money.cnn.com/2014/02/12/investing/comcast-time-warner-cable/
Comcast on Thursday will announce its intent to acquire Time Warner Cable in a $45 billion deal that will combine the two biggest cable companies in the United States.
Comcast (CCV) has agreed to pay $158.82 per share of Time Warner Cable (TWC, Fortune 500) stock, according to two people with direct knowledge of the transaction who insisted on anonymity because the deal will not be publicly announced until Thursday morning.
The two companies expect the merger to receive government approval and take effect by the end of the year, but regulators are likely to take a close look at the potential impact on consumers. Through the consolidation of Time Warner Cable, Comcast would be the dominant provider of television channels and Internet connections in roughly one in three American homes, a total unmatched by any other distributor.
The terms of the deal were first reported on Wednesday night by CNBC.
The impending deal ends months of jockeying for control of Time Warner Cable, which is the country's second biggest supplier of cable television service, with about 12 million subscribers in markets like New York City and Los Angeles. Charter (CHTR, Fortune 500), a smaller cable company, had been attempting a takeover of the company, but had been rebuffed by Time Warner Cable's board and chief executive.
In mid-January, when Charter indicated that it would offer about $130 per share, Time Warner Cable called the price "grossly inadequate" and countered with a suggestion of $160 per share, very close to what Comcast ultimately offered. Comcast had cast a shadow over the negotiations, and had reportedly held talks with Charter about how to potentially divvy up Time Warner Cable's territories.
By swallowing up Time Warner Cable on its own, Comcast will gain even more leverage over the country's marketplace for television, broadband Internet and phone services. Comcast already has about 23 million television subscribers in markets like Philadelphia, where it is headquartered.
With the addition of millions of Time Warner Cable subscribers, Comcast will have even more muscle in its negotiations with cable channel owners like The Walt Disney Company (DIS, Fortune 500) and Time Warner (TWC, Fortune 500), the parent company of this website. (Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner in 2009 and no longer has any connection to the owner of CNN, HBO and Warner Bros.)
Although cable providers in general have poor reputations, Comcast has received some high marks for its next-generation software and set-top boxes.
Time Warner Cable, on the other hand, has what the American Customer Satisfaction Index called an "industry low" score last spring. It has shed television subscribers in recent months for a number of reasons, including a protracted blackout of CBS and Showtime in several million homes. Comcast could theoretically improve Time Warner Cable's performance by bringing in its own software.
Hey, whatever will bring down my cable bill is good in my book.
This will certainly do that, right?
Wrong! They had an article on this in JS. It's going to drive prices up.
The key to cable/internet is to get you locked-in and then force price increases throughout. This is not good....rates will go up.
I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.
Prior to satellite TV, I'm not sure how cable TV wasn't considered a regional monopoly.
Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on February 13, 2014, 08:42:18 AM
Wrong! They had an article on this in JS. It's going to drive prices up.
The key to cable/internet is to get you locked-in and then force price increases throughout. This is not good....rates will go up.
Rates go up because of programming costs. As I stated here the last few months, consolidation is coming...here's just the start of it. In one way, it is an attempt to get programming costs under control. A distributor with 30 million customers has a lot more clout in which to tell Disney, Fox, Viacom, CBS, etc to go pound sand. This is why you will see more consolidation because scale is key. Others will need to get bigger to have the same leverage over those that drive the costs...the content creators.
so when is DirecTV getting sold to DISH?
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on February 13, 2014, 10:04:15 AM
so when is DirecTV getting sold to DISH?
It would be the other way around. I don't think the gov't will allow it, because that TRULY takes away competition, not like this TWC Comcast deal. That being said, you never know. :)
I think you will see Charter and someone merge. Cablevision may merge. Perhaps an AT&T and a satellite could merge because the competitive impact is much smaller, only a few million whereas a Dish and Directv merger would impact 15 million.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 09:54:31 AM
Rates go up because of programming costs. As I stated here the last few months, consolidation is coming...here's just the start of it. In one way, it is an attempt to get programming costs under control. A distributor with 30 million customers has a lot more clout in which to tell Disney, Fox, Viacom, CBS, etc to go pound sand. This is why you will see more consolidation because scale is key. Others will need to get bigger to have the same leverage over those that drive the costs...the content creators.
Dumb question, maybe: instead of building up huge cable conglomerates that can have "clout" to tell the content companies what they're willing to pay.. why not just have lots of smaller companies all agree to tell the content companies to go pound sand?
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 13, 2014, 10:50:13 AM
Dumb question, maybe: instead of building up huge cable conglomerates that can have "clout" to tell the content companies what they're willing to pay.. why not just have lots of smaller companies all agree to tell the content companies to go pound sand?
Simplest answer....Collusion. It's against the law. Time Warner or Comcast or even a small cable company can't get together and say "let's team up against Disney and tell them to take a hike". It's against the law.
