My apologies then.

I'm not sure you actually understand the concepts you are talking about.

Dealerships do not create competition. A more apt example of monopolistic practices would be if Ford bought out all the other car manufacturers, thus eliminating competition. Ford selling directly to the public would be a cost-savings benefit, and buying from a dealer would have to show some added value to justify doing so.

Have you never bought something 'factory direct' or 'wholesale'? Why would it be okay to get food, lumber, or other things (raw material or finished product) direct from a manufacturer but not motor vehicles?

Maybe it's just a statement of fact that we do remember that time? For it to be an order 'You' would have to be the understood subject if I'm not mistaken. Unfortunately the sentence in question is hardly understandable as to its intent.

My telco/ISP/tv provider has told me that for them to participate in the live stream verification, NBC was going to require them to raise the TV rates for all of their customers, regardless of who opted to sign-up for the live stream.

I wish I could vote up your comment, AC, for it is very true. Bend over and smile indeed.

The thing is, Charter doesn't even offer service out this way. I'm calling my telco (also my paid tv and fiber provider) to see how I can get live-stream access.

I have paid cable TV but not through Comcast or Charter. How will their scheme work for people who have alternates to Comcast, Charter, Dish, or DirecTV?

People can refuse to engage in something they know is unethical or immoral, to hell with C level execs. Refusing to do it will come with consequences, but I'd rather have an empty belly then a troubled conscience.

You'll probably hear many arguments, either for the developers (which I fully support), to the user (buyer beware), and even some for government enforcement.

I think in this case, only the first two are true:

Developers, I think, have a responsibility of accurately representing the capabilities of their software and not artificially inflating the capabilities of the software (or a phone) past what is 100% true and accurate. However, users also burden the responsibility of doing at least some basic research and taking a common sense approach as to what is truly adequate for a purpose. The government shouldn't interfere at all in an ideal situation, however that will never exist because people - if unrestrained - tend toward what we'd call uncivilized behavior because of lack of threat of immediate consequence.

People need to hear how these people do business. I imagine the jury will have no problem not awarding this patent troll anything. I wish cases like this were on CourtTV instead of stuff like the People's Court, Divorce Court, and Judge Judy.

I still use WindowManager almost exclusively. I can't stand either GNOME or KDE anymore. Both are crap imo.

Probably the worst idea ever.

Do they prevent any sort of crime?

I've heard of pot smoking vets getting locked up for 10+ years under such stupid laws for nothing more than possession.

Did people (more specifically, politicians) really think they'd work or were reasonable for copyright infringement?

I was thinking of a small camera capable of looking into several wave-lengths and/or use as a telescope/microscope (understanding it would have very limited magnification powers), bug-eyed multi-optics would be pretty dang cool and I'd take that option as well.

I'm willing to carry a back-pack. (; Though range-finding, targeting and other, non-weaponized uses would be just as agreeable (though I imagine targeting would be a weaponized use).