Just claim you're feeling sick, and you'll re-book for later after a rest. They don't let people who are feeling really sick get on even if they want to. Truth is, they can't do much to the passenger, and that's why they are trying to bully the messenger. I say bully because they don't have much of a case given that connecting info is all public info.

Yup, exactly. It's no different procedurally than someone missing their flight. What's different is that they didn't earn as much as market research said people were willing to pay, and they're pissed about that. They probably know they don't have a case, but they intend to just sue the source of info as a bully tactic.

Uber and Lyft both support regulations that let them run their service. Most cities have laws written by taxi companies that basically ban price competition and limit the number of taxi licenses artificially low so that they will basically never face any real competition. Lyft tries to negotiate with those cities while Uber just starts up their service in blatant violation of local laws and then uses public sentiment to pressure elected officials to allow them to operate (with reasonable regulations).

Oww, STOP THAT.
-- your friend

Try posting that on Facebook.

Superfish says psshhh.. whatever.

They'll throw in a free Rolex if you ask...

Chinese manufacturing is also unimaginably huge. Foxconn manufactures Apple's iPhones and iPads, but they also manufacture Kindles, PS4s, XB1s, and Wii Us. If you think about the capacity they must need to meet peak demand for new iPhone models, they most certainly share factory floor space during off-peak seasons. Many companies have been ruined by overramping their capacity and workforce to meet peak demand and then facing the music when the expected orders don't continue to roll in. Smart companies don't put all their eggs in one basket.

http://qz.com/256586/the-insid...
Similar stories with Verizon and other ISPs.
Of course, Hulu doesn't have to pay those fees because they're backed by the cable companies.

What do you mean unrealized? Netflix already got ransomed, and they paid the ransom. The whole fast lane proposal they were trying to get through the FCC was so they could do more of that more easily. The only part unrealized is the part where they charge you specifically more for Netflix access - which they deemed unnecessary because it was easier to just raise your monthly rate, set bandwidth caps fairly low, and then upsell you on an even more expensive plan, but the double charge of you and the website - that's realized.

AOL sucked, but they were totally legit. They competed fairly and went down fairly. They didn't sneakily throttle your service, sue competitors, get laws passed to block competition, nor ransom high-bandwidth websites that were supposed to be part of your monthly service. Today's big ISPs are a totally different story, and most people didn't really paid attention until they asked for fast lines.

I think you are confusing regulating greed with eliminating greed.

Systems like communism that rely on eliminating greed don't work. Systems like capitalism that regulate greed by allowing smart greedy work to rewarded within the confines of the system (and update the rules of the system when necessary) work just fine.

A lot has changed since 1998. Just look at yourself - you're reading news on the Internet instead of a print newspaper or TV. The amount that people communicate on the Internet and the amount of content they watch is on a whole different level than it was back then. Smartphones are a big part of this change. If there's a community w/o Internet, people worry about how that community is getting behind.

Well, the Republicans have voiced their support to overturn it, so if they keep control of both chambers of Congress and grab the presidency, that could very well happen.

Well, Comcast sued in the past too when FCC directed them not to mess w/ traffic, so they can't really blame Verizon. However, the Open Internet rules that Verizon was challenging is one that Comcast agreed to abide by for 7 years from the time of the MSNBC merger, so they probably just didn't want their competitors to get the jump on them.