So, if the admin responded to a petition with an age of 90 days, and the average are at 298+... Did the administration do this JUST so it could increase the average wait time faster than if it ignored them all?
Oh my. Buy DirecTV stock. One of the biggest downsides to the NFL sunday ticket that a TON of people bought every year was that local sports teams were NOT included in the package, with rights to those games (whether they chose to show it or not) was the EXCLUSIVE rights of local broadcasters.
Or maybe not. If this just stops the "blackout the game if we don't sell-out a stadium" rule, then it won't do anything for the local broadcaster "exclusive right to broadcast in local area" rights.
Oh well. One step closer to the people getting what they want, and not what corporations want us to have.
Actually, I'm with OOTB on this one. I know, I know, VERY odd. But, if we don't like this, we need to not support it. If we keep buying digital goods because it's the ONLY choice, we are reinforcing the companys' decisions to screw us over this way.
Until we can get the content that we pay for guaranteed access to forever from the very beginning of a transaction, we shouldn't ask for anything less.
The problem is that OOTB is being rude as always and not being sympathetic to this. The ability for Amazon to revoke licenses IS in the terms, but as always nobody reads them (and they shouldn't HAVE to). But now that we know, everyone should stop buying, and let Amazon and the content publishers watch as their sales in this format drop to nothing.
It worked for iTunes and other music distribution options. When you can buy a song that CAN be downloaded at will and has no DRM, yes it can lead to piracy. But people accepted nothing less and we got DRM-free MP3s. The files could be copied and pirated, but guess what? People still bought them. It wasn't the end of the world.
Heh, when news of this first broke, I spoke with my father who we are planning to make apps together. We'd discussed, at least a year ago, that android should allow people this option. I'd argued at the time it probably won't, since any earlier android os versions would not include this feature. Most android devices never update their core version, and those that do are usually at the will of the device maker to update the version their device runs on (such as phones).
Guess they ended up doing it anyway. I'd love this feature, and am sad to see it go, but I also accept Google's reason and believe that they wanted to make it ready fully before allowing it. My opinion is that they want to make it a part of the APK that your program has to continue working if your app was denied a permission it asked for.
See, right now, your app will crash - hard - if it tried to use a permission that is disabled. So google will reintroduce it only when it becomes a standard for people designing under the new android versions to put in "permission denied" workarounds, even if it's to say "this program cannot and WILL NOT work without XXXXXX permision" and close.
Yeah, that's my opinion too. A single unintentional (and not followed-up-on) search on google will not place you on a terrorism watch list. There are far too many people in this country that are indeed curious about how to make some things that would be considered disrespectable for the NSA to monitor each and every one of them. And then to "blow" the investigation multiple times by making these facts known the day after? Pure coincidence.
Heh, I love how he found it "odd" that his friend's wife liked Harry Potter, a "kid's movie". My parents like the books, and the movies too, so it's not at all odd that an adult would like them. And this man is reading a VERY popular book to his kid the same time the movies are out? WOW! STOP THE PRESSES!
I worked as a phone agent at DirecTV for a while, and I heard from customers all the time as to why they have to pay for packages with all these channels that sucked. The most basic package (that they never advertise) has about 30 channels plus locals for 30 bucks a month. Some people looking to reduce their bills go to it, and complain that NOTHING is available. The next step up? the 70 channel pack for 60-70 bucks. And still very few movie channels.
The REAL meat of TV packages come ala carte already: HBO, Starz, Showtime, Encore, etc. However, those cruise on their success (and have to pay for modern movie rights) and charge about 15/month for their packages each.
I'm in favor of pay-per-channel programming, but once you got it, would you REALLY shell out for the one or two channels that you - while waiting for that movie to start - clicked over for half an hour? I'm talking about Discovery, History, TLC, and other channels like that. They have something neat to watch once in a while, but when you're looking at your bill, it's hard to justify paying for them, even $1/month (which I doubt it will be that low).
Everyone, everywhere, wants to take out the channels they don't watch (GodTV), but somewhere there is someone that doesn't want AMC and watches only GodTV, so they want to strip out AMC. It's a lose-lose situation for programmers, now that I think about it.
Re: So either don't use it or don't complain of corporate control!
