So.......we just had an article on Slashdot that showed there are more jobs in America now, at the end of the Obama administration, than there ever have been in the entire history of the US. More people working.
First, I'm not about to claim that Trump is going to improve anything for the common man. Having a populist revolt that emplaces a Billionare cabinet...
Yes, Obama got more people to work than anyone else ever. However, middle-class well-being has not correspondingly increased (meaning wages aren't great for a lot of those jobs) and the disparity between the most rich and everyone else has become much larger.
I haven't researched AI job reduction, but I think we could be no more than two decades away from the point where much menial labor is robotic and where professional drivers are for the most part replaced with machines.
Both Brexit and Trump can be seen as the final stage of neoliberal economics: it ends in a populist revolt.
It's not as if labor is just now facing the threat of automation. But nobody in the US - not the unions, not the companies, not the government - is solving the education gap that might help future workers.
MoCo could have paid as little as $1 for the license, along with an agreement to return profits, and that would be fair value. There's no question that the profits were returned.
However, there was never any possibility that any other entity would have been offered the license regardless of what they offered, and IMO had they considered that transaction based on the amount returned rather than achieving their purpose of a free internet, they would have disqualified themselves as a 501(c)3.
Fogle was a company spokesperson, who got fired before the trial started because whether or not he had actually committed any crime, the appearance of his behavior made him unsuitable as a spokesperson.
Was Eich similarly a company spokesperson? You need only look at Mozilla's press releases. He's quoted in them while he's CTO, and if you go on Youtube, you can see that he makes a number of conference keynotes representing the Foundation. Once he's CEO, he writes this piece on inclusiveness which is linked to in this Mozilla Foundation press release. So, there's Eich representing the Mozilla brand on exactly the issue they already know he has a problem with. He doesn't get a chance to represent the foundation again, as they know they have a problem.
Pricing their video service over cellular implies that the cost of the cellular hop is zero, and that the expense of transmitting the video to the viewer is all in the Internet link. Since their own video service is hosted locally, there is no Internet bandwidth consumed, and thus the price should be zero (which was what Netflix offered these guys for free on their landline ISP service and they turned it down). For a market economy to function properly, the minimum pricing has to reflect the expense incurred by the seller.
I can understand zero rating as a temporary promotional measure (e.g. streamed video doesn't count against your cap for the first 6 months if you use our service). But making it the standard price is equivalent to dumping to try to kill off competition. Especially if they're using revenue from other sources to subsidize this service, like say, extra money they're collecting from Netflix in contravention of Net Neutrality.
You got that right. It also implies that there is a load of bandwidth available to use. So, wait a sec.. If there's a load to use, why do you place a high value on it because of its limitation? Then, why do you encourage people to use it for something that limits it further and then say there isn't a a problem with limitation? Stupid circle.
"AT&T said exempting services like DirecTV Now from data caps saves customers money. "
No, it doesn't. Wireless network costs are shifted onto consumers who don't buy their streaming services. If all the costs of streaming bandwidth are included in the price of the streaming service, then reduce the cost of that service and let the consumers pay for the bandwidth directly, just like customers who use competitive streaming services.
My reply to them: "Yeah.. Why don't you reduce my data cap and save me, as a customer, money."
You're right, that makes NO sense.
Ethically/morally/etc it's one thing. It gets a bit trickier. When you offer a service like that, it also pushes more traffic onto the network, which affects other users of said network.
Personally, I think it's interesting that the FCC is calling out a company early (though this would have to be fought outside the FCC in the end). If I'm paying for bandwidth that isn't throttled and don't abuse it, it seems a bit lopsided that my bandwidth gets throttled by the heavy usage of others that were encouraged to use the LTE network for a service that eats a lot (especially the more users are using). Basically, it's throttling without throttling.
In terms of what I think is a better idea, that's not something I can technically address without impeding on the morals of others. From a technical standpoint, it's dumb, and I don't want to be pigeonholed by dumb. I might be going overboard, but if there will be lots of video eating up available short-bursts fast bandwidth, I don't want to be paying for it. Lower my cost or fix the technical dilemma. Just an opinion, and I know that doesn't matter.
If you're going to go all pedantic on me, let's talk about that little difference between history and prehistory of which you appear to be blissfully unaware.
After living overseas for 15+ years, I've found I can no longer eat American chocolate--it's about 3x as sweet as chocolate made anywhere else. It's like trying to drink a cup of coffee with about 6 spoons of sugar in it. Gross.
So, which is it--
You're saying that the Mayas and the Aztecs weren't human?
Or are you saying that the last 3,000 years or so does not count as a significant portion of human history?
Did Mozilla Foundation get fair market value for licensing it trademarks to Mozilla Corporation, a how was this valuation arrived at?
Mozilla Foundation, as a 501(c)3 non-profit, would not base their decisions solely on valuation or profit, nor would they be required to, and indeed they could get in trouble with the IRS if they did. The decision to license to their own operating corporation was so that they could achieve the purposes in their constitution, which have to do with net freedom.
Don't like my answers? Do your own research.
Off the top of your head, can you name the CEOs of Coca Cola
The CEO of Coke has not become as well known as Elon Musk, but I went on their web site and clicked on press releases, and he's generally quoted in the releases that discuss any significant financial event in the business. They have "brand ambassadors" for lesser things, but the CEO is definitely representing the brand, and particularly when the brand is marketed to stockholders and investors.
You will find similar things about the CEOs of the other companies you mentioned.
Your values seem to be: "Free speech is only permitted when it doesn't hurt my feelings."
No. You're simply not recognizing that our actions can be free speech as well. When we do our very best to cut off all associations with a person, and to deplore their speech and actions, that is our free speech.
A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.