"That reminds me of a philosopher who said that power should only be granted to those who don't want it."
I've often said the same of the 2nd Amendment battle. I'm for moderate rights to bear arms, but why is it that most of the people who want to own firearms are precisely the people I would rather not own them?
It turns out, you don't need to run false flag missions. You just need to wait a few months for a quasi-real one you can exaggerate.
Easier to wait for some real baddies to do some bad than to stage it - and bear the additional burden of a false flag operation, and a complicated cover-up.
Look at it this way: It's CYA. "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". And nobody ever got fired for exaggerating up some minor threat. But people often get burned/jailed/impeached for foul play (ex: Nixon, Ken Lay, McCarthy, Madoff). Why would the spooks take the chance of repercussions when they can just play the safe bets, and still win.
I basically stopped reading print media years ago. I read a lot of news and articles, all online. For me this last decade, print is reserved for airplane trips, during takeoff and landing. Really. And as of a couple of years ago, we're allowed to use our electronics during that time, too.
OTOH, I still get a number of print publications sent to my mail. Some of them good, some bad. I get them because I am a member of a variety of organizations, alumni, etc. And some of them are pretty good.
My question is, how is is that these publications are able to offer me good content, with expensive ink and paper, and with expensive distribution costs. So, IAB, answer me this:
How can these print media firms monetize the business with un-obtrusive, non-tracking ads??
If they can do it, why can't online content companies? Online, you have lower costs. No ink, no marginal cost of production, and small distribution fees per digital copy, for which I pay half the freight.
You guys at the IAB are doing more for print media than any other group, pulp or digital. I've already shifted some of my consumption back to paper.
How come all the sites that I go to that made me want to use an adblocker are exactly the sites that want to DEAL with me now?
You guys are the very reason I sought out and chose a blocker in the first place. No, I don't want to whitelist you! You want to track me, expose me, and over-sell me.
How bout, Imma start with an assumption that you are on the blacklist, and you convince me that that was a mistake. Here's some deal-breakers: - tracking, especially by third party ad networks - pop-ups, pop-unders...any fn popping - things that make the page's actual content bounce up and down for 30 seconds while it loads ads from god-knows-where - offer me a fair DEAL, not "accept ads or pay us $5/mo". We should be talking penny increments, not $.
Here's a idea. Serve your own ads. Make them decent, put them on the side.
That the Congress has the cojones to accuse an impious relationship between the White House and the FCC, and the guts of the accusation are that the Administration stated their policy preference publicly to influence the FCC.
Yet, when the FCC doesn't do what the Senate Majority's paid henchman want it to do, they call it on the carpet, they berate it, delay it, attack it with lies, and make Wheeler pay political consequences for his actions?
I mean, which branch of our gov't is OBVIOUSLY meddling with an independent FCC?
US Law and the rules of logic are not the same thing.
US Law clearly states "innocent until proven guilty" which means the negative is assumed, and thus does not need to be proven.
Logic holds that you cannot prove a negative, because there is no evidence to prove something does not exist, or did not happen. Another way to spin it is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is not a logical law, but rather an approximation first expressed by skeptic James Randi, who pushed the burden of proof to people who affirmed the supernatural.
More precisely, you CAN infer a negative to a fairly high degree of confidence in some situations, but you cannot fully prove it.
Your kind of thinking is that what causes unrest. You believe the natural state of information is locked up, and available for a fee. With that line of thinking, the Diary of Anne Frank is easily findable, acceptably available, and offered fairly.
But your premise is absolutely incorrect. The natural state of information is shareable, and freely passed from one human to another.
Now, through our laws, we DO agree to a temporary injunction on that natural shareability. For the sake of generating more content (by offering incentives to creators), we grant them a market-breaking monopoly on that content for a time. But, after that reasonable period of time, we expect the content to enter the public domain.
