The city is looking into alternatives. Recent SCotUS arguments hint that there is a leaning to declare laws similar to the one in Chicago unconstitutional.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
You forgot about Trade Dress.
An Interview With Vinton Cerf: Father Knows Best
Microsoft said they would provide a download fix "in time for the consumer release of Windows Vista", but they haven't!
How can consumers use existing programs on the new Vista if their help files don't work?
How can software publishers help their customers if Microsoft prohibits them from distributing the old help system and provides no alternative?"
From the article:
I'm not sure how I feel about this one. Wogically, I know that competition is a good thing for consumers, and monopolies are generally only good for companies. Still, something in my gut tells me that a merger between these two companies would benefit the consumer. I don't like having to choose a car based on which satellite radio service comes preinstalled, or considering whether I'd rather have Howard Stern or Oprah, because there is no practical way to get both. Frankly, it's probably all this exclusivity that has caused me not to purchase either system."Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin told reporters after an FCC meeting that the Commission would not approve a merger between satellite radio rivals Sirius and XM Radio.
Even if the FCC were to have a change of heart and green-light a merger between Sirius and XM Radio, it would still have to pass antitrust scrutiny by the Department of Justice. Although a combination of the two radio companies wouldn't have the same effect that it would in the TV market, where satellite is the only alternative for some US residents, it would still have the effect of eliminating competition — something that rarely benefits consumers.
A while back, I posted that the choice is 50-50 to either keep the original prize door, or swap with the unopened door, and *nobody* bothered to jump in.
The correct choice is to always switch. The real problem is that when people try to explain their solution, they make it overly complex (or they used it as an intro to push their particular brand of "enlighenment"). A simple "truth table" suffices.