Plus, the content providers aren't dumb, they stagger their contracts so one ends with TWC in 2013, same deal for DIRECTV is 2014, the DISH deal in 2015, etc, etc. That artificially protects them because of TWC tells Disney to pound sand in 2013, their customers that want ESPN no matter what, will leave TWC and go to the next guy.
The power is held by the content creators. Plain and simple. This is why Google, Apple, Intel, etc have all failed miserably to create a service that was going to "break the model". Disney, Viacom, etc, etc. have no interest in doing that...in my opinion. Great article today on how Apple has basically thrown in the towel (just as Intel did a few months ago) and Apple is now talking about partnering with cable \ satellite rather than trying to do deals with the content providers directly because they can't get it done.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 09:54:31 AM
Rates go up because of programming costs. As I stated here the last few months, consolidation is coming...here's just the start of it. In one way, it is an attempt to get programming costs under control. A distributor with 30 million customers has a lot more clout in which to tell Disney, Fox, Viacom, CBS, etc to go pound sand. This is why you will see more consolidation because scale is key. Others will need to get bigger to have the same leverage over those that drive the costs...the content creators.
All of this will drive innovation to allow users the flexibility to pick and choose what they want. I know that is not viable yet, but anytime you have close to oligopolies controlling a market, innovation takes over. Look at Microsoft. They got fat and happy owning the server and the desktop, and mobile computing and tablets are making them more irrelevant by the month.
Quote from: mu-rara on February 13, 2014, 11:04:42 AM
All of this will drive innovation to allow users the flexibility to pick and choose what they want. I know that is not viable yet, but anytime you have close to oligopolies controlling a market, innovation takes over. Look at Microsoft. They got fat and happy owning the server and the desktop, and mobile computing and tablets are making them more irrelevant by the month.
You still need the content to watch, right? Don't get stuck on the delivery mechanism, it is the CONTENT that people want to watch, devices are becoming less relevant. He who controls the CONTENT controls the PRICING controls the system.
Innovation has actually been fantastic the last 20 years, thanks to satellite mostly. Cable was sitting on their butts for decades with no competition. Then a better product came along, and suddenly they had to get their act together. Now consumption on PCs, tablets, HD offers, 4K on the way, etc, etc. All that innovation.....but at the end of the day you need a picture to watch on tablet, that smart phone, that PC, that 4K tv. You're not staring at a black screen. He who creates that picture content is in control. Whether you get it via broadband, satellite, cable, fiber optics, they are going to get theirs one way or the other.
Cable may not even exist in 10 years, satellite might be dead....but the programmers will be making their billions from whatever source you are consuming their product and you will pay in some fashion for that content.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 10:59:44 AM
Simplest answer....Collusion. It's against the law. Time Warner or Comcast or even a small cable company can't get together and say "let's team up against Disney and tell them to take a hike". It's against the law.
Plus, the content providers aren't dumb, they stagger their contracts so one ends with TWC in 2013, same deal for DIRECTV is 2014, the DISH deal in 2015, etc, etc. That artificially protects them because of TWC tells Disney to pound sand in 2013, their customers that want ESPN no matter what, will leave TWC and go to the next guy.
The power is held by the content creators. Plain and simple. This is why Google, Apple, Intel, etc have all failed miserably to create a service that was going to "break the model". Disney, Viacom, etc, etc. have no interest in doing that...in my opinion. Great article today on how Apple has basically thrown in the towel (just as Intel did a few months ago) and Apple is now talking about partnering with cable \ satellite rather than trying to do deals with the content providers directly because they can't get it done.
I'm just guessing, but it probably helps that content creators hold a lot of sway over lawmakers. Gov't comes down on collusion quickly d/t pushes from the content companies. Meanwhile, cries of monopolies from consumers go unheard d/t distributors having more sway than consumers. Convenient little system.
Quite frankly, it's all sickening. And it's all a bad, bad joke.
It's too bad that there is not competition BETWEEN cable companies on a local level. I would bet that prices would be more competitive if a household could get bids from both TW and Comcast. Similar to how phone companies can compete for business with individual households.
I understand that satellite competes with cable. Trouble is, many households cant get satellite....apartments, Sr. living complexes, etc.
Quote from: real chili 83 on February 13, 2014, 12:08:26 PM
It's too bad that there is not competition BETWEEN cable companies on a local level. I would bet that prices would be more competitive if a household could get bids from both TW and Comcast. Similar to how phone companies can compete for business with individual households.
I understand that satellite competes with cable. Trouble is, many households cant get satellite....apartments, Sr. living complexes, etc.
About 90% of people in this country can get satellite.
As explained above, there is a reason why cable is a monopoly in a territory. Buildout costs are massive.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 13, 2014, 11:13:43 AM
I'm just guessing, but it probably helps that content creators hold a lot of sway over lawmakers. Gov't comes down on collusion quickly d/t pushes from the content companies. Meanwhile, cries of monopolies from consumers go unheard d/t distributors having more sway than consumers. Convenient little system.
Quite frankly, it's all sickening. And it's all a bad, bad joke.