Um, you're telling us not to do these articles that inform us of abusive "language filtering" settings. You are trying to claim that if we don't like it, to not support the behavior (by purchasing the product).
These two arguments DO NOT MIX. If sites like this did not report on the issue (as you are so apt to demand), then people would not know about the issue, thus wouldn't be informed enough to avoid it. In this day and age, return policies are slim to nil, and by the time a customer knows about it, it is too late to refund.
So, Blue, you should NOT be arguing against these articles. They aren't the site itself "complaining, yet still supporting" the behavior. If the site didn't "complain" (or what is called REPORTING), then nobody would know.
Interesting. My (admittedly) semi-incoherent angry rant I made up on the spot full of now-obvious declarations has at least sparked some debate.
Yeah, I lumped the NSA in with other enforcement agencies, but it was primarily because they have the power to enforce laws they want to (selective assassinations) or pass that information to other agencies. So in my mind, they are just an enforcement agency with the capability to spy on me.
And yes, we DO have what we call "impartial" judges and not machines judging our cases, but all too often to avoid any argument and debate they turn to the letter of the law only for judging a case. How often do you hear of a case getting a bad result, and even the judge them-self upset at it, but feel "restricted" by the law?
This is a serious problem in a black and white justice system. The problem with our society is we don't want EVERY law enforced EVERY time, because we all "bend the rules" from time to time here.
For example, how often do we hit a stop sign in a empty intersection every day, and occasionally roll through it at 5 MPH or so? How many of us have gone even a single MPH above the speed limit? How many crossed a not-busy road not at an intersection? How many have poured a bird-bath filled by the recent rainshower out in the yard?
What we want is a law on the book, so that when someone does something REALLY bad, we have something to charge them with. We can point to the big book of laws and say "you can't do that" and get someone that is driving recklessly.
Unfortunately, the NSA and various other "enforcement" agencies have taken it upon themselves to enforce every law blindly and entirely. If we REALLY wanted speed limit laws enforced, why are we complaining about speed traps and not equipping every car with a GPS hooked up to the car computer? If we want a car to NEVER run a red light, why are red light cameras being shouted down in cities across the country?
What we all need to agree on and understand, are that laws are for the benefit of making society work, but aren't ironclad. Unfortunately, I am not able to offer a solution to how we can effectively "selectively enforce" laws to everyone's agreement, but I thought that is what judges were for. Impartial observers that look at the SPIRIT of the law and determine if a persons activity breaks that. Forget the letter of the law.
Well, you can hardly claim this is the government doing it. People who work on behalf of it, sure. But they were undoubtedly abusing their power, and this is in no way the official policy of the police department or the government on the whole.
Government can have great uses, you just have to have a LOT of checks in place to stop anyone who has power from abusing it.
Um, the middle article is (now) worthless. Less than worthless, as the actual sound file with something to listen to was taken down in March, and the same artist is selling a version of it for (inexplicably) the same cost to purchase the files separately, but it isn't the song. So to "patron" the article of it's product would leave you with 8:22 of something I can make with sound recorder (and he likely did).
Pity they didn't see this as fair use (replacement for the actual product? Yeah right, only if you have the amazing ability to discern 226 different sounds at once).
Yeah, great points. The court amount is an absurd amount, but anything less (and even this amount) would be mere pocket change for big corporations that stomp on little guys all the time. It's only through luck and through such blatant wrong-doing by AFP that the little guy won in this case. If even a few things changed, I wouldn't be surprised to see the fine reversed, in which case it's not a slap on the wrist, it's one ruined life.
Why don't we make fines be based on a percent of an entity's worth? That way, the fine scales evenly no matter your means. This way you can't out-rich the rule of law if breaking a law still takes away half your possessions.
This. Exactly this. Stop blaming the Post Office's "seventh straight year of red ink" on "less letters being written" and blame it entirely on an arbitrary law passed by congress that REQUIRES the Postal Service to pre-fund, within the next 10 years, retirement benefits it would have to pay out for the next 75 years.
In other words, it has to expect to pay out benefits to an employee it may gain 5 years down the road that retires in 30 years and have enough funding on-hand to pay for 40 years of his retirement.
It's a good idea for companies to have retirement obligations paid for, but 75 years is WAY too far forward looking, 10 years is too short a time to gather it all up, and people should not forget why this is happening.