose he knows that the leaks came from party X who he has reason to believe isn't involved with the Russian government. He could be legitimately mistaken and Russia could ultimately be the source of the leaks pushed through enough independent channels to hide their involvement. Or it came directly from Russia and he's covering up that fact for his own reasons.
Unless you're also getting fed the kind of classified information that gives you a better idea of the shape of the world, all we can do is speculate. However, I think a better way to go about that is to look at what's happened since the election and what happens going forward. If we never see any additional email leaks related to Hillary or the DNC going forward it's pretty safe to assume that it was someone who really didn't want them to get elected and since that even has passed, they have no further interest. Even Trump who was heavily on the bandwagon to put Clinton in prison has done a bit of an about face on it. Whether he really ever wanted to or not is immaterial, it was just useful in helping him get votes. However, if over the next year we continue getting more and more leaks, it's probably safer to assume it isn't Russia (or if it really is that they'll try to act in a way as to make it appear less likely that it's them in which case we need more criteria that we don't post to the internet where they can read about it) and is just some hacker doing it because they can or to shake the ant farm a little bit for his or her own amusement.
Of course there's a whole host of other sources that aren't Russia and it's usually safer to play the field unless you can't legitimately think of anyone else who might have been involved.
I suppose I should be thankful that it wasn't reported as an "epic fail", but can we ditch the idiotic meme of using fail as a noun and go back to using failure?
Funny that your last point is incorrect, demonstrating your own bias. We see the so-called invisible hand at work all the time, typically in black markets and people finding ways to end-around regulation. Supply exists to meet actual demand regardless of legality or whether its morally objectionable. Free markets tend to outperform state-controlled or centrally planned ones based on historical data. Note that this doesn't say anything about where the wealth ends up being concentrated.
For every thing the conservatives tend to believe that has no empirical basis (e.g. climate change is a hoax, creationism, etc.) there are just as many "unscientific" views held by liberals (e.g. gun-control policies, vaccines causing autism (both sides have some adherents to this, but it tends to be most prevalent among liberals), etc.) that are essentially faith-based or run contrary to established science. Try having a conversation about genetic components of intelligence with a liberal and you'll quickly find them rejecting that science as racist just as fast as a conservative will tell you that the global warming science is just as biased.
I've generally found that regardless of whatever a person believes they tend to overlook the cases that don't confirm their biases while focusing on those that do. I don't really blame them though as some scientists believe that these cognitive biases made our ancestors more fit from an evolutionary perspective. Perhaps humanity is slowly shifting away from this, but there isn't a lot of selective pressure against this trait. If anything it probably helps people find mates with a similar set of in-group biases as themselves while people who tend to be more objective just piss off everyone for some reason.
Granted, I'd lack the neuroplasticity of a child's brain for the second attempt, but I'd be willing to give it a try. Beats the alternative anyways.
Assuming the technology exists to unfreeze and cure your terminal condition exists, that might not be much of an issue either. I suspect at some point the leading cause of death for humanity will be "misadventure" as outside of accidents, we'll be able to handle disease or aging rather well. Hell, maybe even accidents won't be a problem, you'll just have to respawn at the last checkpoint. Make sure to save or backup frequently.
It was really just a matter of committing the wrong crime. If he would have molested some kids instead, the BBC would have spent decades covering it up instead of firing him.
Moore's law was about the amount of time it took to double the transistor density in a given amount of area. It's still going, it's merely that its no longer doubling quite as fast as it used to. Part of this is due to the difficulty of shrinking the process features when they get closer to the physical limits, but also because CPUs have reached a point where the performance is more than most consumers need so there's less demand for more powerful chips. I've still got an old Core 2 Duo machine that's mainly used for light web browsing. The only real reason to replace it would be to get something more power efficient.
Mobile still has some of that drive for better performance as there's still a demand for the same order or performance, but there are some design constraints that made previous SoCs less powerful than desired. I think we'll get to another saturation point soon, but there'll be some new product in the future to replace phones that requires an even smaller package so the demand for performance will begin anew.
If one were to take a stance that something such as a film has so many people involved that it can't really belong or be owned by any one of them as well as a belief that copyrights extend to corporate persons, then you could easily argue that copyright is perpetual. A corporate person only dies if they cease to exist as a going concern or otherwise dissolve their corporate charter and liquidate. If you assign the authorship of a work to a corporation, it never expires so long as the corporation exists in some capacity. Even should the original company be in such a perilous position, another corporation could buy them and continue their corporate existence.
I have no legal expertise in this area, so perhaps there's some case law that indicates this is not possible, but the argument is reasonable if you accept that a corporation has some legal rights extended to a person and that a corporation can claim authorship of works subject to copyright laws. The second part is clearly true as there's no end to DMCA takedown requests that have been sent by corporate entities. Tendency to reject this argument likely stems from what little spirit of the law remains, unless there is some existing case law to allow a rejection of that line of argument.