You can say that about lawmakers in many regards. We have lawmakers punishing tobacco companies because they cause health issues for Americans, yet lawmakers (same ones sometimes) pushing legalization of marijuana which causes MORE lung damage than cigarette smoking. One of just 1000's of examples.
Our gov't has been bought and paid for many centuries.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 12:22:15 PM
You can say that about lawmakers in many regards. We have lawmakers punishing tobacco companies because they cause health issues for Americans, yet lawmakers (same ones sometimes) pushing legalization of marijuana which causes MORE lung damage than cigarette smoking. One of just 1000's of examples.
Our gov't has been bought and paid for many centuries.
When I was a smoker I smoked about a pack and a half a day. That's 210 cigarettes a week, and I knew lots of people who smoked much more than I did. If you're saying smoking 210 joints a week is worse for you than smoking 210 cigarettes I wouldn't be surprised - but of course no one could smoke that much marijuana. What ratio are you using in your assertion that it causes MORE lung damage?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 13, 2014, 12:46:13 PM
When I was a smoker I smoked about a pack and a half a day. That's 210 cigarettes a week, and I knew lots of people who smoked much more than I did. If you're saying smoking 210 joints a week is worse for you than smoking 210 cigarettes I wouldn't be surprised - but of course no one could smoke that much marijuana. What ratio are you using in your assertion that it causes MORE lung damage?
All depends what study you want to use. The pro-pot people will point to studies that say damage is less than smoking. Other studies show something different. It contains about 20X more ammoniam 5X more hydro cyanide and nitrogen oxide (lung damage concern) than tobacco smoke.
Of course, we don't have decades of pot smokers of data so a lot of this won't be known for a long time. In the meantime, the Pols will go for the money grab....as they always do. I just find the irony in their push to end one product to smoke due to "public health benefit" and yet no qualms over another one that has plenty of public health issues...to the brain, lungs, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 11:09:07 AM
You still need the content to watch, right? Don't get stuck on the delivery mechanism, it is the CONTENT that people want to watch, devices are becoming less relevant. He who controls the CONTENT controls the PRICING controls the system.
Innovation has actually been fantastic the last 20 years, thanks to satellite mostly. Cable was sitting on their butts for decades with no competition. Then a better product came along, and suddenly they had to get their act together. Now consumption on PCs, tablets, HD offers, 4K on the way, etc, etc. All that innovation.....but at the end of the day you need a picture to watch on tablet, that smart phone, that PC, that 4K tv. You're not staring at a black screen. He who creates that picture content is in control. Whether you get it via broadband, satellite, cable, fiber optics, they are going to get theirs one way or the other.
Cable may not even exist in 10 years, satellite might be dead....but the programmers will be making their billions from whatever source you are consuming their product and you will pay in some fashion for that content.
I think this is the point where we totally agree.
But, most people will pay for quality content - whether it be sports, movies, series, etc. But what people complaint about is that they are forced to pay for terrible content to get the content that they want. This is what will go to the wayside in the coming years.
If I open a crappy restaurant, the people going to a quality place should not have to pay a surcharge to keep my place open. And that is what we do with cable. Nobody should have to pay extra for channels that can't support themselves.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 01:00:16 PM
All depends what study you want to use. The pro-pot people will point to studies that say damage is less than smoking. Other studies show something different. It contains about 20X more ammoniam 5X more hydro cyanide and nitrogen oxide (lung damage concern) than tobacco smoke.
Of course, we don't have decades of pot smokers of data so a lot of this won't be known for a long time. In the meantime, the Pols will go for the money grab....as they always do. I just find the irony in their push to end one product to smoke due to "public health benefit" and yet no qualms over another one that has plenty of public health issues...to the brain, lungs, etc.
I did a simple Google search and nothing I could find suggested as much lung damage from pot let alone more. Studies even suggest that moderate pot smoking can increase lung function. Could you please link a study that cites marijuana as being more harmful to a person's lungs than cigarettes? Thanks.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 13, 2014, 01:10:50 PM
I did a simple Google search and nothing I could find suggested as much lung damage from pot let alone more. Studies even suggest that moderate pot smoking can increase lung function. Could you please link a study that cites marijuana as being more harmful to a person's lungs than cigarettes? Thanks.
I'm happy to help...apparently I'm using a more advanced Google search. ;)
Try
American Lung Association http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/health-effects/marijuana-smoke.html
http://www.swedish.org/about/blog/february-2013/marijuana-smoking-and-the-risk-of-lung-cancer
Drug Free America
New England Journal of Medicine
CDC
Etc
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 01:39:38 PM
I'm happy to help...apparently I'm using a more advanced Google search. ;)
Try
American Lung Association http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/health-effects/marijuana-smoke.html
http://www.swedish.org/about/blog/february-2013/marijuana-smoking-and-the-risk-of-lung-cancer
Drug Free America
New England Journal of Medicine
CDC
Etc
So one study you cite says more "bad stuff" per joint/cigarette, but heavy marijuana smokers ingest 2 or 3 joints a day as compared to cigarette smokers ingesting 20 or 30. The other study says we don't know, nothing conclusive that marijuana causes any damage. Suggesting that marijuana smoking has been proven to be more dangerous to lung health than cigarettes is just wrong.
