Not really sure what the point of this question is. In case you haven't seen a calendar recently it's 2015 so the fact UV only came out in 2011 is next to meaningless.

Things change in the home video world from time to time and collectors are always faced with the decision to upgrade or simply maintain what they already have. For those who transition they have two choices to make;

1) Maintain both systems which on the UV side requires next to no work since most internet capable video devices can playback UV movies but does require the person to maintain specific hardware to access their iTunes library.

or

2) Convert/re-purchase the things you really want in the new system. This can be expensive but is not unusual for a collector.

It's a choice that has been made several times over by most video collectors and I'm sure will be made again at some point in the future, possibly when 4k really takes off and iTunes and/or UV offer 4k upgrades from their previous 1080p only versions.

Never used iTunes for Music so can't answer that. I use 7digital for my music and haven't had an issue with them.

For movies I routinely purchase moves from Vudu, CinemaNow and Cineplex and since they are all UltraViolet compatible I can dl or stream any movies purchased from any of those stores through whichever app I happen to like best on whichever device I happen to be on. Unlike iTunes, I'm not locked into waiting for one store to have a sale, I can shop around multiple sites to find the best price. So when Vudu has a sale I might buy a new release HD movie from them for $9 and then watch it through the CinemaNow app on my Firestick or Roku or dl it for later viewing through Flixster on my tablet.

The other benefit is you can have multiple users linked to a single Ultraviolet library so if they purchase anything I can watch their movies too.

By this logic no two companies can ever join in a beneficial partnership because every other company in a similar field isn't involved. Unless you're definition of 'harming' a competitor is doing a better job of marketing yourself to customers, I still can't really see the harm being done to tinyindiesite?

You still pay for your music service, you just don't get it applied to your data cap at a particular phone company. Yes, that allows Pandora users on T-Mobile to get more use of their phones/music but it doesn't prevent tinymobilesite from operating on T-mobile through any other ISP.

For the record, all the talk of t-mobile is moot anyway since any music service can register with them to be used without data restrictions. As someone else pointed out, a person managed to register his home computer to be his personal streaming service.

My point is that even if that weren't the case, it's not up to T-Mobile or Pandora to help tinyindiesite get a leg up. As long as T-Mobile isn't the only possible ISP through which tinyindiesite can operate and they aren't artificially affecting transfer speeds to affect tiny's performance then it's up to tiny to make their service competitive either through pricing, quality or making their own deals. Having the government step in to make things fair rarely if ever works out for the market and it's consumers in the long run. The government has some responsibility to provide protections (anti-dumping practices and such) but in general government involvement causes more problems than it solves. In fact there's a current Supreme Court case about raisins in which the government, to make things fair, want to confiscate 1 million pounds of a growers product, without any compensation, or have them pay $700k in fines, so that they (the government) can properly manipulate the raisin market. It's very similar to the Canadian Wheat Board which routinely forced farmers to let their crops rot instead of selling them for prices they (the government agency) deemed appropriate.

There is no record indicating how much the colts balls deflated as the NFL doesn't actually record initial inflation numbers, merely a pass/fail, so balls inflated to the max, losing a similar level of pressure would now be near the min but still pass. That and the colts balls were stored in violation of NFL rules, in front of the sideline heater means they weren't actually stored in the same conditions as the Pats balls.

For the record of all the deflategate balls, 1 lost 2lbs (mysteriously the only one ever in possession of the Colts), a few more lost about 1lb and most were just slightly below the min of 12.5. Real world tests show even the 2lb loss was possible with the weather conditions and normal ball handling procedures but a 1lbs or less is almost guaranteed. Even using the standard formula for air pressure, forgetting the ball has a rubber balloon inside and there are other factors in play, the temperature difference alone accounts for almost a .5lbs drop in pressure which would make every ball inflated to the league minimum show as under inflated before the first pass was thrown.

As I stated earlier, the early reports of all the balls being significantly below the league minimum came out of the Indy media who were trying to drum up the controversy, in reality, most of the balls lost less than a lbs of pressure.

At this point only Colt/Seahawks fans or just general anti-Pat'ers are still holding onto deflategate as still a thing.

Real world tests duplicated the deflation of the footballs exactly; no extreme heating was required, just normal handling. Even the calculations back up the pressure changes when correctly applied.

Oddly enough, according to the NFL investigation the only ball that was under inflated by a full 2lbs was the ball that was at one point in the possession of the Colts, all other balls were under inflated by factions of that. It's also been noted that a lot of the initial reporting on the 'scandal' came from Indianapolis sources and not the NFL. Simply put this was a non-issue that some people in the Indy media wanted to make a federal case. Even the players themselves admitted they were simply outplayed by a better team.

I don't even like the Pats per se, I just like watching exciting football regardless of what teams are playing. I do occasionally root against the Seahawks simply because one of my friends is a rabid fan and it's always fun to push his buttons. You are sounding very much like him right now when even when the replay of a call clearly shows the penalty was deserved he will argue it till his last breath.

Each team can inflate their footballs as they want. The officials just ensure that at the time of testing they fall within the accepted psi range.

