I mostly agree with the folks who suggest using the coax to pull cat 5 cable as a replacement strategy.
But I would be remiss to not mention MoCA, which aims to standardize home networking over coax in such a way that existing cable TV or terrestrial antenna signals will still work.
Can you say "ad hominem?"
I thought not.
Rather than giving it to him, give it to someone who worked to make sure McCain didn't get elected
You know, folks like you told me over and over again during 2008 that if I voted for McCain that we'd wind up having more troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and they were absolutely right. I did vote for McCain and sure enough.
There is a precedent for Nobel prizes to other than natural persons, and for the prize to not be awarded in a particular year. There's no reason they couldn't allocate the prize money back into the prize fund (like they did in 1972) while issuing a proclamation praising the Internet for whatever they like.
The alternative would be to award the prize to DARPA, which is probably not really in keeping with the spirit of the award.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Censorship is bad when the government does it or requires it. A merchant is within his rights to decide what he wishes or does not wish to stock in his store (modulo anti-trust concerns, which do not even come close to applying here). Calling an exercise of that right "censorship" is an insult to censors.
Satie is a fictional character, of course, but it's likely that he was speaking about government censorship. Until and unless Apple can put people in jail (or worse), I'd say that such implied comparisons are at best overblown.
And if anyone makes a "there's an app for that" joke about jail, they probably should be sent to one immediately.
The quote in your message body and the quote in your
Not really. The quote in the
So the argument "but it's good for them", no matter how true, is simply inapt -- it is not the right criterion on which to judge the legality of the action.
Did he say anything about the legality of it? He said that the sports bar owners should be compensated (yes, he actually put the words in your mouth, but that's beside the point) for encouraging lots of people to watch ad-supported content. Everything you say about that not actually being the case is true, but is orthogonal to his point that it should be.
I'm not saying I agree with him. I'm just saying that you missed his point.
Arguments that they are deciding poorly are not equivalent to arguments that they do not have the right to make the decision.
He didn't say that they do not have that right. He either said they ought not to have that right or that they ought not to exercise it, depending on how you interpret what he wrote.
Hear hear!
or call it a 'Super Bowl' party, since the term itself is copyright.
No it isn't. It's trademarked. Different thing.
Look! There's footprints in the snow ahead!
It amazes me how many people seem to find this concept shocking.
Prime time hour long dramas are something like a million dollars per hour to produce (that's a reasonable average - the spread is fairly broad). Those that air first-run on broadcast TV are free to the viewing public to watch - despite the fact that the electricity alone to run the transmitters costs tens of thousands of dollars (nation wide).
Cui bono?
But your too sure are smart and sophisticated aren't you?
Irony. It's what's for dinner.
Networks rely on these statistics because they are the only thing they have to show to advertisers.
But the advertisers are only interested in statistics that involve viewers who view their ads. That's why Neilsen doesn't include TiVo and online viewing in the surveys.
I think if demographics that view this content heavily online were counted, they would not have been so easy to cancel these shows.
If the online viewership were able to pay as much as traditional advertising does, you'd have a decent argument.
The dirty little secret in TV is that you, the viewer, are not the customer. You're the product being sold. The advertiser is the customer. Neilsen conducts its measurements in order to discern how many people are exposed to the ads. That's why they leave out TiVo and online viewers - because the advertisers don't want to pay for those viewers, since they get no benefit from their viewing.
To write good code is a worthy challenge, and a source of civilized delight. -- stolen and paraphrased from William Safire
