As Tim pointed out in the article, this makes no sense for anyone. They are showing the same ads that people would be seeing with free OTA broadcasts or with their cable/dish feed. All it does is make it less likely that people will view those ads....and ad views is what pays the bills isn't it?
I for one refused to pay it. Not even a consideration. And I am a guy who played college ball, played in the tournament, and love this time of year. In fact, I take off from work every year to watch games on the first two days. It would've been great to be able to watch riding in the car or outside or on the toilet! But instead I didn't watch when I wasn't near a TV. I didn't watch the games. I didn't watch the ads.
I've never read nor been to the Huffington Post site....until today. My God is it awful. I'm not talking about the content, but the layout and design. What a mess. It reminds me of MySpace. There is crap all over the place. I can't tell what's a story, what's a picture, what's an ad.
OK, maybe its not as bad as MySpace, but it still looks cobbled together and confusing.
I live "on" planet Earth. I know why Zediva operated in the ass-backwards low tech way that they did. I mentioned that it was a clever 'workaround' to a problem caused by the stupidity of the movie studios.
I could come to your house with a DVD player, a DVD and some cables and show you a movie "on demand" for money. It would be legal (in theory) and it would be a workaround to the studio's ridiculous licensing and windowing schemes. But it certainly isn't innovative... not when you are taking technology backwards to accomplish a goal.... and it certainly isn't sustainable or scaleable.
So much like Zediva, my stupid door-to-door movie service avoids the problems of licensing and delay windows... but I don't think that anyone would consider physically transporting digital media as "innovative".
Mike, "an innovative startup"? Really? Clever certainly, but not innovative. Arguably, it was actually ass-backwards....instead of the forward-thinking concepts of storing a digital file on a server and streaming it (ala Netflix streaming) which would theoretically allow unlimited access, they actually housed limited physical copies of the media and limited physical players and had to physically play and transmit each movie individually. I get that it was clever that they found a loophole, and while a reasonable court should have seen that, it still wasn't "innovative".
As someone who was "caught" by one of the Philly traffic cams, I felt I should chime in here so you all understand just what a scam it is.
(Background: it was raining, light turned yellow - I thought it a bad idea to jam on the breaks)
So I get the violation in the mail. It shows a picture of my vehicle (my wife's minivan which is big, heavy and doesn't stop on a dime) nose at the white line at the moment of RED.
Here's where it gets crooked(er). The notice of violation tells you that if you pay the fine now, its only $100 and no points. OR. You can request a hearing.
Hearing requested! Take time off of work - yay!
Fair hearing it isn't. You sit in a room with a Philadelphia Parking Authority employee - yeah, the same people who manage the program and collect a portion of the revenue. Hmm. Seems impartial.
Ruling: The light is red, your car is behind the line. Violation upheld. You can appeal.
Appeal! (out of principal)
Oh, only catch, you have to pay $35 to appeal. Yeah, $35 to appeal a $100 fine. I wonder how many people bother to take ANOTHER day off work and risk paying $135 vs "winning" and saving $65.
And of course, at the appeal, the real "judge" has no interest in hearing any logical arguments, takes 18 seconds to declare the violation upheld. In his defense, at least he has plenty of other traffic cases to deal with besides some guy bitching about a red light camera.
I could appeal again, but at what cost. Time to give up and pay.
Scam. Scam. Scam. I used to love Philly. Born and raised there. Now I hate it and hope the corrupt local government brings the whole town to its knees. They deserve it for re-electing the same crooks year after year.
Can someone tell me why the studios have this kind of clout in DC? I mean, seriously, do they really have the pockets to 'donate' the big bucks like that? I don't have access to the numbers, but I would have to think that at this point google alone has more $ than all the recording studios combined. I have to believe that the combined $'s of all the companies threatened by this legislation have to far exceed those of the movie and music studios who bought this bill. I mean, we are talking about google, ebay, isp's, hosting companies and more.
Unfortunately, I know we are at a time when the government is no longer by the people or for the people, rather by corporations for corporations. So, aside from voting all these career politicians out of office, and banning political contributions, we are left hoping that we get helped out by some other corporations who choose to fight this bill for their own benefit. Writing or calling 'our' representatives is a waste of time. They've already been bought.
Perhaps the advantage of the computer is that it can 'read' thousands of articles whereas a person can read significantly less. Obviously, the more articles read the more valid the conclusions of the reader are. If I read 5 articles about the goings on in Saudi Arabia I may draw different conclusions than a computer that read 65,000 articles about Saudi Arabia.
I'm not saying that the computer is going to be a huge asset, but I think its wrong to discount it simply because a person can read articles and draw conclusions too. I can do math too, but a computer is faster and better at it.
Seems stupid of Spotify to require a user to be a member of a separate service. Even if it makes things easier on their integration it seems like it could be a big problem for them. I for one, de-facebooked this week. I barely ever used Facebook, have no interest in it, and it seems to get worse with every story I read about the company and its practices. For Spotify to team up with Facebook just seems like a foolish decision. I understand the "hugeness" of Facebook and wanting to tap into that network, but other companies tie into Facebook without requiring it.
I don't think for one second that these manufacturers are actually "considering a move to Windows phone". Android is exploding and has been for almost 2 years now. Windows Phone? pbbblt. Nothing. All of these companies have the option of building and selling Windows Phones right now, and some of them are doing so....along with Android phones. HTC, Samsung, LG....they are all making money on Android phones. HTC is making record profits on Android phones. Android is the #1 selling mobile OS. Companies are in the business of responding to market demands (or at least that's how they should operate... RIAA and MPAA members I'm talking to you). It would be ridiculous to think that any of them are going to stop making Android phones or "switch" to Windows phones simply because of the Motorola purchase. As long as people demand and buy Android phones, every single one of them is going to continue making them, and the "costs" of building Android phones (the risk of lawsuit and/or cost of licensing with MS) has just gone down thanks to the patents Google obtained through the sale.
Yes, I am sure they are all concerned about what Google will do with MM and whether MM will get special treatment. And yes, I am sure they are all cautiously looking at their other options should Google give MM unfair market advantages. But, unless and until Google actually does anything to change the Android marketplace for the worse, its ridiculous to think that any of these companies would turn their business away from a proven seller and proven moneymaker, to jump on board the Windows Phone train as it putt-putts along.
It is good business for mfg's to be concerned about what Google does with MM.
It is good business for mfg's to continue on the successful course they've been on, all the while keeping a watchful eye on MM.
It is a good idea for Google to make sure they keep a level playing field so that their partners continue selling phones with the Android OS so they can continue raking in ad revenue.
My rep voted for it. I thought maybe as a new member of congress we wouldn't just get more of the same...I was wrong. More fake security and more abuse of power. Just wrote him a message expressing my disgust.
I would never allow my child to go through that. The parent seemed to consent to it which boggles my mind. We teach our kids not to talk to strangers, and to never let a stranger touch them....but then to let a random TSA agent do a patdown? No sir. As for the backscatter machines, neither me nor my children will be going through any of them. Not sure what will happen if I ever go through an airport with them and get selected for "screening" because I'm not going to let the TSA scan or pat down my kids... or myself for that matter.
And with regards to the radiation "dose" being less than a chest Xray or high altitude flight, that's a matter of the TSA spinning the data. The "total dosage" is measured in the amount of radiation when spread evenly throughout the entire body. However, many experts point out that the backscatter machines only penetrate the skin. Therefore the actual "dosage" of radiation while being less than an Xray is actually concentrated on the skin and is thus actually a much higher dose.
To simplify I am making up numbers and measures.... if you get zapped with 300 gigawatts of radiation during a flight and weigh 150 lbs, your dose is 2 gigawatts per lb. If you are zapped with 150 gigawatts of radiation from a scanner that only penetrates 30 lbs of skin, the quantity of the dose may be half, but your skin is actually getting 5 gigawatts per lbs which is more than twice as much. Follow?
In other TSA spin, they love to quote that Johns Hopkins studied it and said its safe, but if you read the statement from one of the scientists at Johns Hopkins he very clearly states that they only measured the radiation produced by the machine and reported it to the TSA, they did not study its impact on people or state that it was safe/healthy.
I found several of these charges on my wife's phone. They did not occur every month repeatedly....maybe 2-3 times over the course of a year. I called and had the account credited, as I am sure thousands of other customers did as well. I'm not defending VZW in the least as the charges were TOTAL BS, but its pretty simple to see that Techdirt's math is flawed by leaving out all of the credits issued to customers like myself who called to dispute the charges. The forthcoming credits are undoubtedly just to cover the millions of customers who never noticed these charges.
A tax on bloggers here is just the tip of the problem with Philly's government. The revenue tax is not new, they are only seeking new "businesses" to hit with it. The city taxes ANY business....be that large or small, based on REVENUE. That's right....you could lose money, but if you generate ANY revenue you are taxed on it. What a wonderful way to encourage new businesses, particularly start-ups, considering that most new businesses lose money to begin with. And people here wonder where all the jobs are and why all the business is in the suburbs and surrounding states. Philly deserves what it gets. The icing on the cake is that they call it a "Business Privilege License"....what a privilege it is.