Hey, Bubbble, maybe let me know what you disagree with exactly...
I disagree that it’s ambiguous, but I’m glad to see you arguing for shades of gray....there's some ambiguity there...
I'm not arguing for shades of grey, i'm arguing about language and clarifications. And i'm also not saying you're right, but that i understand the reasons behind why you're wrong.I disagree that it’s ambiguous, but I’m glad to see you arguing for shades of gray.
I really would appreciate an English lesson that shows it can be understood differently using standard English. I suggest you start with a sentence diagram.
I assumed you did that already when you "paraphrased" his post.Alternately I guess we could ask him for clarification.
Yes, many of the Internet’s tech sites have started reporting on all of the fresh, new limits being imposed on everyone’s so-called “Unlimited*” plans, and on how much everyone decided to raise their convenience/access/administrative fees immediately after going before Congress and saying how consolidation would allow them to bring lower prices to the consumer.
...because when I think "fake news," I of course think of Obama.Pai blamed the spreading of false information on employees hired by the Obama administration and said that he isn't to blame because he "inherited... a culture" from "the prior Administration" that led to the spreading of false information.
True. The cry of "Fake news!" is an attempt by the speaker to discredit/downplay an assertion the speaker does not like. It is not for when the speaker spreads his/her own invented/false information.His propaganda was very artfully crafted, that's for sure, but I don't know that you could ever consider it 'fake news'.
Damn Obama, 1st he didn't do anything 7 years before he was in office to stop 9/11, and then he was misleading regulators a year after he left office... devious.
Which is like saying that the ability to install solar panels is competition for an electric company.I don't know if it's mentioned in the article, but since satellite Internet is technically "available" everywhere, it's still "competition" because there are always at least two providers so long as that area also has some form of phone service (even if it's just competition between 768kb and 1Mb).
Because they honestly believe that they have a moral obligation to make as much money for the shareholders as possible?You know, they could just choke things a little bit, and raise prices a little bit, and people would grumble but they would still pay. But no, they’re going to try and maximize profits “to make those durned shareholders happy!” And then people will complain, the government will get involved, and then we’ll just have the “baby Bells” thing all over again, and it’s gonna suck.
Why can’t one of ‘em just start taking pride in what they do, and do such a good job of it that customers won’t be able to sign up fast enough? Whyyyyyyy?
Ok, NOW it’s more accurate.Because they honestly believe that they have a
moralobligation to make as much money for the shareholders as possible?
I was specifically referring to the pharma CEO who said, out loud, with his mouth, that he had a moral obligation to raise the prices of his company's medications in order to reward his shareholders. I mean... I can't help it if they're dumb enough to say it out loud.Ok, NOW it’s more accurate.
So much of companies’ shares are held by institutions now, and saying “shareholders” really should be “the 8 fund managers who hold 40% or more of our outstanding stock through various funds.”
So what you end up with is a board of directors that doesn’t get to make any of its own decisions because “the shareholders” literally own them, and any decisions the board does make are ones made with the understanding that they could be axed at any moment if they make “the shareholders” unhappy.
What I’m saying is, even if a company has several million shares outstanding, if they’re only split across 3 shareholders, then the whims of those 3 people disproportionately affect the direction that company takes, the policies they set, etc.
Ah yes, that's right. I had forgotten about that.I was specifically referring to the pharma CEO who said, out loud, with his mouth, that he had a moral obligation to raise the prices of his company's medications in order to reward his shareholders. I mean... I can't help it if they're dumb enough to say it out loud.
Well THAT’S a switch.The FCC is now calling text messaging an information service now, as well. Seems like telcos are really pushing to not technically be telcos anymore.