Not even sure how Chicos turned this into a tobacco/marijuana thread, but the assertion that marijuana causes more lung damage than tobacco per amount smoked is insane. I'm not saying marijuana is good for you, but cigarettes are probably the most unhealthy thing you can do to your body, short of shooting up heroin with used needles you found in a parking lot.
Not to mention there are lots of ways to use marijuana. Putting it in brownies causes no lung damage. Chewing/dipping tobacco still causes cancer of the mouth, gums and throat.
Quote from: brandx on February 13, 2014, 01:05:21 PM
I think this is the point where we totally agree.
But, most people will pay for quality content - whether it be sports, movies, series, etc. But what people complaint about is that they are forced to pay for terrible content to get the content that they want. This is what will go to the wayside in the coming years.
If I open a crappy restaurant, the people going to a quality place should not have to pay a surcharge to keep my place open. And that is what we do with cable. Nobody should have to pay extra for channels that can't support themselves.
That may be the case, but what it means is you will pay A LOT more for that quality content, much more on a per unit basis than you pay today. You can't compare it to another industry because the product isn't made like a salad, a hamburger, a screwdriver, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 02:52:25 PM
That may be the case, but what it means is you will pay A LOT more for that quality content, much more on a per unit basis than you pay today. You can't compare it to another industry because the product isn't made like a salad, a hamburger, a screwdriver, etc.
Which would save me a ton of money cuz the only thing I'd be paying for are certain sports channels.
but Ariel may change the landscape on this too.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 13, 2014, 02:02:49 PM
Not even sure how Chicos turned this into a tobacco/marijuana thread, but the assertion that marijuana causes more lung damage than tobacco per amount smoked is insane. I'm not saying marijuana is good for you, but cigarettes are probably the most unhealthy thing you can do to your body, short of shooting up heroin with used needles you found in a parking lot.
Not to mention there are lots of ways to use marijuana. Putting it in brownies causes no lung damage. Chewing/dipping tobacco still causes cancer of the mouth, gums and throat.
Beat me to it Bleu. Regardless of whether the effects of smoking marijuana is worse for your lungs, the legal argument isn't techincally over the the legalization of the ability to smoke marijuana, it's about making distribution of the substance legal. If you choose to put it in brownies, no lung cancer! I'm not certain of a way to get your nicotine fix without a cancer risk.
Any of y'all actually ever pound sand?
The cable cos. can do as they please as long as wanktube stays free
Is that why your Gregory turns orange while eatin' Doritos?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/comcast-time-warner-merger-customers_n_4780438.html
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 12:18:17 PM
About 90% of people in this country can get satellite.
As explained above, there is a reason why cable is a monopoly in a territory. Buildout costs are massive.
Can't you say the same about phone...buildout costs are massive.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 13, 2014, 05:48:06 PM
Beat me to it Bleu. Regardless of whether the effects of smoking marijuana is worse for your lungs, the legal argument isn't techincally over the the legalization of the ability to smoke marijuana, it's about making distribution of the substance legal. If you choose to put it in brownies, no lung cancer! I'm not certain of a way to get your nicotine fix without a cancer risk.
We'll there's e cigarettes which I have absolutely no issue with as it's nicotine and water, but actual tobacco you are correct it is not safe in any form.
Not to mention the many positives marijuana does bring to many very seriously ill people
Quote from: brandx on February 13, 2014, 05:18:37 PM
Which would save me a ton of money cuz the only thing I'd be paying for are certain sports channels.
but Ariel may change the landscape on this too.
Princes Ariel?
Or Aereo....which is going to lose in the Supreme Court if I had to guess.
In actuality, if you want to keep following Marquette and other sports, you will need to pay through the nose and thus, you won't save a ton of money. But whatever.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 13, 2014, 01:54:06 PM
So one study you cite says more "bad stuff" per joint/cigarette, but heavy marijuana smokers ingest 2 or 3 joints a day as compared to cigarette smokers ingesting 20 or 30. The other study says we don't know, nothing conclusive that marijuana causes any damage. Suggesting that marijuana smoking has been proven to be more dangerous to lung health than cigarettes is just wrong.
I also said, we won't know likely for a few decades, but some studies do suggest it is worse. The point is and remains, these same Pols who can't wait to hammer one, can't wait to endorse the other. Money talks...gov't bought and paid for, just as it is for many things.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 10:31:47 PM
I also said, we won't know likely for a few decades, but some studies do suggest it is worse. The point is and remains, these same Pols who can't wait to hammer one, can't wait to endorse the other. Money talks...gov't bought and paid for, just as it is for many things.
Money does talk.
But who has more money, Philip Morris or the Dead Head with a UV lamp in his attic growing a couple plants?
