So basically by bundling a popular and unpopular channel together, they get people who don't want to watch the unpopular channel to subsidise those who do.
The problem is the only way that is sustainable is if nobody else is allowed to compete. Otherwise another company will realise that they can offer a package of just the popular channel. They will be able to do that for a lower price than the bundle obviously. Then the only people who still buy the bundle will be those who want the unpopular channel.
So they can only continue with their bundling practice by stifling competition, ie by interfering with the free market.
Also, since when were cable companies in the business of creating niche channels so that everyone's pet interest was covered? As far as I know, being corporations, they are driven by profitability. The way they increase their profitability is by increasing their revenue - which means making a new channel and forcing their customer base to buy it. Sure they can claim to be serving some small demographic's wants - but only at the expense of everyone else.
Why are niche channels on cable even required? Even the smallest niche can have video channels on the internet. Plus, smaller niches don't need a rolling 24hr feed by definition.
Not everything in "Video Games and Consoles" category is a video game or a console.
I've just had a quick look and I can see controllers, hard drives and vouchers for money off a console. So can I buy a controller from that category and then complain when I don't get a full console system? No. Because that would be dumb.
Same goes for many other categories - In the Vehicles-Boats section, I can see engines for sale.
The category is not a complete description of what you're selling - the post title and commentary does that. And indeed in this case it did, through the use of the word "photo".
The primary objective is ... combating terrorism and other criminal activities, such as human trafficking, child pornography, detection of dangerous situations (e.g. robberies) and the use of dangerous objects (e.g. knives or guns) in public spaces
OK, I'll give you that cameras, or people, watching could spot things like robberies, mugging, weapons. By watching behaviour it's possible to spot unusual activity such as people about to commit suicide, or presumably someone being kidnapped or trafficked.
However "child pornography ... in public spaces". Really? Is there much child pornography going on in public spaces? I doubt there's that much going on in the public internet (probably mostly on private networks), so I really doubt there's much going on in railway stations, plazas, etc around the world.
It seems that there's two core addictions: - physical addiction. Caused by an external chemical which forces the body to crave more. Drugs, nicotine, etc. - psychological addiction. Caused by the body's response to something (eg releasing endorphins during exercise) which can cause addiction to whatever triggers that response
Just as there's lots of drugs which can be addictive, there are lots of different actions which can end up being addictive if the person in question goes to extremes. as an example you get people addicted to exercise, shopping, committing crimes (eg kleptomaniacs), gamblers, and of course people who spend too long on certain leisure activities - TV, games, etc.
To the extent that an obsession with something impacts your ability to live a balanced life then some form of counselling would be useful. However as long as your obsession doesn't involve criminal behaviour (eg kleptomania), or causes wider problems (eg violent drunks) I don't see it as being a problem for the state.
But then as an AC above commented, another addiction seems to be creating legislation - and politicians have it bad.
Been doing some reading on causes of the American Civil War over the weekend. Iím a bit of a history nut, but so far have really focused on European and Far Eastern history Ė not much of North American history. Iíve always thought that the cause of the ACW was more nuanced that just slavery/anti-slavery Ė ie including things like economic differences, state v federal power etc, in particular as slavery didn't seem to confined to just the Confederate states. While thereís never really a simple reason for wars to start (WWI wasnít really started by Archduke Ferdinanz being shot, the war was coming and would have found another trigger if that hadnít happened) it does seem that slavery (and hence racism) underpinned a lot of the conflict between the Confederate and the Union states.
Iím aware that history is written by the victors and nobody is going to write that the losing side was right but hey we won Ė however I donít think thatís having a big impact on this.
Anyway, tl;dr: The original comment isnít as much hyperbole as I originally thought, and my comment was poorly worded in an attempt to make my point. Apologies for any offence. And thanks for prompting some additional reading! Am off to buy some ACW books to read over Christmas.
PS Just noticed you have the same underlying username as Tim, hence referring to you in the third person in my response above.
PPS You may have nothing without bad language, but at least you have that! :)
I did say "veering towards" - I understand that the Confederate states is not a race, any more than a religion is a race. To clarify - Tim was not being racist, but was being prejudicial towards a group of people with a shared cultural background.
As a group of people defined by their birthright the group "people who were born in a particular place" and "people who were born with a particular skin colour" are the similar in that there is no personal choice and both can be singled out and tarred.
I was merely pointing out that he was generalising by linking Confederate to racist. By making such a broad comment, he was tarring an entire group of people with a negative trait. If he was to imply that all of a certain race had a negative trait, it would be racist - hence my comment that applying a negative trait to all of a certain group, defined by where they lived rather than any particular active choice, is being just as prejudicial as someone who applies negative traits to everyone of a certain race (or religion for that matter).
Oh, and there's no need for bad language or personal insults.
Strikes me that Tim is veering towards racism here. To quote: "it's time for a fun little Confederate rant"
Given the rest of the article, he's clearly using "Confederate" in a derogatory manner to mean racist. In addition the event happened in Ohio, which to the best of my knowledge wasn't even in the Confederate States (although I confess I don't know where David Spondike comes from)
Maybe Tim is using the "C-word" to shock, or emphasize his point - but then that's an excuse that our Ohioan teacher could also use.
It seems the device is battery powered (source: wikipedia), so presumably it would be a fairly easy hack to fit a switch to the device. If I recall correctly from the last time I was in the US they're often stuck on the inside of windscreens so drivers should be able to operate a switch without taking their eyes off the road.