A "reasonable period of time" can be debated, but it is definitely shorter than life plus 70 years. The mechanism of incentivizing authors could easily be achieved with monopolies as short as 10 years - but I'll even concede you "life" at the extremely long side of the reasonable spectrum. But Anne Frank is dead.
In this context, the Diary is most certainly "hidden away". Removed from hundreds of free sites like WikiMedia, out of reach for billions who lack the ability or desire to pay the going price. The number of places that Diary is available is easily an order of magnitude less under Copyright than it is in Public Domain. It has been stolen from the Public Domain, and hidden to billions of people. You act like that is nothing -- like Mike is disingenuous to say it's hidden. Not even close. Mike could have gone further and said it was stolen from the people, and still been ethically correct, but unfortunately wrong in a court.
To summarize, your position is against the natural order of things, not Mike's. And yes, the Diary is now hidden. Maybe one can freely "find" it, but they can't then read it without being robbed...andfor a book, reading, not finding, is kinda the whole point.
I was at Infoseek 1999-2001. The company was based on strong search technology R&D, but de-prioritized that in a bid to become a better Portal.
Excite did the same, as well as the others mentioned by Mike. It was the Portal Wars, and Yahoo was winning.
Many of the portals thought so little of search that they actually were ecstatic to be able to outsource the trivial job of search algorithms to smaller, niche players. Many of them partnered with a small company named Google to provide search results within their branded portal. Even Infoseek, with a forte in search, outsourced some search to Google.
So, Mason, to your point, yes, everyone knew Google was doing search better...but very few that that search was important.
At the time was Google seen as a threat? Ha ha! No.
Airline argument is simply to point out that when any startup that can't afford the natural barriers to entry in a market, that's just life.
Like when many startups couldn't launch in the days before cloud hosting. There was no "crime" in that. It was expensive to set up your own hosting and datacenter, so you didn't. With Amazon Web Serivces, now many new businesses can flourish. That's awesome, but it doesn't mean there was a crime before.
"The ruling acknowledges that such models create an unlevel playing field for smaller companies who may not be able to pay to play"
I agree. But there should be nothing inherently illegal about an unlevel playing field. "Inability to pay to play" isn't inherently wrong - I can't launch an airline right now either, for lack of capital. I don't think that is unfair. It's just a question of available resources.
If all content providers are faced with the same price to enter the walled garden, and that garden is open to all, then I don't see it as anti-competitive. This applies as long as the network operator is NOT also a content provider, which would have perverse incentives.
I don't like the Facebook walled garden, and think it will harm the open web in India. But I don't see it as "wrong" unless content providers are unfairly blocked from participating.
I saw it before it's release, and stayed well away from it - but not for the reasons stated in this article, for different ones.
Though a beautiful design, and early to the "connected by wifi" thermostat camp, it has the common problem of trying to be "smart" but only going 85% of the way there.
"Smart" home devices are like speech recognition - until they are almost perfect, they suck. A thermostat that tries to predict your life will make countless mistakes. A thermostat that tries to know when you are home, but only senses presence in the hallway where your Nest is will make errors. So, yeah. It's a "smarter thermostat", but not smart enough.
OTOH, I bought three Nest connected smoke/CO alarms. Those are great. Battery lasts 8 years, gives you a monthly status report, and will alert you in advance if the battery needs a change. Funny to me that the shittier product is their marquee.
This is a Cable TV story, Not A Mobile Phone Story
AT&T's offer ensures that customers who get Unlimited Data ALSO have a paid TV subscription and thus will watch much of their content on a home TV, not the mobile phone. Also, many of the new unlimited customers will have U-Verse DSL as well. That means they'll be on Wi-Fi at home when they stream video to their phone.
The only customers who would get the most out of this (i.e. the cord and cable cutters) are the ones who are specifically NOT included in the offer. This offer is more likely to tip some customers towards an AT&T TV subscription versus a competing cable or Dish Network offer.
In the end, this offer is more about competing in the cable TV sector than the mobile phone sector.