If the actors/actresses didn't get these ridiculous salaries there'd be no need for so many ads.
I think that's a catch 22. If you where the star of a show making $5000 per episode and found out that each episode was turning a profit of $3,000,000 then you'd probably want a higher salary since your effort is making someone else so much money. Just like with movie actor's salaries if an actor becomes more popular more people come to see their movies and the movies make progressively more money and of course the actor would want a higher salary.
If you could subscribe only to the specific programs that you wanted, and in doing so receive them free of advertising, but pay all costs via your fees, , what would your cost per hour be?
As good as this seems on paper, along with the idea of being able to only subscribe to the channels you want I think the reality of it would suck. I believe that if the revenue model for television had always been a subscription per show or even channel basis then a lot of shows/channels would have never existed. If you look at what shows are popular now then I hope you LOVE reality TV and want to watch all 17 variations of Survivor and American Idol that would come to be. I hope you don't like sci-fi because there wouldn't be enough money in it to make any of those shows. The fact is I (and probably a lot of others) watch a LOT of TV we wouldn't pay specifically for.
If the shoes you bought were subsidized with taxpayer money would you still feel right about it? What if you go get free food from the homeless shelter and then turn around and sell it for profit?
A lot of countries subsidize textbooks so they cost next to nothing for the general public. This guy is profiting off of public good will.
If that's true then the sale of those items should be better controlled. If I walk into a government subsidized bookstore and they let me buy 1000 copies of the same book and walk out the door then there is a problem.
What kinds of devices have we been interacting with for centuries? That's what I'd like to know.
Well, when speaking about haptic and textured feedback I think "devices" was the wrong word, I think he should have said something like "cat".
The internet has nothing to do with this. Also, we are freely available to take nude pictures of ourselves without fear of their public display, unless we ourselves put them in the public arena. Facebook is not the public arena. It is relatively open, and that should be taken into consideration. Posting a picture to a private Facebook account is not the same as posting a picture to a public tumblr account.
True, but the bottom line is you should think hard about who you trust to protect your privacy. You can put nude pictures up on facebook and set the permissions as strictly as you want, but if facebook has a security breach (it happens), then what are you going to do? The ONLY way to keep naked pictures of you off the internet with certainty is not to take them in the first place and by that I don't mean "don't post them on the internet". I mean do not bring those images into existence, if you take digital pictures (or paper ones) and the media they are on is stolen, then you lose control of them and you have no idea where they'll wind up. Basically anything that exists either as data or as a physical object can end up "public". People would be a lot better off if they thought of the internet as having no expectation of privacy.
I mean, what he did wasn't right really...but then again, sending someone away for possibly 105 years, because he took advantage of stupid people acting STUPID? Really?
Geez, if that were the case, all of Wall Street would be locked up....at least, I guess...if what they did involved nudity too I guess.
He's not facing 105 years JUST for what he did, but for HOW MANY TIMES he did it.