Forcing Bell to do things with that infrastructure against their will is no more "fair" than forcing you by law to let my dog defecate in your yard.
How about forcing me by law to let Bell dig up my yard to run cables for their network? Because they do that all the time.
A truly free market by definition is responsive to the majority (will) of the people. If the people like "A" over "B" in a free market, that is what they invest/buy/suggest/endorse etc.
Not necessarily true. A free market solution might disproportionately benefit the very wealthy for example. That's not a priori bad, but it would certainly be a stretch to call it representing the will of the majority of the people.
I don't tell others what they should or should not do
Literally 6 words earlier
Stop telling "us" what to do and make definitive changes yourselves.
To argue you'd have to think...
<homersimpson>Ah, Lisa, the whole reason we have elected officials is so we don't have to think all the time</homersimpson>
So people who always agree with the Anointed One are thoughtful, but people who always disagree with Him are thoughtless. Got it. Your use of logic and reason are truly inspirational. Carry on, AC.
In fairness that's a strawman. The AC never claimed that people who always agree with "the Anointed One" are thoughtful. He merely claimed that a specific person who, by their own admission, is against anything Obama is for without even needing to think about it is thoughtless. And IMHO that's kind of hard to argue with.
Twitter is as useless as all the rest of the "social" "media" crap out there. It's a massive waste of your time.
Exactly! Why can't all those people using twitter do something constructive with their time? You know, like posting smug AC comments on Slashdot.
Why do I get flu symptoms whenever I get the flu shot?
Because the flu shot contains antigens from the influenza virus which can trigger a reaction in your immune system similar to that of contracting the actual virus.
Why does the CDC claim that vaccines do not prevent the illness?
Because no vaccine is 100% effective and they don't want to get sued by litigious idiots that don't understand math.
Why should I allow a foreign object to penetrante my body without my consent?
For the same reason you're not allowed to drive your car on a public street as fast as you feel like: because it makes you a danger to those around you.
Are the ingredients in these vaccines safe?
Yes.
Why are there no longterm studies in the effects of vaccines, if there are what are these effects on humans?
Where is all the money going from vaccine revenues?
Where do the revenues from anything go? To the people that manufacture and sell the stuff. Just because the company that makes seat belts turns a profit doesn't necessarily make seat belts a scam.
Anything else you'd like to know?
Assuming the summary is correct (I know, I know), the legislation doesn't require payment by Google, it only allows the original publisher to collect payment from Google. If the small publishers want to have links to their sites show up in Google News without Google paying them, all they would have to do is send a letter to Google granting them permission. It would be up to each publisher to decide which way they want to go.
From what I've read the Spanish law specifically does not allow publishers to opt out.
"If you are a digital editor that publishes with a copyleft license, like myself, and you minimally understand how the internet actually works, you cannot decide to not charge Google News. It is compulsory. More than a right it is an obligation. Therefore, Google cannot exclude sites requiring payment from Google News. It would still need to pay for those it includes, even if they do not want to be compensated."
I think that we need to fundamentally change the web so that Google and Facebook share their profits with us. They are after all making profits by selling your data. Now obviously they do lots of complicated analysis which is where a lot of the value added is but the raw resource is your data. You should be compensated for it.
You are being compensated just not monetarily. You get free access to search engines and social networking sites.
Why should they be forced to lease it at less than optimal rates to a competitor? They built the network. It's their capital. No, that is an unacceptable infringement of economic liberty and property rights.
Why should I be forced to allow ATT to run cables for their network across my property? ATT wants to claim that it's their network and they should be free to do whatever they want with it? Fine, no more legal right-of-ways for you. You want to bury cables on my property? Pay me rent.
Old Testament allows men to have female children as brides, so does Islam, so do the Vedic religions.
The old testament also allows for stoning people for being "a stubborn and rebellious son". That does not, to my mind, make it a good idea.
"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai
