I was going off of the official tally which has Bush winning the Electoral College in 2000. If we are to discount that, then "he only won via the Electoral College" would only apply in 1876, 1888, and 2016. Though if we are to discount that, then 1876 becomes debatable as well as SC, LA, and FL were disputed, then awarded to Hayes in a negotiated agreement to end reconstruction. In this scenario, the only relevant elections would be 1888 and 2016.
Hmmmm, I'm not a serious student of history, but I'm pretty sure all the elections were won that way... what is your point, exactly? The person you really wanted to win didn't, and now after 200+ years you want to retroactively change the rules? Gotcha.
There have been 57 presidential elections in this country. In 52 of them, the electoral college winner also won the popular vote. In one of the remaining 5, the popular vote winner still won more electoral votes than anyone else, he just missed the more than half requirement for outright win. So saying that "he only won via the Electoral College" is a perfectly valid point to make as it applies to this most recent election and only three others. Most of the rest of the Presidents can claim victory in both Electoral College and the popular vote.
Before I got the pay bit, I was thinking that you could set up a computer or two to serve as malware/virus sinks that would satisfy the "send to two others" requirement without actually ruining your friend's computer.
"So where exactly are the lower prices for those who use less data?"
They are adopting the Ting business model with a greatly increased baseline. I pay $6 per month to connect my phone to the network with Ting, and then more depending on how much data, texting, and talking minutes I use. Comcast is only charging you whatever the base price is (my area is offering $40 per month for 25Mbps or $50 for 75Mbps (offer unlikely to include set-up or mandatory equipment rental fees)). And then extra on top if you want to use extra internet or have TV or whatever. And look, they are already giving you a whole terabyte for free! Not only that, you don't have to monitor your usage because they'll do that for you!
I have one of those, and I have to use it to join social networks, do online shopping, or do things with government websites. Worse, it doesn't function on any browser that isn't Internet Explorer. I sincerely hope the US doesn't follow through, but if it does, at the very least I hope that it allows other browsers.
One has to wonder, hearing all of these stories of ridiculous patents, if some of the perpetrators of these actions are misguided souls who are trying to push the limits of the patent system in order to somehow get it across to the policymakers that it is ridiculous.
He is not saying anything about the Williams case on its own merits, only about its use in this issue.
My cursory reading of the link seems to suggest that it is about a business overcharging its customers, not to customers making off with its wares. The difference is that the business tends to have much more power in the marketplace than an individual customer. In the case of Williams, it was the railroad that had the only route from point A to point B, and in the present case, it is the record companies that have a government granted monopoly to collect from customers and likely to also shortchange artists. In one case the one in the position of power was being charged for gouging the weaker party, in the other, it is the one in the position of power that is completely destroying the weaker party.
If we want to get more nuanced, the sisters in the Williams case most likely didn't have another readily available way to get home and so did not have any real choice but to cough up the extra money. The record labels have a wide variety of different ways that they could reach customers and potentially monetize their fandom, but they continue to insist on their own narrow predefined business models from a bygone era and relying on lobbyists and courts to enforce their wishes, thereby alienating the same fans that they should be relying on.
Furthermore, even if the case does apply here, the Railroad overcharged by 66 cents and had to pay damages of around 75 dollars. A fine that is just over 100 times the actual damages. In this case, it is several thousand times. In what way is that not problematic.
If accusations of being Hitler were treated the same as accusations of copyright infringement, no politician would make it to a position higher than state legislator before being promptly removed from office. And many wouldn't even make it that far.
"The companies funding these groups (MPAA, RIAA, etc) should begin taking a results based funding approach. Or perhaps they should just look at the past 100 years of results, and determine if they should continue funding them."
AAACK! Someone is using common sense! They must be a pirate and a pirate sympathizer! Burn them!
Seriously, though. Results based approach? Who needs that when you can ruin innocent people's lives just fine the old way?
Hey, if copyright can still incentivise creation 70 years after the author's death, why can't we punish someone by putting them in prison and keeping them there until several years after they've died? If the incentives work, so will the punishment.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by MikeW.