1) Trump has at least come out against the AT&T / Time Warner merger, though like anything else who knows what his actual opinion on the matter is or what he'll really do when it comes down to it.
2) Trump and Republicans in general probably aren't overly friendly to the entertainment industry. Then again they might try to do it because they believe its somehow to their benefit, but Trump was also against TPP (see point one) so assuming he says anything remotely related to how he actually feels, supporting them seems unlikely.
3) You mean to tell me that they don't already have this?
Slashdot Mirror
Samsung is doing as well as it does because it's a huge company that makes almost everything including many of the components that are used to build its other products. If there's one particular division that's a complete and ongoing money pit they could consider selling it off or just shutting it down, but splitting up the entire company is just short-sighted profiteering.
Have you stopped to consider that because the media spends so much time focusing on his twitter shit posts, they aren't spending time focusing on legitimate criticisms.
It's a bit like why Obama didn't release his birth certificate. Sure it would have stopped the crazies (well some of them) from carrying on about it, but they would have just found something else to complain about and they looked really stupid to everyone else.
If you want to go after Trump, do so on policy, because he doesn't really have one and that's going to hit harder and stick rather than playing into his hand and being distracted by something irrelevant.
How much are you willing to pay for such a service?
I would imagine you have just answered your own question.
>I use legacy software, hardware, and ports, and transfer my data to another computer to transcode it
That's an amusing point to bring up in a thread about a company that's widely criticized here for being too aggressive with dropping legacy ports.
This assumes that everyone who uses Linux cares about open-source software and isn't using it because of the price (free) or because it's just a good tool/solution for their problem. You can get more people to use Linux for the latter reasons than because of FOSS principles.
Even if I were an FOSS zealot, if you could prove to me that using Windows 10 to develop my FOSS software made me considerably more productive, I'd be a bit of a fool not to use it. Ideology is worth less in my book that being pragmatic. Maybe you feel different, but I would imagine that even most people here don't live in such a black and white world.
Sure, for the first 3 months or so, but eventually new accounts become old accounts and how much trust differential do you assign to an account that is 4 years old as opposed to one that is only 3 years old?
Furthermore, how much time and effort will people put into reviewing the reviewers? At a certain point it eats up more time than its worth for most people. If I'm buying a $10 cable or something similarly priced, it's not worth spending a few hours to research it in the same way I'd be more careful as when buying a $1,000 appliance.
Even if you make some analytics that are easily available to help share that information with users, the fake reviewers will just figure out how to game that system. It's a never-ending cat and mouse problem that doesn't have a good solution because the underlying problem isn't one of technology, but one of human nature. The only way I could see this problem being fixed is to make laws requiring real IDs and strict penalties for financially motivated reviews, but that cure is probably worse than the current disease.
The overall result is that instead of 20 fake reviews from a single account, there are now 20 fake reviews spread over four different accounts. This just makes it more inconvenient for the people posting fake reviews, but doesn't really do anything to stop them. Maybe that makes it economically infeasible for a few of them and they go on to something more economically viable for them like pimping their grandmother, but this isn't going to be that big of a shakeup.
Does that really fix anything though? If I'm a company who wants fake reviews I can reimburse the person writing the fake review for their purchase of my product which they just return to me or have shipped back to me. It's slightly more expensive, but now supposedly comes with the legitimacy that the "Verified Purchase" stamp of approval supposedly comes with.
Maybe that kills off the lowest, of low-hanging fruit, but some companies will still find a way to exploit it. Here's an example from just this year of a company doing something very similar (buying their own product to try to drum up marketing and drive demand) but they even did it in meat-space. Imagine how much easier it would be to do online.
The problem with TDD is that it's not a tool you can apply to all problems. Some things are sufficiently complex and not well understood enough that trying to build them to incrementally pass more tests is just asking for headaches. There's a famous example of Ron Jeffries trying to use TDD to implement a Sudoku solver that didn't turn out well.
It's good in that it ensures some unit tests get developed and those can be a great asset if it's software that's going to stick around and will probably be enhanced, refactored, or reused later on because it makes it a lot easier to do regression testing if you've already got a good set of tests. Some developers can be trusted to write those after they've written the code and others just rush off to the next thing.
Like a lot of other things TDD probably fails mostly because people can't use it properly or try to treat every problem like a nail that can be pounded in with their shiny new TDD hammer.
They might not go after you for criticizing Theresa May, but they might take a good hard look at your internet history and discover that you've done something else illegal. Of course that was all just discovered during a routine investigation that wasn't triggered by any action on your part. Modern society has so many laws that it's utterly impossible to know whether or not you're breaking one or not.
