Please show me where the site committed an actual crime. I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Yes, the author brought up Whack-a-mole and used the term correctly and in-context. You however, did not. Even after I pointed this out to you, you STILL do not seem to understand the context involved.
Maybe you should go back to Sparkle Lanes and see if its your turn to roll your rock down the lane. I am not sure you are ready for another reading comprehension lesson.
A good compromise might be to allow me to say that all mail is encrypted with my local key when I tell it to "archive" message.
This would cause issues with searching as some have mentioned, but as part of the compromise you might store a local cache of your archived messages for searching. Google USED to do desktop search as I remember.
What I mean is that, while this would be disallowed on Microsoft's own store, they are not locking down a PC running windows 8. So you should be able to install Steam and get it that way, or install it directly from dvd media right?
I know that they want to lock down the tablet RT platform, but isn't this a non-issue for the rest of the machines?
And if they are telling you things that are not true? Or are slanting a candidates political position on something? Without the chance for a dissenting opinion and in news, it becomes much like a "company town" mentality.
On a typical day...
57% of Americans watch TV news
54% watch their local news
34% watch cable news channels
28% watch the nightly network news
23% watch the morning news programs (The Today Show, Good Morning America, etc.)
40% of Americans read a newspaper
36% of Americans listen to news on the radio
23 % of Americans get news online
18% visit news aggregators (Google News, Yahoo! News, AOL News, etc.)
14% visit national TV networks' sites (CNN.com, MSNBC.com, ABCnews.com, etc.)
14% visit newspaper Web sites
4% visit news blogs
3% visit online news magazines (Slate.com, Salon.com, etc.)
I admit that these stats are a little old (2006), but it bears repeating: We (online news readers) are NOT the majority.
The reason it seems like a problem to me:
If one company owns all the local (and possible a majority of national) news outlets (tv, radio, newspaper, etc) they get to decide what gets covered. Nothing that makes THEM look bad of course. Nothing that goes against their owners views. No political ads for the guy they don't like that might be running for senate. If they OWN all the local media, that seems like an AWFUL lot of undue influence.
Do we really want fox news to own ALL the local news outlets for example?