Sounds like prior restraint to me, opposing someone doing something because the something they do might eventually lead to bad things in the future. Why don't we just punish those hypothetical bad things when they actually if and when they come to pass?
I think of internet bandwidth like other utilities: electricity, gas, water. What if GE offered a line of appliances that let you use them as much as you wanted, and the gas, elec, and water used by them didn't show on your bill? Isn't that just smart marketing, and good for the consumer?
Of course first thing I'd do is turn them into a utility hub for my house, having them feed to all other devices and appliances. GE can subsidize my whole house :-)
Another thought: what if it turns out that per mile traveled, Uber rides are actually safer? Are the taxi companies prepared to let Uber lawyers go through the discovery process on their collision and safety documentation? Given the strong feedback loop resulting from public reviews, I'd bet that Uber drivers are more incented to drive in a calmer and perhaps safer manner. Just a hypothesis, but it'd be very interesting to see what the data shows.
Regardless of the language they choose for this fee, as a consumer I think it's reflects poorly on a company to tack fees onto the base charge for the service for what should just be a cost of doing business. It makes me think of TicketMaster and telecom companies who use it as a way of extracting more and more profits. Unfortunately Lyft also has a "Trust and Safety" fee, so it looks like a bad precedent has already been set here.
My understanding is that any member of congress can read and submit any document into the congressional record as a part of their duties and be free from repercussions. Well at least legal ones. They could be shunned and excluded from the sphere of influence after that.
And that's probably the crux of it. No Congressional member thinks this is the ditch worth dying in. Especially if there's no chance the fast track will be passed by both bodies AND signed by the president.
And there goes any possibility I will vote for her in 2016. I hope she doesn't get the nomination. This shows an absolute appalling lack of respect for the law, and if she does it here so blatantly, she will undoubtably do so in any other situation she sees fit.
I took a look at Gemalto's stock price over the past year, and noticed it was in the mid-$80s a year ago, and dropped to below $60 4 months ago. The blip from $73 to $67, which then trended back up to $70 looks like minor fluctuations compared to the macro trend.
So it seems that investors initially overreacted to the news (as it seems they always do), and then it corrected. It doesn't look like they care too much about this news. Should they? Are they seriously going to lose business because of this? Does anyone seriously think that the NSA won't simply hack any other SIM card provider?
Have whatever opinion you want about Tesla's actions here, but if you don't like it, then either don't invest, or sell and take your money, and invest it elsewhere. Because seriously—if you have such backward thinking about IP—you have no business investing in a disruptive company like Tesla.
I'm with the coward on this one. I am an interface designer, and I don't think Apple is trying to send any negative message with the green. Think about how green is used in our environment: green means go; green means thriving plant life; green means living ecologically and sustainably; green mean all systems operational; and green literally means "right" (starboard) when it comes to boats.
What I think happened is that blue was introduced and it was so much better (no 160 character limits, emojis supported, free, etc) that people started to associated inferior with green. Much like the word president when it was adopted was actually chosen specifically because it was a humble, meager title. Yet the meaning we infer from it changes based on the context and reality,
In a behind-the-scenes drama, the Sony Pictures chairman Michael Lynton last month told industry colleagues of a plan to withdraw from the movie trade organization, ...[but] the MPAA convinced Sony to stay in...
I wonder how much the MPAA is now paying Sony to keep them in their racket. It would look very bad to have them lose such a prominent member.