The Patriots have already said they like their footballs on the low side of the range while the Colts preferred their footballs inflated to the maximum allowable.

Since the NFL doesn't track the pressures of the balls they inspect, just make sure that they pass, their is no indication that the Colts balls also didn't lose similar pressure during the game.

There are also pictures of the Colts balls being stored near the sideline heaters which is a violation of the rules and would also help account for any differences in relative pressure drops between their footballs and the Patriots.

All this is moot since in real world testing similar deflation was found. That and as is mentioned in another response, this only affected the first half and the Patriots scored 28 points AFTER their footballs were replaced/re-inflated.

As Dwayne Allen tweeted:

If stating his conclusion was all he did than that would be fine but in his tweet he was essentially attacking the Patriots organization and accusing them of cheating.

When you are making accusations against a particular group or person you better double check your math and you shouldn't be surprised that there's blowback when it's shown that you were in fact wrong.

I think you missed a lot of deflategate. While Tyson and to a lesser extent Nye claimed what you say was required, it was shown the simple process of handling the ball in a regular fashion was more than enough to explain the discrepancies in psi. They were no extremes required, just simple normal NFL practices.

And why is it suddenly T-Mobile or Panora's job to help TinyIndieSite.com? Neither are doing anything to prevent the service from running they just aren't giving it any of the special benefits that these two companies negotiated between them. You can still order TinyIndieSite.com's service, you just have to use your data cap to use it on their network like every other service on the internet and if it's such a great service then either T-Mobile will make a deal with them or one of their competitors will.

Companies enter into agreement like this all the time. Just because this is 'on the internet' doesn't make it anything special.

My cable company also has a partnership in a netflix like streaming service that I can get free if I happen to have the right internet package with them. It also shows up through their VOD service if I subscribe, bypassing all issues with download limits and bandwidth. Does that mean Netflix can complain because they aren't also getting that treatment? No. Why? Because I can also order Netflix and my cable company will stream that to me too without issue, I just have to pay the extra $8/mth to Netflix.

How this is any different from any two companies having a mutual agreement for any other type of promotion? Or because this involves "the internet" does that somehow make this a new novel marketing idea worthy of a patent.

A friend just got a new natural gas furnace installed and received a free hookup for a natural gas BBQ. Should Kingsford charcoal be able to complain because the gas company, in an attempt to sell him one of their BBQs, gave him the extra hookup?

My bank card gives me points towards free movie passes at one particular theater chain, can Landmark complain because I'm more likely to go to watch a movie at another theater for free than pay them $13?

Unless you are legally required to buy a Verizon phone and data plan and as long as Verizon and Pandora aren't losing money through their deal (effectively dumping their product to artificially lower costs and prevent competition) or stopping other streaming services from making similar deals with other providers than this is just an example of two companies coming up with a novel approach to increase their customer base and satisfaction.

It's not Pandora's job to make it easier for you to start up a competing product.

I'm failing to see how jumping immediately to having the government shut down a business deal between two companies is an aid to "free market" while allowing said companies from joining in a voluntary partnership is a violation of the same.

If you can show Verizon or Pandora lose money because of their partnership (effectively dumping their product to hurt competitors), or are blocking Spotify from forming a similar partnership with other companies then sure you have a case for government intervention. Otherwise this is a simple business deal that is pretty much the definition of free market; two companies improving their services to try and provide a benefit to their customers to increase their image in the marketplace vs. their competition. Or should the government step in and fine Costco and Ford because my Costco card can get me $1000 off a new Ford but not a new Chevy or BWM?

Having the government jump in to try to make things fair is pretty much the antithesis of making the market free. There are times when government intervention is required but simply because your competition had a better idea than you that made their product more attractive is not one of them.

I don't think it's hard to argue the rich don't get more from US taxes at all. The rich tend not to have to rely on social services as much and often bypass government funded services for private ones (schools, security, medical, etc..).

They definitely benefit more from tax BREAKS but not necessarily the taxes themselves. Tax breaks are just a byproduct of a the very scaled tax system you deem fair because in a system where everyone is treated differently, everyone believes they should be paying less in tax than someone else is and will do everything in their power to try and make that happen; the rich just tend to have more power and therefore have more chances to tailor the tax code to their needs.

The easiest flat rate plan that also doesn't hurt the poor or middle class would be simply to have an adequate personal exemption limit. For example, the first $20k any person makes is entirely tax free and then you pay 20% on ALL income after that.

Politicians don't like flat taxes though because it cuts out a very large part of their funding; special interest groups looking for favorable tax breaks for their members. No tax breaks = less money spent on bribing (excuse me, lobbying) pols to pass legislation favoring one group over another.

The end result was Netflix placing their server directly on Comcast's network, hence the not so miraculous disappearance of the problem.

Comcast is free to upgrade or not upgrade the lines as required, as is the other involved ISP. Neither were willing to pay the cost because Comcast didn't want to foot the bill to provide extra service to another ISPs client (Netflix).

They didn't degrade the service, just decided not to upgrade it when the other ISP wouldn't foot part of the bill.