nope, YOU are wrong. per the quote from the original article:
"This ignores the hundreds of billions of dollars in sunken network investments needed to create that one-penny marginal cost efficiency at the customer's end."
they are talking about making Netflix pay for the highway. no one pays for the highway, according to ISP's, we pay for the driveway (since they already put the money out for the highway). Asking Netflix to pay for the highway that no one else pays for is just a flat out double standard and to claim anyone else does is a lie.
Reading Comprehension: you must have missed that class.
I am waiting for them to say that "discussing, conversing, or other acts attempting to explain a movie/ show/ or other works covered by the MPAA are a theft of our product, and will not be allowed. If you hear a co-worker, boss, employee or friend attempting to explain what a piece of work is about, politely interrupt them. Remind them that their actions are illegal, and can land them in jail. then promptly call the MPAA with the contact information for said person, so we may speak with them regarding the dangers of discussing a show without proper licensing fees. it's for the artists and good for the country. "
Some will laugh and call it ridiculous, but I have found out about shows and movies I am now a HUGE fan of through channels that the MPAA wants to shut down. I feel like the industry would be better suited to dismantle the MPAA, hire the more progressive people who are creating such "infringing networks" and ask them to have a go at it. Call it the "Association for Modern Movie Offers (AMMO)" and just start signing progressive artists and labels. Seems the easiest way to get rid of the MPAA.
The current mode of operation hasn't been working out so well.
I actually feel bad for these people (not monetarily, they get plenty of bribes (the MPAA calls them jobs), but they are fighting REALLY hard for a reality that just passed them by in the 90's. it's sad. it's like watching an old man trying to relive his glory days by buying an expensive car which he knows will outlast him.
While I know this is just a switch on their board to turn off the cell service, You cannot have a device that does this in the US. i think such a device or interruption is a federal offence. if you cannot create a "cell free zone" with a device, how is it legal to turn off expected service?
no one yelled fire, they said "stop doing (enter issue here) because it's wrong". since when were companies immune to the actions of free speech? As a citizen, I have to tolerate all kinds of free speech, like the abortion protestors who put up signs of dead babies and fetuses on busy highways where kids see it.
Since companies are people too, shouldn't they have to put up with the excess of free speech, and if they can't handle it, then stop what you are doing?
I believe If I tried to sue those protestors i would be laughed out of court, just as this ruling should have been.
while I think at the end the officer was being a little tongue in cheek, He did it right.
Now, in the height of post pursuit, and concern for one's safety, I understand all cops can't be that calm and collected. But they can make an attempt to behave properly.
honestly, I think the bigger dick in the video was the guy carrying. it's a give and take with law enforcement, and when the cop is being as nice as officer Lyons was, he could have given his last name, just to make sure the cop didn't get paranoid. after all the cop was cool with not needing to see identification.
Good video, taken in an ideal situation.
Good on ya, Officer Lyons. can you come to Baltimore and teach the police here how to:
be polite and safe
respectful of peoples rights
informative of citizens rights
and how to actually be an effective officer
but it made those users strongly aware of how insecure your information is. Sometimes a wake up call to the people is needed. When a company says "your information is secure" they better mean it. Most companies, do not.
My question is: what effect does this have on retailers who refuse to sell mature games to minors? do they have the right to restrict access, or can we finally stop getting carded for buying mature games? Would they be guilty of suppressing free speech for refusing to sell a violent video game to a minor? It happens all the time in Maryland, to the point where at places like Target, they have to SCAN your ID into the system.
we can go to a mall, you point out the "Muslim" and I'll show you why you are racist. You don't see religion, you see "middle eastern", which is racist. you have no way of knowing if they are Christian, Muslim, Pagan, or Hindu. You see someone with skin darker than white, but lighter than black, and what them to be patted down.
and it's not just Muslims who wear robes and head coverings, so don't even try to use that crap as a cover.