Who from Big Marijuana is lobbying Washington?
Criminalizing marijuana is bad policy. It's expensive, fills up our prisons, takes away police resources, and costs taxpayers. Decriminalization should be a non partisan no brainer. Over 50% of Americans support it. It's not some lobby group conspiracy
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 13, 2014, 02:02:49 PM
Not even sure how Chicos turned this into a tobacco/marijuana thread, but the assertion that marijuana causes more lung damage than tobacco per amount smoked is insane. I'm not saying marijuana is good for you, but cigarettes are probably the most unhealthy thing you can do to your body, short of shooting up heroin with used needles you found in a parking lot.
Not to mention there are lots of ways to use marijuana. Putting it in brownies causes no lung damage. Chewing/dipping tobacco still causes cancer of the mouth, gums and throat.
More carcinogens in maryjane than in smoking. I realize that a lot of folks are in denial on this because they don't want it to be true.
According to the American Lung Association:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/p403x403/1780738_662022600510145_874004701_n.jpg)
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 13, 2014, 09:04:13 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/13/comcast-time-warner-merger-customers_n_4780438.html
Huffpost said this...I'm SHOCKED. I wonder what DailyKos said.
My head exploded reading the comments section of that Huffpost article. My God, the low information voters are multiplying. The number of comments about people having absolutely no clue is breathtaking.
Quote from: real chili 83 on February 13, 2014, 09:18:00 PM
Can't you say the same about phone...buildout costs are massive.
Mobile or hardline
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 10:30:18 PM
Princes Ariel?
Or Aereo....which is going to lose in the Supreme Court if I had to guess.
In actuality, if you want to keep following Marquette and other sports, you will need to pay through the nose and thus, you won't save a ton of money. But whatever.
Yeah - not the little princess. But it actually looks more promising than I thought. Many of the rulings in Federal courts have gone their way so far. But then it will be a political decision rather than a legal one anyway.
I'm holding out for Clarence to finally say something. I think maybe he's waiting for a case involving Coca Cola before he opens his mouth.
Quote from: brandx on February 13, 2014, 11:32:33 PM
Yeah - not the little princess. But it actually looks more promising than I thought. Many of the rulings in Federal courts have gone their way so far. But then it will be a political decision rather than a legal one anyway.
I'm holding out for Clarence to finally say something. I think maybe he's waiting for a case involving Coca Cola before he opens his mouth.
Clarence says plenty, with his votes.
I'll bet if the ruling goes your way, it was the "right decision"..the "legal decision" and if it goes against you, well it's a "political decision". ::)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 11:42:30 PM
Clarence says plenty, with his votes.
I'll bet if the ruling goes your way, it was the "right decision"..the "legal decision" and if it goes against you, well it's a "political decision". ::)
I really don't know what way it will go and I probably wouldn't use it anyway - for now. But if people are able to get local channels free, a lot might leave cable, which may force some re-thinking on their end. That is the benefit that I see, but I really have no sense of which way it is gonna go. Victories in lower courts don't necessarily foretell a high court decision.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 10:45:56 PM
More carcinogens in maryjane than in smoking. I realize that a lot of folks are in denial on this because they don't want it to be true.
According to the American Lung Association:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/p403x403/1780738_662022600510145_874004701_n.jpg)
Again, you don't have to smoke it
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/02/comcast-allowing-us-get-immensely
It's all about control.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 13, 2014, 11:42:30 PM
Clarence says plenty, with his votes.
I'll bet if the ruling goes your way, it was the "right decision"..the "legal decision" and if it goes against you, well it's a "political decision". ::)
Letter to Chicago
At Aereo, our first priority is to provide consumers with the highest quality technology and user experience possible. Earlier this month, we embarked on our beta test in Chicago and encountered issues with our beta site. As a result, we have delayed our launch in Chicago.
We know you've been disappointed about the delay. We're disappointed too. We are working our fastest to find a solution that works. And, until we've found the right solution, we ask for your patience.
Please continue to follow us on this blog, on Twitter and Facebook for updates and a revised launch date. Thanks Chicagoland for your continued interest and support!
The Team at Aereo
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 13, 2014, 11:58:52 PM
Again, you don't have to smoke it
So I'm sure then that the Pols wanting to legalize it will say smoking it will be illegal, writing that in the legislation the craft. Aferall, it's about public health and safety. ::)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 08:44:01 AM
So I'm sure then that the Pols wanting to legalize it will say smoking it will be illegal, writing that in the legislation the craft. Aferall, it's about public health and safety. ::)
Not at all. I agree with you that Pols want the money grab, as per usual. I'm just saying you don't have to smoke it to get use it.
Quote from: brandx on February 13, 2014, 11:49:56 PM
I really don't know what way it will go and I probably wouldn't use it anyway - for now. But if people are able to get local channels free, a lot might leave cable, which may force some re-thinking on their end. That is the benefit that I see, but I really have no sense of which way it is gonna go. Victories in lower courts don't necessarily foretell a high court decision.
