Don't bother trying to bring logic into this. Here on Slashot, ESPN/Disney is evil and sports are evil.
The CIA and NSA forced Airbus to build huge planes that nobody wants, over budget and behind schedule? Wow. They're really good.
The last two major regulatory issues these companies have faced are net neutrality and the merger- and they've lost both. So at least recently, they don't seem to be buying any of the government any of the time.
Cox is Las Vegas is 100/20 with very good uptime. Netflix ranked Cox one of the fastest ISPs. I think the only faster ones were Google, and one or two tiny little ISPs.
The point is that Charter is not buying Time Warner.
Nobody really talked about how totally illegal the raid to get Bin Laden was. If civilians had been killed, and particularly if Bin Laden hadn't, things would have been very bad for the President. Obama deserves credit for a ballsy decision.
Charter may be spreading money around to scuttle the deal so it can gobble up Time Warner on the rebound.
Time Warner has 3 times the revenue of Charter. They're not going to be "gobbled up".
They just need to regroup, figure out who to buy off, and do it again.
So you don't think that Comcast knows who is responsible for approving the merger?
If the US is an oligarchy controlled by the rich and powerful, and the Obama administration is full of corporate shills- then why didn't this merger get approved?
Let's remember that to date, no one has done jail time for rigging LIBOR. A crime that is exponentially more serious than this one.
Dozens of trials on in process in multiple jurisdictions. The US has charged 11 people. I'm sorry if the criminal justice system isn't fast enough for you.
Google isn't working on a car. They're working on an autonomous driving system that would be added to someone else's car.
It's like how a real terrorist would not joke about a bomb at an airport. But someone who does is detained or arrested, and time is spent by TSA that could be better spent looking for real terrorists.
I studied and tutored experimental design and this use of inferential statistics. I even came up with a formula for 1/5 the calculator keystrokes when learning to calculate the p-value manually. Take the standard deviation and mean for each group, then calculate the standard deviation of these means (how different the groups are) divided by the mean of these standard deviations (how wide the groups of data are) and multiply by the square root of n (sample size for each group). But that's off the point. We had 5 papers in our class for psychology majors (I almost graduated in that instead of engineering) that discussed why controlled experiments (using the p-value) should not be published. In each case my knee-jerk reaction was that they didn't like math or didn't understand math and just wanted to 'suppose' answers. But each article attacked the math abuse, by proficient academics at universities who did this sort of research. I came around too. The math is established for random environments but the scientists control every bit of the environment, not to get better results but to detect thing so tiny that they really don't matter. The math lets them misuse the word 'significant' as though there is a strong connection between cause and effect. Yet every environmental restriction (same living arrangements, same diets, same genetic strain of rats, etc) invalidates the result. It's called intrinsic validity (finding it in the experiment) vs. extrinsic validity (applying in real life). You can also find things that are weaker (by the square root of n) by using larger groups. A study can be set up in a way so as to likely find 'something' tiny and get the research prestige, but another study can be set up with different controls that turn out an opposite result. And none apply to real life like reading the results of an entire population living normal lives. You have to study and think quite a while, as I did (even walking the streets around Berkeley to find books on the subject up to 40 years prior) to see that the words "99 percentage significance level" means not a strong effect but more likely one that is so tiny, maybe a part in a million, that you'd never see it in real life.
Can we take a second and thank the person who came up with the fantastic backronym "Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry and Ranging" for MESSENGER.
For those that don't know, Mercury was the messenger of the Gods.
Drop the religious exemption from 501, and done. Sierra Club meets the definition for other reasons.
You're wrong. I don't care enough to get into it. Mod me however you want.