Re: Re: Re: Even more sinister for DSL when considering the meter
Funny enough, it is accurate. When comparing the traffic on a billing period between my router and their meter, it's almost spot on when I factor in the overhead. The problem: it's measuring and calculating traffic improperly because that overhead is not factored in.
If this ever happened, you could just imagine what the outrage would be.
That would depend on what neighborhood it happened to. Read about food deserts, and then consider if the level of public outrage is appropriate. Then imagine the outcry if Whole Foods closed their store in [your local posh suburb].
Same thing with airlines. People shopped for the lowest possible fares no matter what for years, and then complained that airlines don't include anything for free. Yeah of course they don't, because we all showed them that the single most important consideration of their customers is a low ticket price. Something of a collective action problem. The community would all be better off if nobody shopped at Wal-Mart, but any particular individual is better off shopping there (or so they believe at least).
But realize that they could open themselves up to litigation by not being neutral.
Why would they do that? They were neutral in this case for example. The employee's testimony was not that there was trademark infringement, it was that yes in fact these pages were archived from this source on that date. How does that open them up to any liability?
My suggestion is everyone randomly tag people in photos in social media. Everyone like and subscribe to every possible group, hate/terror/whatever. Every person randomly search for stuff that they aren't interested in. Eventually we could create enough noise that all the data is worthless.
I wonder if anyone has written a script to do that.
As a chain grew, it would open a store near a competing independent store, and sell gas at loss. The new store could afford to do this, because it had the profits from all the other stations in the chain to support it. Once it drove the independent store out of business, the chain would raise it's prices, often to gouging levels.
Just ask anyone who used to be in retail until a Wal-Mart showed up, used economies of scale to be able to afford to "compete" all the local retailers out of business, then started sucking money out of the local economy and treating its workers abysmally.
I find that ironic since if the people in a town really don't want Wal-Mart to drive the local businesses under, all they have to do is not shop there. The fact that so many people go to Wal-Mart instead of the local shops indicates that that is what they actually want, so that's what they get.