Don't conflate Cronyism with Capitalism...Cronyism can (and does) exist in virtually all feasible economic models. You are, indirectly but fundamentally, describing Capitalism as the solution to Cronyism, but calling them the same thing. They are not.
So, US companies are already looking to carve up Cuba for their own interests, and what happens to the Cuban people be damned.
That's not how Capitalism works.
Hey, I know, stop meddling and let them decide what the hell they want.
That *is* how Capitalism works.
whoops, accidental downmod (meant to make 'funny') so posting reply to undo
Go the fuck back to school and obtain an education where you're required to do some goddamned critical thinking.
[citation needed] indeed
This is the heart of the dispute. Netflix can claim whatever viewership they want. The content owner cannot verify this because that information is proprietary, unlike for their own content.
Precisely, yes.
Netflix may not have ad revenue, but they negotiate rates with content providers based on the number of times the content is watched.
Your show sucks, and nobody watches it on Netflix? Not only will Netflix pay you less for it, when time comes to renew, they may drop it altogether unless you agree to take even less again.
Your show is awesome and everyone watches it on Netflix? Netflix will pay you more to make sure their subscribers can still come to Netflix to watch it instead of going to Amazon or whoever else.
that's assuming 100% coverage. Since we're seeing variability, it follows that the structure of any presumed Dyson object at this location either hasn't reached "sphere" stage or isn't designed to. If the latter, then a "ring" or "swarm" style structure would be much thicker and more useful as a substrate. While I don't think Dyson structures are necessarily feasible in practical terms, in theoretical terms the heat management of a structure that can turn panels away from the star would be more efficient, so I tend to fall on the side of "spheres are impractical, rings make more sense"
well, according to the summary (no idea what's in the article, because...well, you know), that's exactly what this legislator is doing...he's opening the conversation by presenting an unpassable bill for the sake of starting the conversation. He has no actual intent of having the bill passed. That's the gist I got, anyway
part of the ATF requirements for being a manufacturer in firearms/explosives or being an alcoholic drink producer is certifying there are appropriate controls in place to prevent contamination of navigable waters. If the ATF really is involved in this, then it's likely that some other investigation has uncovered a connection between a licensee and the greasy substance that is contaminating the water supply, and the ATF is trying to collect more evidence to see if they lied on the certification (it's ATF forms 5000.29 and 5000.30). Lying to the ATF is a Federal felony, and they are very interested in making sure people know they don't take kindly to being lied to.
that's not how email works. See: retry interval https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
The courier has minimal incentive to actually deliver to you in a timely or efficient manner.
If you count "don't piss off your customers' customers by breaking their stuff" as "minimal", then I agree. But, of course, you don't mean that. I don't think you do, anyway...
If a vendor doesn't give you a choice of carrier (and many still do) and they routinely get hit with extra costs due to a high number of returns from shipping damage, then you bet they're going to tell the problem courier to fix the issue or move along. There is *absolutely* incentive to deliver in a timely and efficient (and intact) manner. The couriers will lose business from their customers, even if it's not you.
That's like saying, "It's amazing that I can control the ceiling fan in my living room with a $2 light switch, all I had to do was spend $300k building the house first."
this. and also, the linked article is just a press release disguised as a story, quoting only the subject of the article without any independant analysis or rebuttal of any kind
Two words: Belly landing.
well, yeah - I wasn't trying to go through the whole history of the industry in its entirety, just a synopsis. I'm not Bennett Haselton. And yes, you certainly *can* talk about AT&T without talking about SBC and Cingular, because I just did and it fit the point of view of the narrative just fine. The point being, of course, that the gradual move from regional carriers to national carriers was deliberate and is unlikely to reverse itself.
May Euell Gibbons eat your only copy of the manual!
