It consists in being placed near to a large atomic bomb which is then detonated.
Being instantly vapourised is as close to painless as you can get.
A bomb doesn't need to be all that big to instantly kill someone right next to it. Certainly not atomic scale. A few pounds of C4 would definitely do it - probably a few ounces could do it if applied properly.
Startups, nonprofits, and small ventures are always at a disadvantage in terms of marketing and other treatment.
But that's a natural consequence of a market economy. Zero rated apps are a feature of an uncompetitive market where each player controls access to huge groups of potential customers. Imagine if instead of four national cellular carriers, there were 30. How far would one of them get trying to do business this way when some of their competitors were instead running a state of the art network with high speeds and no caps, and thus no need for zero rated apps? They'd be out of business in a week.
We're not at the point of having strong competition in wireless or fixed broadband, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something to limit the problems this lack of competition causes until we can get there.
I don't think that banning zero rating deals is the right way to deal with it.
What do you think is the right way to allow zero rated apps without penalizing services that cannot afford to buy them? Or do you find that penalty acceptable?
There is also the problem that the people paying are not the customers. If it were a situation of me paying to exempt a particular service that I like from my usage cap, that would be a different story (still a bad one, but different). Instead, the service has to pay, and since I only have one cell carrier*, if the service wants to get to me and everyone else on that carrier, they're at a disadvantage if they don't or can't pay. So the market gets distorted.
* replace with ISP if that's what we're talking about
I've wondered why that isn't the standard. Breathing nitrogen, you pass out and die without even noticing anything is happening. And I would think it's pretty simple to do: face mask hooked to nitrogen tank, open valve.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Firing Squad? Waste Of Taxpayer Money!
It doesn't matter if your gun had the blank. You aimed and shot with the intention to kill.
It's not a legal issue, it's about allowing the executioners to consider that they might not have killed someone. I'm wondering who the shooters would be in a Utah execution by firing squad. Cops? Not sure that sounds like a good idea, but who else?
Re: Re: Re: Firing Squad? Waste Of Taxpayer Money!
Though it would seem that the guy with the blank would immediately notice substantially reduced recoil, so it would hardly be secret who got the blank.
Maybe, maybe not. What kind of guns do they use? A small caliber rifle can have minimal recoil to begin with. And how much of the recoil is due to the bullet, and how much to the charge? If the blank had the same charge as a regular round, you still have the same explosive energy with nowhere to go but out the barrel. Would it make that big a difference to the recoil whether it was pushing air or a bullet?
Why don't we just punish those hypothetical bad things when they actually if and when they come to pass?
The bad things are good things that might have happened but now don't. Can't really prove such a thing to punish it, so we need to set up circumstances that allow those good things to actually happen. The good things being new services and companies having a chance to reach users, and zero rated apps make that a lot harder, because it introduces a huge barrier to entry.
As bandwidth is a finite resource, the flip side of allowing pay-TV streamers users to pig-out on bandwidth means that someone else will have that bandwidth taken out of their allotment.
Only if people are trying to use more bandwidth than is available.
Although ISPs might not be as vehemently anti-P2P as they were 5 or 10 or 15 years ago, we'll see if that class of users will serve as the sacrificial lambs whenever network congestion becomes a problem.
Netflix is a bigger bandwidth issue than file sharing, and I expect streaming video will increase as a percentage of internet traffic, not decrease.
And it's a foregone conclusion that neither the FCC nor anyone else in the government will ever make a peep of protest if ISPs should again go on the warpath against P2P users and throttle them down -- 'network-neutrality' be damned.
Personally, I think throttling latency-insensitive traffic such as bittorrent and email a bit to favor things like VOIP and streaming video and audio is better than letting everything degrade evenly - as long as all senders and receivers are treated the same. The best thing would be if the network could support everything without any throttling or degradation of course.
If the supposed copyright holders don't know if they do, in fact, hold a copyright, is it enforceable? Could the development just go ahead and deal with any C&D and the like by just saying "We asked and they didn't say no. They said 'Huh... we don't know!'."? Can a copyright holder sue after the fact if it admitted it doesn't know if it's his?
Yes*, yes**, and yes.
* they would have to demonstrate in court, if it got that far, that they do in fact hold the copyright
** they could say that, but it probably wouldn't do them much good. In fact it might even expose them to willful infringement charges since they knew there could be a copyright issue. I don't know about that though, just speculating.
They're leaving money on the table, though. There are a lot of people (like myself) who have little or no interest in almost all new games for various reasons, but would be happy to pay cash money to get classic games that work well on newer systems.
It's kind of a catch-22. If it's not a big enough market to bother serving, why is it worth spending money on lawyers over? If it is a substantial market, why is it not worth putting out some minimal effort to capture it? It's almost like big media executives are stupid.
It's not that they didn't care about the game, they likely just saw this as an easy way to kill off any potential competition it might have posed for their current titles, with a minimum amount of effort on their part.
And there, in a nutshell, you see what intellectual property has become.