Lets backtrack a bit to the MS post when they released the new youtube app.

We’ve released an updated YouTube app for Windows Phone that provides the great experience our consumers expect while addressing the concerns Google expressed in May, including the addition of ads," a Microsoft statement notes. "We appreciate Google’s support in ensuring that Windows Phones customers have a quality YouTube experience and look forward to continuing the collaboration.

Note the parts in bold. MS lied, they didn't address it. So Google saw MS thumbing their nose, went WTF, got pissed off and blocked it .

We're committed to providing users and creators with a great and consistent YouTube experience across devices, and we've been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service.

MS gets slapped with its hand caught in the cookie jar and then admits that its 'new' app did not comply with Google's request that it be in HTML5 :-

For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google long-term on an app based on HTML5.

Note that the new app was pushed out without Google's approval, unlike what they implied. Typical MS arrogance and lies at work. I feel sorry for any Winph8 users caught in the crossfire, but MS does not deserve any sympathy in this matter.

If you read TFA, you will find his claims are contradictory.

First it states the premise:-

To displace incumbents, OTT TV has to continue to change TV business models in ways that appeal to consumers and attract content owners.

So far so good. Then it states the facts relied on to suggest OTT TV doesnt appeal enough to customers :-

In its June 2013 Cross Platform Report, Nielsen reported that the average consumer watched over 157 hours of traditional television per month. Nielsen also reported that the average consumer watched only 3.8 minutes per day of OTT TV or about 2 hours per month. If all 11 original TV series from Amazon and Netflix appealed to the average consumer and he or she watched one hour from each series per week, original OTT television content would amount to 44 hours in an average month. The consumer would be left with 111 hours per month of unsatisfied television viewing appetite without cable or satellite pay TV. OTT TV challengers don’t have the economic scale to create or acquire enough content to replace incumbent pay television providers.

Note the assumptions- It assumes that "average consumers" must watch 157 hours of traditional television every month to be satisfied. The article very carefully never explains why it thinks this is a valid assumption. Do we even have any numbers to show that those who watch 157 hours of traditional television every month are happier with their service than those who watch less?

The irony is that right at the beginning of the article, it admits that

"In May, Variety reported that the American Consumer Satisfaction Index ranked cable television providers last in all consumer categories."

So we do know that customers of cable companies are very unhappy with their cable service. This directly contradicts his assumption that"average consumers" must watch 157 hours of traditional television every month to be satisfied, since on average they are obviously unhappy even after watching that much.

This is a badly written article trolling for hits.

And this is precisely what cable companies are banking on to hold their customers hostage. It all boils down to personal choice. Money vs. Addiction.

Using your example :-

Must you watch only the Rachel Maddow Show, or are you willing to accept a substitute, perhaps with a similar format ?

Must you watch it live, or are you willing to put up with the inconvenience of delayed telecasts and/or clicking?

Must you watch those specific ice hockey games?

The cable companies have ensured (through exclusivity agreements etc) that if you answer yes to any of the above, you will have to pay a premium to them to scratch your itch. That is their business model. And if you choose to pay them, that is fine. What I am pointing out is that consumers do have choices. Given the way the fees/premium have been rising over the years, it appears that more and more people are answering "no".

Maybe in the US, but worldwide is a different matter. Governments could easily force the issue by forbidding the use of US cloud companies, especially for their companies that deal with issues of defence and national security.

Lest you think its farfetched, China already bans the use of Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and FourSquare in China. Local alternatives such as Sina, Tencent, qq etc. took their places fairly quickly. After PRISM, more governments may follow suit.

Obvious flamebait post. The Boy Scout issue carries overtones of social stigma/acceptance and deals with human beings. OTOH not being able to race your horse will cause loss of opportunity to make money. Hardly the same.

And I don't really see what's wrong with that. It's their race, shouldn't they be allowed to set the rules?

To cite another example, it is well known that cars that race in F1 championships have to comply with technical regulations such as their size and dimensions etc. Can an upstart car company demand to be allowed to race with a car that doesn't meet those rules?

A hilarious post, yet wholly appropriate. Props to you.

Bitcoin's weakness has always been the desire of its holders to, at some point, convert Bitcoin to fiat currency such as USD and so long as this remains true, governments will always have some measure of control.

Insofar as the Streisand effect is concerned, this will draw more people's attention to Bitcoin yes, but it does not mean the actual usage of Bitcoin will increase. In the same way, people may consume newspaper reports on serial killers en masse, but this will not lead to an increase of serial killings in the future.

Salient facts from TFA :-

Two Texas breeders, rancher Jason Abraham and veterinarian Gregg Veneklasen, sued the American Quarter Horse Association last year, asserting the group was operating a monopoly by excluding clones. No other horse breeding registry allows cloned animals.

The quarter horse association issues and maintains a pedigree registry of American quarter horses... stated in court that it is a private organization and has the right to decide its membership rules.

What is more compelling is the statement from AQHA after the verdict :-

When individuals with shared interests, goals and values come together to form a voluntary association to serve a common purpose, the members have a right to determine the rules for their association. The wisdom of our membership – which is largely not in favor of the registration of clones and their offspring – has not been upheld by this verdict.

Seriously, now. If you don't like the rules of a voluntary association, work from within to change the rules. Or talk to them, negotiate to get them to accept you. Or leave, and form your own association with the rules you like. Going to court to force others to put up with you is so wrong.

And yes, I dont't see where is the monopoly. The plaintiffs can still whatever they want with their cloned horses, breed them, sell them, race them etc. They just can't be registered with the AQHA.

Your argument is that the NYC stops were unlawful, and you provided the background/context. In that case, I agree with you! You seem to have misunderstood the point I was making, however.

I was responding to parent post, who said :-

When 87% of the people stopped and frisked are young Black or Hispanic males would suggest that these two groups were singled out and that may be illegal.

Unlike you, the parent post provided no links, no references, no attributions, no context. He was simply quoting the raw numbers, and relying on the raw numbers to draw assumptions. That was my 'beef', if you will. To repeat, my response to the parent post was that "What I'm saying is that looking at pure percentages is deceptive if we don't take into account the context in which that figure was calculated or arrived at. "

If you feel so strongly about it, I think it is even more important for you to stay and make yourself heard. Fight their impassioned hyperbole with calm logic. Confront their FUD with links, facts and figures. Skewer their fallacies with reasoned arguments.

I have no illusions that you will ever win over these trolls to your point of view. However, there is a chance that the silent majority who read but do not post might be swayed enough not to fall for their false teachings.

While I agree with you that we should not assume that all members of a minority race are criminals, on your part it is unfair to assume that "cops are generally too stupid to carry this out fairly and will just fall back on their own racist ideas".

You should apply the Golden Rule -treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

Lets not talk about how _you_ define racism and look at how it is defined in dictionaries.

Like in the Oxford Disctionary.

racism
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

Or Dictionary.com

racism
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Racism is fundamentally a belief. As in you believe that (insert race of choice) is fundamentally superior to (lesser race). It is therefore racism to suggest that members of a particular race are more likely to be criminals purely on the basis of their race.

And I think the Judge was right. If you read the Judgment, your argument is the same one the NYC police made.

Right at the start, the Judge said that even if racial profiling is effective at combating crime, being unconstitutional it cannot be used :-

I emphasize at the outset, as I have throughout the litigation, that this case is not about the effectiveness of stop and frisk in deterring or combating crime. This Court’s mandate is solely to judge the constitutionality of police behavior, not its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool. Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example — but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective.

The Judge also found as a fact that the stops were not effective. The uncontested facts are :-

Between January 2004 and June 2012, the NYPD conducted over 4.4 million Terry stops.

In 98.5% of the 2.3 million stops where frisks for weapons were conducted, no weapon was found.

88% of the 4.4 million stops resulted in no further law enforcement action.

In 52% of the 4.4 million stops, the person stopped was black, in 31% the person was Hispanic, and in 10% the person was white. In 2010, New York City’s resident population was roughly 23% black, 29% Hispanic, and 33% white.

Weapons were seized in 1.0% of the stops of blacks, 1.1% of the stops of Hispanics, and 1.4% of the stops of whites.

Contraband other than weapons was seized in 1.8% of the stops of blacks, 1.7% of the stops of Hispanics, and 2.3% of the stops of whites.

The key point to note is that although whites were stopped with much less frequency than blacks or Hispanics, the percentage of them found to be carrying weapons or contraband were higher compared to blacks or Hispanics. So you can't even make the argument that black or Hispanics ought to be stopped more than whites because they were more likely to carry weapons or contraband, because this is untrue.

The Judge also disagreed that it was fair to look at crime rates :-

The City and its highest officials believe that blacks and Hispanics should be stopped at the same rate as their proportion of the local criminal suspect population. But this reasoning is flawed because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent — not criminal. There is no basis for assuming that an innocent population shares the same characteristics as the criminal suspect population in the same area.

To put it in simple terms, if you happen to be black or Hispanic and have been clean all your life, you wouldn't like it if you were stopped simply because you are black or Hispanic.

My gut reaction was originally the same as you, but having read the judgment in more detail I cannot say that the decision was wrong or unjust. I hope Bloomberg will at least read the same judgment.

Relying on raw numbers like that to draw assumptions is dangerous and may mistake the cause for the effect. You can get the same numbers from completely innnocent events- one example I can think of is if there was a crime wave in a particular area which the police are focusing on quelling. The police may, acting in good faith treat everyone in that area the same regardless of race but that area just so happens to be predominantly populated by Blacks and Hispanics. In those circumstances it would not be surprising if a larger number of the arrestees slant towards Blacks and Hispanics.

What I'm saying is that looking at pure percentages is deceptive if we don't take into account the context in which that figure was calculated or arrived at.