Comment Re:Another Corporate rape of the commons (Score 1) 142
You own that space right now.
No, no you don't. And you sure as hell have nothing to do with what's going on at 200, let alone 400 feet.
You own that space right now.
No, no you don't. And you sure as hell have nothing to do with what's going on at 200, let alone 400 feet.
for their benefit
And for YOUR benefit, if you have enough discipline to run your own business that happens to use the same type of technology. I suppose you consider the wireless connectivity you use every day to be a "rape of the commons" every time you connect to a web site that runs advertising in order to pay for their operations? Rape! Rape rape rape! Eeeeevil businesses doing things like
Ooh good business writing regulations. (Score:1)
You're so right. Only people who HATE businesses should be recommending regulations. Only people who've never had the energy to organize a croquet game, let alone the biggest retailer in the world, should propose changes to a huge body of regulations. A fine idea.
the editors will welcome they're new
Hopefully the new platform will still support irony.
And where would the colder place be to vent that heat?
Just pop up a little lead umbrella so there's a shady spot.
The BBC is independent from the government.
Other than the part where it's the government that runs the court system that enforces your having been forced to give the BBC money whether you want to patronize them or not.
It's freer from government influence than other funding mechanisms
What? It can't even work without the direct involvement in the government running the courts that are necessary for the BBC to collect their unavoidable TV tax.
Here's a way that the government could be even less involved: don't DO that. Let people who want to show programs to a large audience find their own way to fund the production and dissemination of that material. Say, by selling ads or attracting sponsors, etc. Remove the court system and penalties under law for not wanting to fund everything that's broadcast from the equation entirely. Why should someone who doesn't want to fund a given program be forced to, under penalty of being dragged through court? I have zero interest in watching our many all-sports programming options (ESPN, etc). You think the "best system we have" is for the government to be the enforcer in an arrangement where I'm forced to give them money anyway?
The BBC is funded by a tax on the UK citizens, enforced by the criminal code. Your assertion is completely wrong.
Ah, so in Britain the government isn't involved in tax collection and enforcement. They don't do the collecting, they don't penalize people who don't pay, and they don't get involved in picking and choosing who receives those funds, or have any say, whatsoever, over how that money is allocated. That is an interesting system indeed! Who handles all of that, if not the government?
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome