Someone who doesn't listen directly to a conference call, but instead reads a transcript released by the company after the event doesn't have the information as soon as other people, but the SEC doesn't consider that "unfair", even though there are often limitations on who can particpate in those conference calls. There is no barrier that limits someone from "liking" a company on Facebook, so the information is just as "public" as any other release of information. If the SEC doesn't realize this, then they are going to have some serious challenges to the ancient ways they regulate public companies.
Ding, ding -- this is a perfect summary of the whole thing. I am not sure if the SEC is just clueless, incompetent and bureaucratically enforcing reg FD or if they are trying to maintain the advantage that professional investors have in the actual implementation of the reg. Either way, the whole thing is bizarre.
I can't help thinking that more people would buy a $700 tablet for $99 than would have just brought it for $99
That is a really good point. I think a certain amount of the frenzy for the TouchPad was the fact that people felt like they were getting a deal.
For twilight I think it is banned (partially) due to religious groups.
You are correct that religious groups do stupid shit like this. Speaking as an (individual) religious person though, I would say that if my kid(s) couldn't tell the fucking difference between a vampire and God, I would have to conclude the problem is more on how I've raised them than due to the existence of vampire fiction.
The rest is still unlimited.
That is true, but for how long? This move strikes me as a precursor to smartphone caps. After all, where will you go if you don't like it?
The upshot is that millions of lower income families are going to get internet -- that's a Good Thing(TM).
In my experience, these kind of things never amount to anything though. Comcast will make it hard to find out about, difficult to sign up for and onerous to stay eligible.
Whenever they can gracefully exit from the program (likely defined by whatever agreement they made) they will issue a press release trumpeting how the program wasn't really popular (of course, by design) and how existing customers will be transitioned to another tier of service, which, itself, is really a fantastic value.
Ugh, I can already see the fucking smarmy press release in my mind.
His viewpoint is basically "if you're not breaking the law, what do you have to worry about?"
People who say this always seem to forget that, one day, there might be laws that are well worth breaking; that in order to keep your humanity, you will have to break.
Just to rifle through the last few months of news: what if you were Libyan under Gaddafi or Egyptian under Mubarak? I would be glad, were I in that situation, not to have a fucking device in my car reporting my whereabouts in a governmentally accessible manner.
I think the whole idea of protecting rights is to do so for the future, not necessarily for the present.
But I have a hard time imagining Hulu or Netflix rolling out an HTML5 UI anytime soon.
Discrete Windows/iOS/Android apps for anything requiring DRM and HTML5 video in browser for everything else?
Truth is free, but information costs.