I'm pretty sure the US constitution wouldn't apply in this situation because of the private nature of the airline. You basically give up your right when you buy your ticket. If you choose to not give up your right, you have to find a different means of transportation.
Substitute Cuba for China...I'm just WAITING for a similar story to erupt, and have it fail magnificently. As much as I'd love for free speech or the flow of free ideas to happen in any of these places, so long as it's restricted, it will never happen.
The top down approach might work in theory (for those at the top.) Eventually it will cause more "problems" than solutions and in the end will be abandoned or worse, be a grand excuse for incarceration for those that choose to participate.
*sigh* I'm only replying this to stop the nonsense, and I'll make it brief.
Oracle bought Sun. Prior to this purchase, Sun made Java Open Source, and used the GPL license which explicitly states:
ANYONE CAN FREELY USE THIS CODE. IF CHANGES ARE MADE, YOU MUST PUBLISH THIS CODE.
Google, complying with said license did just that.
Now Oracle, realizing that their "should be cash cow" is really nothing more than milked (see what I did there?) is having a fit because someone actually read the license meant for it.
Granted, it's a bit more complicated than this when it comes to corporate use and the fact that both Android and Java are platforms (and as such both have their own licenses,) but that's basically it. If you don't believe me, do the research.
It's the gross assumption that EVERY American is self-absorbed, not the fact that we probably are. In fact, I bet if you asked 10 Americans who Stephen Harper was, 9 of them would say he's some sort of American. It's that last 1 that should be getting offended.
Disclaimer: I'm from the US and I would be in that last 1. I'm not particularly offended what a Canadian has to say about me (I know better) but if some American CEO were to say "All Canadians wear fur, live in igloos and start fires by rubbing 2 sticks together" there would be just as much an issue in the other direction.
Can you please elaborate on how there are signs of them "mucking it up?" I personally have used the site since the very beginning (with proof! I have a "Hulu, I knew before you" and letter sitting in my closet as we speak!) and have never run into ANY problems, nor have I disliked any new feature they have come out with. If there is trouble on the horizon, I'd be interested to hear about it...especially since I'm considering getting in on their IPO.
Do you have any examples? I'm being sincere. I'm curious, because I see a lot of people bitching but no real proof. I have a lot invested in Google (primary email, I use hosted web apps, gtalk is my primary chat...)
Ok so in re-reading your response I was a tad off-topic, but I still say it works. You can only help your cause by advertising, regardless of the current size of your audience. Who doesn't want more money?
You're wrong. I can see this working in all directions. Indy movie scores a track from, say, a platinum selling band. Indy movie then scores at least some of the audience of that band AND the band gets basically "free" advertising (that they may or may not need, certainly doesn't hurt.)
Now say an indy bands track is thrown on a high cost production. I've discovered numerous bands because of this. Hell even TV does it, I've found dozens of songs through shows like Scrubs.
The intent of this seems to be in the advertising and that it spans multiple mediums. If either needs a boost, you can use this method to increase the size of the audience you at least market to. This could even apply to MORE mediums. For example: TV, Video Games, even websites like Hulu use this!
So no, you're wrong. This can work for many situations.
You know what really irks me about this study too? Google is EXTREMELY tight-lipped about their setup. Hell, they don't even release the LOCATIONS of their data centers!!!
No one* knows how much processing power Google is using
No one* knows what hardware Google is using
No one* knows what algorithms are used (ie: cached searches draw less power because it's repeatable? more because it's faster?)
* means no one "publicly"
I can go on, but you get my point. No one knows, these are all guesses. All fine and good when you're playing Memory or Battleship but...pah, it's not a study until I see some SOLID references. At this point it just seems like FUD.
I think you're pretty close, except it's self-regulating (and therefore responsible) governments that tend to do this. The **AA's of the world are trying to get the governments to ban things that might hurt their business model (with money, ironically.) The politicians of the world that DON'T get campaign contributions from said organizations will then put the cap on the **AA agenda. Often citing "maintenance of privacy" as the primary reason for doing so. The same government might have two different agendas, it just depends on who controls what.