There are many benefits to it. I wish we would buy Aereo. Quite frankly, if they win their case, they will be bought. Why is it that DISH, Directv, Comcast, etc have to pay NBC, Fox, CBS, ABC for those channels for which people can get them for FREE if they have an off air antenna? Not only have to pay for them, but what used to be about $0.03 per channel is now well over a dollar per channel, meaning that in every market customers are getting hit for $4 to $5 on their bill for local channels (except those small DMAs that have less than 4 broadcast networks).
Again, how did this happen? Those that create the content made it happen. The ad market tanked, and so they needed revenue elsewhere so they said if you want to carry CBS, you are going to pay 500%, 600%, sometimes 700% more than you used to. Don't like, pound sand.
They have the control. If Aereo succeeds, you may see some of them pull out of the broadcast sphere, because they will lose too much money. They'll go purely cable. Or, that 8 minutes of commercials per 30 minutes (it used to be 5 minutes way way back), will become 9 minutes, then 10 minutes. They will get their revenue some way.
who smokes joints anymore? vaporizer!!!! it helps dramatically lower carcinogens.
Not to mention there are bake shops where you can get pretty much any food item with it in there. Its a Godsend to cancer patients, and that's not hyperbole. Zero carcinogens.
Quote from: Chili on February 14, 2014, 09:39:20 AM
who smokes joints anymore? vaporizer!!!! it helps dramatically lower carcinogens.
Millions of people smoke it every day. At the Eagles concert a few weeks ago the entire row in front of me had joints lit by middle of song one until eventually an usher came over with a cop and had them stop. That lasted about 5 songs, rinse, repeat. A guy about 6 seats over eventually got them kicked out as his wife was having some kind of bad reaction to all the second hand smoke.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 14, 2014, 09:41:25 AM
Not to mention there are bake shops where you can get pretty much any food item with it in there. Its a Godsend to cancer patients, and that's not hyperbole. Zero carcinogens.
Yup, of course scientists at the NCI (National Cancer Institute) believe there are better options, but that would take the fun out of it.
Patients who suffer from certain diseases, such as cancer, can benefit from marijuana. The beneficial effects can be obtained by ingesting the substance, rather than inhaling. Cancer as well as its treatment with chemotherapy is associated with side effects such as nausea, vomiting, anorexia (loss of appetite) and cachexia (muscle-wasting). Marijuana is very effective in reducing these symptoms; therefore, it has been prescribed (or recommended) for cancer patients. However, the opinion of scientists at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is that pharmaceuticals are available, which are superior to marijuana. These include: serotonin antagonists such as ondansetron (Zofran®) and granisetron (Kytril®), used alone or combined with dexamethasone (a steroid hormone); metoclopramide (Reglan®) combined with diphenhydramine and dexamethasone; methylprednisolone (a steroid hormone) combined with droperidol (Inapsine®); and prochlorperazine (Compazine®).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 10:01:47 AM
Yup, of course scientists at the NCI (National Cancer Institute) believe there are better options, but that would take the fun out of it.
Patients who suffer from certain diseases, such as cancer, can benefit from marijuana. The beneficial effects can be obtained by ingesting the substance, rather than inhaling. Cancer as well as its treatment with chemotherapy is associated with side effects such as nausea, vomiting, anorexia (loss of appetite) and cachexia (muscle-wasting). Marijuana is very effective in reducing these symptoms; therefore, it has been prescribed (or recommended) for cancer patients. However, the opinion of scientists at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) is that pharmaceuticals are available, which are superior to marijuana. These include: serotonin antagonists such as ondansetron (Zofran®) and granisetron (Kytril®), used alone or combined with dexamethasone (a steroid hormone); metoclopramide (Reglan®) combined with diphenhydramine and dexamethasone; methylprednisolone (a steroid hormone) combined with droperidol (Inapsine®); and prochlorperazine (Compazine®).
If you know anything about chemotherapy or medicine in general its that people respond differently to different medicines.
Some pharmaceuticals will do the job just fine for some patients, but some will not respond. Sometimes THC is literally the only way to induce appetite in cancer or AIDS patients. It should be an option for those who need it. Not to mention the price of an 1/8 ounce of marijuana ($40 or so) compared to a single perscription of any of the above medications makes it an obvious choice for some individuals. Cost of care should be a consideration, as our healthcare costs spiral out of control.
But obviously, there is no capacity for you to see things in shades of gray, so this discussion is fruitless.
I would never throw a hormone into my body if there was something else available. I would also recommend the same for anyone else.
The side effects alone from hormones as terrifying.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 14, 2014, 10:09:10 AM
If you know anything about chemotherapy or medicine in general its that people respond differently to different medicines.
Some pharmaceuticals will do the job just fine for some patients, but some will not respond. Sometimes THC is literally the only way to induce appetite in cancer or AIDS patients. It should be an option for those who need it. Not to mention the price of an 1/8 ounce of marijuana ($40 or so) compared to a single perscription of any of the above medications makes it an obvious choice for some individuals. Cost of care should be a consideration, as our healthcare costs spiral out of control.