If you've worked enough jobs you've probably had one where someone was let go because of a number of small violations that piled up. Normally no one cares about those, but if management wants to legally can someone, they'll use those as an excuse because their real reason (usually something petty or personal) won't pass muster.
If you think this has a good ending, you've failed to learn from past history and are now doomed to repeat it.
You're probably thinking of Tim Reid, unless Glass had some guest role or was a minor reoccurring character I've forgotten about.
Bush wouldn't have done any of what he did were it not for Osama, which to me makes Osama a better candidate. Good or evil don't really come into it at all, just the influence the person had on the world.
I'd probably argue that Trump would be the best candidate this year. If you look at the historical results, there's a pretty strong tendency for newly elected presidents to receive the award as everyone since H.W. Bush received the award the year of their election, and both George W. Bush and Obama received it on reelection as well.
Actually, in looking at the list of winners on Wikipedia to verify that bit about the former presidents getting it on their election, they list the 2001 winner as Giuliani. While he's not quite as detestable as Osama, he apparently was the PotY for being mayor during 9/11. Really though it should have been bin Laden as you point out as it makes a hell of a lot more sense.
yet oddly, that is exactly what people like you focused on. Not the story itself, but the source.
I'd prefer it if you didn't put political leanings in my mouth. I didn't vote for Trump (or Clinton for that matter) but once again you attack the messenger rather than the message. Also, if you're going to complain about the other side doing something (rightly or not) you probably shouldn't also do that thing yourself.
Also for what it's worth, you probably posted stories that confirm to your biases. It doesn't make you a bad person, actually it just makes you an ordinary person. You probably ignored factual stories that didn't support your preconceived notions or tried to find some reason to ignore them (like wrong messenger) so that your brain didn't have to consider information that conflicts with its existing choice.
Pretty much everyone (my own self included) does this, but it's not really helpful. It's the same reason why there are some people who wouldn't be convinced of climate change if their dear lord Jeebus himself descended from heaven and told them it was all true. I suspect you'd agree with me that those people are acting rather silly, so wouldn't it be better if we tried not to act like them?
If you get modded down its probably for going off-topic while essentially trying to rationalize why it's okay for you to attack the messenger, but not those other silly people. You even ended by creating a scenario in which you expect to use any perceived victimization as further proof that you're correct and everyone else is just out to get you. As far as that line of reasoning is concerned both a +5 and -1 moderation support your idea that you're correct. Seems like a rather flawed test does it not?
This sounds a lot like the "but he started it" argument that I witnessed some of my cousin's young children have this Thanksgiving. If that's the level of political discourse we're capable of as an electorate, it's little wonder why the election came down to two of the most odious candidates we've ever seen, and as the saying goes, in a democracy people get the government that they deserve.
Hey the poor fella just wants a safe space as all the harassment against him is just a bunch of Orangism, though I have no idea what the hell it has to do with the Dutch.
As the grant parent pointed out, perhaps the left will realize what a shit idea clamping down on speech is and stop pushing for that so called kind of progressivism. At the least the Republicans spun off their ultra-loony and fringe elements into the Tea Party. Democrats tried to embrace their own inner crazy instead of pondering whether something with such a bilious taste might not be good for them.
They had famously done it in a previous year to give the site's founder the win, while also manipulating the top 20 results to apparently spell out some meme.
It doesn't really matter what country the bored young adults doing this are from. I highly doubt fucking with a useless online poll is on the radar for Russian state actors. If anything it's people who would like you to think it's Russian state actors because they'd find it more amusing that way or independent hackers from Russia that are just trying to dick wave in front of the international community.
Here's the same story from USA Today. In case they're a state-sponsored mouthpiece for Russia or some other government here's the same story from Fortune. I'll leave it up to you to do a quick web search to find dozens of other sites reporting on the story. Even Fox has a version of the story and while they're a mouthpiece, it's not a state-sponsored Russian one.
Of course you focus on the messenger far too much and ignore the more obvious. What guarantee do we have that Assange is telling the truth or that he is capable of knowing that for a fact. Let's suppose he knows that the leaks came from party X who he has reason to believe isn't involved with the Russian government. He could be legitimately mistaken and Russia could ultimately be the source of the leaks pushed through enough independent channels to hide their involvement. Or it came directly from Russia and he's covering up that fact for his own reasons.
Unless you're also getting fed the kind of classified information that gives you a better idea of the shape of the world, all we can do is speculate. However, I think a better way to go about that is to look at what's happened since the election and what happens going forward. If we never see any additional email leaks related to Hillary or the DNC going forward it's pretty safe to assume that it was someone who really didn't want them to get elected and since that even has passed, they have no further interest. Even Trump who was heavily on the bandwagon to put Clinton in prison has done a bit of an about face on it. Whether he really ever wanted to or not is immaterial, it was just useful in helping him get votes. However, if over the next year we continue getting more and more leaks, it's probably safer to assume it isn't Russia (or if it really is that they'll try to act in a way as to make it appear less likely that it's them in which case we need more criteria that we don't post to the internet where they can read about it) and is just some hacker doing it because they can or to shake the ant farm a little bit for his or her own amusement.
