Everyone that lives within your housing development and any others managed by the same HOA would have their possessions seized. After all, the HOA was making money off the proliferation of stolen goods by your neighbor.
Shouldn't this question also be applied to those parents choosing to censor the internet for their precious little children? How about trying some real parenting for a change? Teach your children what is right, wrong and a morality judgement. The more you censor content, the more the child will try to see what you're hiding. I'm not saying you should point them at the bad sites, but don't bar them from looking. Keep an open dialog with them about what they find and use it as a teaching moment. Be a parent, not a censor!
The testing is expensive because they require an actual flight with a single uncertified device before it passes. Why exactly is this a requirement? Does the FAA not have intelligent enough people to create a simulator that will allow them to test these devices? More to the point, why not certify the planes against the limited spectrum of RF that these devices use and then certify that the devices stay within those bounds, possibly even going back and certifying the crafts against a broader spectrum. Hell, even the planes sitting on the tarmac are being bombarded by all those radio waves even when no devices are present. I highly doubt that the airports have some way of blocking all electromagnetic waves from entering their airspace.
As I recall, and a google search (apple ipad faa certification flight manual) has backed me up, the iPad was certified for use in cockpits as a flight manual among other things. So, where's the justification for having others turn off their tablets/e-readers?
Was I the only one who immediately thought of the Toy Story scene with Buzz dressed in a flowery apron and having an imaginary tea party with "Marie Antoinette...and her little sister" when they quoted Ms. Nesbitt?
"For every American kid that pays 10 bucks a month to a foreign cyber-locker so he can rip off movies and music..."
Really? Those are some quite idiotic individuals if they are paying $10 to pirate material. It just sounds like they are the less adept individuals that would agree to send all their bank account information to a "trusted" Nigerian business so they can deposit a check for $47 million US Dollars, withdraw 75% for themselves, 5% for fees and leave the remaining 20% for the individual as a "thank you." It's a shame all that money in their bank account went to some Nigerian scammer; after all, they just might have spent all that money on movies or music!
Or better yet send some money their way now saying "Love your game, just couldn't afford retail. Here's what I can pay"
Yeah, that's like saying, "Here's my name, address and confession to 'pirating' your game. I've included a fraction of the purchase price in hopes that you will not turn loose your money-hungry legal hounds."
You might want to add some fine-print to the letter such as, "By reading any part of the message above and/or accepting the payment proffered, you agree to relinquish all rights and privileges to sue this message's author, his household, employer, extended family and/or pets and/or any other attempt to engage the aforementioned parties in legal proceedings including, but not limited to, a claim of copyright infringement. Failure to abide by these conditions entitles the message's author to five (5) free-of-charge lifetime-licenses for each game (past, present and future titles) published, designed, developed or otherwise influenced by the employer of this message's recipient as well as a lump-sum payment of ten-million U.S. dollars to the message's author and an additional ten-million U.S. dollars donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)."
It shall not be necessary to give notice by posting on any enclosed land or place not exceeding five acres in area on which there is a dwelling house or property that by its nature and use is obviously private in order to obtain the benefits of this article pertaining to trespass on enclosed lands.
The property was a hotel and therefore is a public space. By this law, they would be required to post "no trespassing" signs containing those words and the owner's name, lessee or occupant.
What does not seem to be mentioned by this section of the law is the situation whereby someone removes those signs leaving no evidence as to their prior existence.
Actually, profiling in and of itself is not unconstitutional. If the act of profiling centers on race, creed, gender, etc. alone, then it is unconstitutional. However, add in behavior and you now have a completely valid way to select candidates for additional screening.
If someone has a plan to do some damage, it is highly unlikely they wouldn't demonstrate specific behaviors and exhibit certain traits. Just because you've never been trained in how to identify suspects does not mean that it's ineffective or problematic.
So would this be like Ford, or some other car manufacturer, including a free rental program with each new vehicle; yet, when the dealership gets the vehicle, they choose to not include the deal because they plan to offer their own paid car rental service in the future?
Sounds pretty fishy to me and very harmful to their customers.
Or maybe, it's like DVD+Blu-Ray titles being stuffed with a free Digital Download of the title. However, Best Buy decides to remove the digital download since they're planning an iTunes-like rental service.
I'd already sworn-off Gamestop before this loathsome act. I can't imagine any customer that would be endeared by such behavior, let alone become excited to see Gamestop start offering an online rental service for games.
Unless of course, SP is under deployment orders and may not be back home for a year.
Now, onto your 'reports' that indicate a higher cost for providing streaming services versus the traditional OTA broadcasts.
- Bandwidth is cheap, especially when purchased in bulk
- Their shows are likely already in a digital format
- Paywall management is expensive and usually outweighs gains
- Less restrictions on users leads to more eyeballs on content
- An increase in online viewers does not correlate to a loss of OTA viewership
- The infrastructure for streaming video including the capability to display ads is already available
I've yet to see how providing open access to shows including less invasive advertisements becomes a losing proposition for the broadcaster. If the broadcaster tries to restrict the access, then they not only incur additional expenses, but they also reduce their viewership which drives the revenue from advertisements.
As even you've said, people can live without the TV shows; so, they're not a product for which people will just simply pay whatever. Hell, the advertisers pay for the content to be displayed to the audience; so, why is the audience even being charged to see the content? Certainly, it doesn't really cost a broadcaster $3million to display 30 seconds worth of content or nearly $300million for 3 hours worth of content (about $27k/sec). If that were the case, then it would cost $876,000million or $876billion to run a 24 hour network for only 365 days. That's roughly $2,190 per person in America per year. I don't know of any network that actually reaches everyone in America, so it would be significantly higher per viewer and that's for only one network!
Now, what were you saying about ad revenue not covering costs?