But obviously, there is no capacity for you to see things in shades of gray, so this discussion is fruitless.
I see plenty of things in gray. My wife has glaucoma, one of the treatments is weed. Please, before you pretend to know what others are going through or what shades of gray they see, you may want to hold back.
And yes, having cancer throughout the family, I'm quite aware of the side effects of chemo and how some people respond differently.
The problem is, a lot of people abuse the system...something one ideology knows all to well with welfare and such. Like the example I gave at the concert the other day. The lady in front of me was joking around...."Hope you don't mind, I need to smoke this for medical reasons <then a laugh> which isn't true because I faked to get the prescription".
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 10:15:32 AM
I see plenty of things in gray. My wife has glaucoma, one of the treatments is weed. Please, before you pretend to know what others are going through or what shades of gray they see, you may want to hold back.
And yes, having cancer throughout the family, I'm quite aware of the side effects of chemo and how some people respond differently.
The problem is, a lot of people abuse the system...something one ideology knows all to well with welfare and such. Like the example I gave at the concert the other day. The lady in front of me was joking around...."Hope you don't mind, I need to smoke this for medical reasons <then a laugh> which isn't true because I faked to get the prescription".
Fair enough. There is abuse. But I'd rather have 100 people abuse the system so one person can get what they need to survive.
Cancer has touched just about everyone. It is behind the defensiveness in my response, so I apologize for my tone.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 10:15:32 AM
I see plenty of things in gray. My wife has glaucoma, one of the treatments is weed. Please, before you pretend to know what others are going through or what shades of gray they see, you may want to hold back.
And yes, having cancer throughout the family, I'm quite aware of the side effects of chemo and how some people respond differently.
The problem is, a lot of people abuse the system...something one ideology knows all to well with welfare and such. Like the example I gave at the concert the other day. The lady in front of me was joking around...."Hope you don't mind, I need to smoke this for medical reasons <then a laugh> which isn't true because I faked to get the prescription".
So legalize it, tax the hell out of it (like cigarettes), and have the same smoking rules apply as do cigarettes.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 14, 2014, 10:18:31 AM
Fair enough. There is abuse. But I'd rather have 100 people abuse the system so one person can get what they need to survive.
Cancer has touched just about everyone. It is behind the defensiveness in my response, so I apologize for my tone.
That's the problem and the perfect mindset of liberal thinking. Captured perfectly. "I don't care if 100 people abuse <welfare - insert> so one person gets it" (even those of us that have to pay for all that abuse, while those abusing pay nothing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 10:22:22 AM
That's the problem and the perfect mindset of liberal thinking. Captured perfectly. "I don't care if 100 people abuse <welfare - insert> so one person gets it" (even those of us that have to pay for all that abuse, while those abusing pay nothing.
Except this abuse doesn't cost you anything. It is not analogous to welfare.
How does one person smoking weed from a medical prescription at an Eagles concert take money out of your wallet?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 09:59:58 AM
Millions of people smoke it every day. At the Eagles concert a few weeks ago the entire row in front of me had joints lit by middle of song one until eventually an usher came over with a cop and had them stop. That lasted about 5 songs, rinse, repeat. A guy about 6 seats over eventually got them kicked out as his wife was having some kind of bad reaction to all the second hand smoke.
Quit complaining - just lean forward and maybe you can get a cheap high ;D
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 09:59:58 AM
Millions of people smoke it every day. At the Eagles concert a few weeks ago the entire row in front of me had joints lit by middle of song one until eventually an usher came over with a cop and had them stop. That lasted about 5 songs, rinse, repeat. A guy about 6 seats over eventually got them kicked out as his wife was having some kind of bad reaction to all the second hand smoke.
Welcome to the Hotel California.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 14, 2014, 10:11:48 AM
I would never throw a hormone into my body if there was something else available. I would also recommend the same for anyone else.
The side effects alone from hormones as terrifying.
Q: How do ya make a hormone?
A: Don't pay her.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 14, 2014, 10:19:22 AM
So legalize it, tax the hell out of it (like cigarettes), and have the same smoking rules apply as do cigarettes.
The solution to everything...legalize it, tax it.
:o
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 03:03:23 PM
The solution to everything...legalize it, tax it.
:o
Yeah, that's what I was saying. ::)
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 14, 2014, 10:23:28 AM
Except this abuse doesn't cost you anything. It is not analogous to welfare.
How does one person smoking weed from a medical prescription at an Eagles concert take money out of your wallet?
Really? So any health issues caused, short or long term don't impact other people? How about their own quality of life having to inhale that stuff? Why is it that the guy 6 seats over and his wife had to inhale that, when it is against the law for someone to smoke cigarettes to prevent the very same thing...ingestion of second hand smoke? Or does weed from a medical prescription not emit smoke? ;) I haven't even gotten to the part where they got behind the wheel later that night...what could have been the ramifications there? Can those lead to financial injuries for someone? Of course.
