clammer
See what I mean about HN? A bunch of over sensitive whiny bitches. Yes, that was a statement.
I didn't call anyone a pre-schooler, I asked if you were all pre-schoolers. Notice the question mark? That means it's a question. Tomorrow we'll cover making statements using the period.
>all liability will be handed to a wholly owned, but separate corporation, which will go bankrupt at the first sign of a lawsuit
So, if BP was a sole proprietor owned by Bill Gates this would somehow be better. You don't think Bill Gates could go bankrupt? No, you probably don't like any form of private business. It's not just big bad corporations.
Sorry for make assumptions about what system you're advocating, but you're not really stating an alternative. What type of benevolent (bankrupt proof) organizational structure should drill for oil?
The only think I can think of is the government. Therefore, you're proposing state controlled oil production. In this case, it would somehow be magically cleaner and less corrupt? Reality says otherwise.
There was nothing naive about my comment, as much as you made naive assumptions about my comment.
My point is:
Capitalism != mercantilism. Capitalism != corruption.
I would never dispute that much of the underdevelopment of the middle east and africa isn't due to meddling by foreign counties (though, not just western). However, corruption has more to do with culture than economic structure.
Why do people pervert what capitalism is just so they can tear it down?
The problem: Nigeria is a corrupt third world country. It has nothing to do with capitalism.
You can't even BUY support from Google. Basically, go ahead and use their free stuff, but don't do business with Google if you can help it.
Obviously, their advertising scales so well, it's hard not to...
We should cease all activities deemed "non productive" by the state and get back to work in the mines.
Agreed. That's not the defense I was recommending.
If you got this far, you have violated my TOS and infringed my copyright.
Such licensed artwork (images, icons, etc...) that become part of a commercial application are different than same artwork displayed in an application.
The first is embedded by the commercial developer, the second is initiated and viewed by the user. Otherwise, by just viewing such licensed material in a commercial browser, you'd be breaking the license of the artwork. It's a catch 22 that makes no sense.
Again, the developer is selling a tool to better view content (not selling content). The tool in this case is software. Apple is doing the same, but their tool is hardware and no one complains.
Saying otherwise, would be like saying that shooting a gun into a crowd and killing someone isn't murder if you intended for the bullet to make it through the crowd without hitting anyone.
If apple is such a leader in the open web, then why don't they try to defend the open web in court instead of rolling over without a fight?
I'm hoping the real issue is just a matter of Pulse's marketing material. Should they remove trademarks from their copy, perhaps the NYT would back off.
First, we could actually deport Illegals that are already picked up by local police. We don't actually do that now.
We could also modify the Constitution and get rid of the anchor baby clause.
Why does everyone jump at giving our government more power over us to solve problems like this?
Good luck.
NN was always a bad idea and this step by the FCC was obvious to anyone who saw through the NN BS. I'll never understand why people still think the government can "help" them by solving problems that don't even exist.
Say hello you're new Internet nanny, the FCC.
Just because the phone says "Apple" on the back, doesn't mean Apple owns it. My phone says that too, but I wouldn't want it sent to Apple if I lost it. Also, my understanding was that the phone was bricked remotely. Not much you can do to find the owner of a phone that doesn't turn on.
It would seem to me that this assumption must be proven true before police can take action against Chen, since unless this assumption is true, there is no cause to invade his office.
I don't know what the facts are, but the they need to be set straight in this matter before we declare anyone guilty.
It should be up to facebook to find and ban violators from their system. TOS is not a contract and, even if it were, a contract dispute is a civil case not a criminal one.
Comment TOS: Reading my comment is strictly prohibited. Violators will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Browser based software sucks for a few reasons, but I'm not sure the most glaring were mentioned. It's also fantastic for many other reasons some apps are awesome on the web.
You can write a photoshop app for the browser, but why would you want to? Certain apps belong on the desktop, so let's not blame the web for that...unless you're one of those people who thought desktop apps were dead.
I'd rather Comcast make that call than the FCC, who censors the public airwaves now. Some people think that's what NN is really all about anyway.
>Also I'm trying to stress that you can only jump providers maybe once or twice
True. Though I imagine that if all the networks started to enforce draconian traffic rules, there would be an opportunity for smaller, local startups (or a large well funded one) to offer an unrestricted Internet. I'm thinking Sir Richard Branson could start an ISP in that niche, Virgin Internet...
That's exactly the sort of thing that is fine with me. Bit torrent isn't http traffic. Comcast also blocks port 25... It's their network, and I simply go around it anyway.
If Comcast does end up blocking torrents on their network, perhaps my connection will be faster and/or cheaper for it. Torrent fans can go to another provider, it's called choice.
This isn't a case of favoring one website over another, it's about blocking non-http traffic vs a totally open network. If they blocked youtube, then I'd be looking for another provider, but they're not going to do that.
There really isn't a problem right now with good Internet service. NN solves a problem that doesn't exist, yet wil have long term effects on the market in ways we may not fully understand today.
Do you get a discount for biying cable and Internet together, yes, but I also get a discount for buying my life, home owner, and car insurance from the same company. I'm unclear on why a bundled discount is a bad thing for consumers.
Eventually, when smaller upstarts come along, the monopoly points at them and says, "Hey, these guys aren't playing by the rules" and then the government makes these upstarts comply with expensive regulations.
For instance, VOIP and 911. When you could get VOIP for nothing (or next to it) the big telecoms pointed to these new providers and said "We have to support 911, why don't they?".
In this case, the government jumped in to help the telecoms keep a foot hold on their monopoly. See: http://www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com/net_telephone_service...
This pattern repeats itself in almost all legislation attempting to regulate monopolies. In the end, it only serves to stifle competition and remove consumer choice from the market.
And I could pick and choose my provider. The problem with regulating "monopolies" is that it does more to ensure their monopoly position and stifle competition than it does to "protect" the consumer.
This is a short-term vs. long-term debate. Net neutrality will be good in the short term, but very bad for long term development of the Internet and access to it.
I think it goes without saying, but if you were going to meet to pick up the mac, why not pay cash after you turned it on and made sure everything was all set? I'm guessing it was a great price.