Of course there's a whole host of other sources that aren't Russia and it's usually safer to play the field unless you can't legitimately think of anyone else who might have been involved.
I suppose I should be thankful that it wasn't reported as an "epic fail", but can we ditch the idiotic meme of using fail as a noun and go back to using failure?
Funny that your last point is incorrect, demonstrating your own bias. We see the so-called invisible hand at work all the time, typically in black markets and people finding ways to end-around regulation. Supply exists to meet actual demand regardless of legality or whether its morally objectionable. Free markets tend to outperform state-controlled or centrally planned ones based on historical data. Note that this doesn't say anything about where the wealth ends up being concentrated.
For every thing the conservatives tend to believe that has no empirical basis (e.g. climate change is a hoax, creationism, etc.) there are just as many "unscientific" views held by liberals (e.g. gun-control policies, vaccines causing autism (both sides have some adherents to this, but it tends to be most prevalent among liberals), etc.) that are essentially faith-based or run contrary to established science. Try having a conversation about genetic components of intelligence with a liberal and you'll quickly find them rejecting that science as racist just as fast as a conservative will tell you that the global warming science is just as biased.
I've generally found that regardless of whatever a person believes they tend to overlook the cases that don't confirm their biases while focusing on those that do. I don't really blame them though as some scientists believe that these cognitive biases made our ancestors more fit from an evolutionary perspective. Perhaps humanity is slowly shifting away from this, but there isn't a lot of selective pressure against this trait. If anything it probably helps people find mates with a similar set of in-group biases as themselves while people who tend to be more objective just piss off everyone for some reason.
Granted, I'd lack the neuroplasticity of a child's brain for the second attempt, but I'd be willing to give it a try. Beats the alternative anyways.
Assuming the technology exists to unfreeze and cure your terminal condition exists, that might not be much of an issue either. I suspect at some point the leading cause of death for humanity will be "misadventure" as outside of accidents, we'll be able to handle disease or aging rather well. Hell, maybe even accidents won't be a problem, you'll just have to respawn at the last checkpoint. Make sure to save or backup frequently.
It was really just a matter of committing the wrong crime. If he would have molested some kids instead, the BBC would have spent decades covering it up instead of firing him.
Moore's law was about the amount of time it took to double the transistor density in a given amount of area. It's still going, it's merely that its no longer doubling quite as fast as it used to. Part of this is due to the difficulty of shrinking the process features when they get closer to the physical limits, but also because CPUs have reached a point where the performance is more than most consumers need so there's less demand for more powerful chips. I've still got an old Core 2 Duo machine that's mainly used for light web browsing. The only real reason to replace it would be to get something more power efficient.
Mobile still has some of that drive for better performance as there's still a demand for the same order or performance, but there are some design constraints that made previous SoCs less powerful than desired. I think we'll get to another saturation point soon, but there'll be some new product in the future to replace phones that requires an even smaller package so the demand for performance will begin anew.
Who needs missiles anyhow? As long as they've still got rum, sodomy, and the lash they should be fine.
If one were to take a stance that something such as a film has so many people involved that it can't really belong or be owned by any one of them as well as a belief that copyrights extend to corporate persons, then you could easily argue that copyright is perpetual. A corporate person only dies if they cease to exist as a going concern or otherwise dissolve their corporate charter and liquidate. If you assign the authorship of a work to a corporation, it never expires so long as the corporation exists in some capacity. Even should the original company be in such a perilous position, another corporation could buy them and continue their corporate existence.
I have no legal expertise in this area, so perhaps there's some case law that indicates this is not possible, but the argument is reasonable if you accept that a corporation has some legal rights extended to a person and that a corporation can claim authorship of works subject to copyright laws. The second part is clearly true as there's no end to DMCA takedown requests that have been sent by corporate entities. Tendency to reject this argument likely stems from what little spirit of the law remains, unless there is some existing case law to allow a rejection of that line of argument.
1) Trump has at least come out against the AT&T / Time Warner merger, though like anything else who knows what his actual opinion on the matter is or what he'll really do when it comes down to it.
2) Trump and Republicans in general probably aren't overly friendly to the entertainment industry. Then again they might try to do it because they believe its somehow to their benefit, but Trump was also against TPP (see point one) so assuming he says anything remotely related to how he actually feels, supporting them seems unlikely.
3) You mean to tell me that they don't already have this?