Just because there isn't an immediate impact to my wallet, doesn't mean there isn't an impact eventually and certainly that person being rude can impact someone else's quality of life right then and there. What if later that night a cop pulls one of us over for a broken tail light, we all stink of pot because of the clowns in front of us. Nothing we did wrong, but we get to go through a fun song and dance with Barney Fife. So on and so forth. There are always ramifications to every action taken. Directly or indirectly, some obvious and some not so obvious.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 06:42:40 PM
Really? So any health issues caused, short or long term don't impact other people? How about their own quality of life having to inhale that stuff? Why is it that the guy 6 seats over and his wife had to inhale that, when it is against the law for someone to smoke cigarettes to prevent the very same thing...ingestion of second hand smoke? Or does weed from a medical prescription not emit smoke? ;) I haven't even gotten to the part where they got behind the wheel later that night...what could have been the ramifications there? Can those lead to financial injuries for someone? Of course.
Just because there isn't an immediate impact to my wallet, doesn't mean there isn't an impact eventually and certainly that person being rude can impact someone else's quality of life right then and there. What if later that night a cop pulls one of us over for a broken tail light, we all stink of pot because of the clowns in front of us. Nothing we did wrong, but we get to go through a fun song and dance with Barney Fife. So on and so forth. There are always ramifications to every action taken. Directly or indirectly, some obvious and some not so obvious.
So ban it in public. Arrest those who drive under the influence. Treat it like alcohol and cigarettes.
You still haven't answered my question. If consumed in private, how is it hurting you?
How is it analogous to welfare? Still waiting for you to clarify that one...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 06:42:40 PM
Really? So any health issues caused, short or long term don't impact other people? How about their own quality of life having to inhale that stuff? Why is it that the guy 6 seats over and his wife had to inhale that, when it is against the law for someone to smoke cigarettes to prevent the very same thing...ingestion of second hand smoke? Or does weed from a medical prescription not emit smoke? ;) I haven't even gotten to the part where they got behind the wheel later that night...what could have been the ramifications there? Can those lead to financial injuries for someone? Of course.
Just because there isn't an immediate impact to my wallet, doesn't mean there isn't an impact eventually and certainly that person being rude can impact someone else's quality of life right then and there. What if later that night a cop pulls one of us over for a broken tail light, we all stink of pot because of the clowns in front of us. Nothing we did wrong, but we get to go through a fun song and dance with Barney Fife. So on and so forth. There are always ramifications to every action taken. Directly or indirectly, some obvious and some not so obvious.
This is the dumbest argument I have heard. All the bolded are against the law and would be even if weed were legal. Driving after smoking weed is an DUI medical related or not, just like you can get arrested for an DUI for taking certain medications that are prescribed to you (pain medicines for instance).
Fact of the matter is that marijuana should never have been made illegal in this country. It was a stupid decision and has actually cost the country a lot of money, both through taxation and lost income due to banning hemp production (so that a few of the super rich could protect their assets).
It has exceptional and wide ranging pharmaceutical properties, many of which we do not understand because of its illegal status that makes actual research into these areas more complex. Some illnesses have no treatments except for marijuana.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/ (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/)
And for your crazy song and dance rant at the end. What if you went to a restaurant and the waitress spilled a someones drink on you and then you stink like alcohol even though you didn't drink, should we make alcohol illegal so you don't have to explain it to Barney Fife.
And today's data Forgetful
We reap what we sow.....hopefully no one you love will ever be impacted. Too late for others.
http://www.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-dangerous-fatal-car-accidents-involving-marijuana-triple-over-10-years-1553319
Quote from: keefe on February 17, 2014, 07:05:34 PM
Uh, actually yea
it was a lonely night in the desert of Iraq. "Crash" had been into town that day, and caught a glimpse or 2 of an ankle from some of the local honeys. His swollen ballbag was near to burst, when he tossed a frag in the general direction of his buddies, yet not too close to cause harm, to create a distraction before dropping trow and rapidly pounding sand to relieve the pressure of Islamic blue balls.
not that this has anything to do with Comcrap etc. but this appears to be the best place to post this:
http://news.yahoo.com/colo-pot-aids-...053424609.html
The doctors were out of ideas to help 5-year-old Charlotte Figi.
Suffering from a rare genetic disorder, she had as many as 300 grand mal seizures a week, used a wheelchair, went into repeated cardiac arrest and could barely speak. As a last resort, her mother began calling medical marijuana shops.
Two years later, Charlotte is largely seizure-free and able to walk, talk and feed herself after taking oil infused with a special pot strain. Her recovery has inspired both a name for the strain of marijuana she takes that is bred not to make users high — Charlotte's Web — and an influx of families with seizure-stricken children to Colorado from states that ban the drug.
"She can walk, talk; she ate chili in the car," her mother, Paige Figi, said as her dark-haired daughter strolled through a cavernous greenhouse full of marijuana plants that will later be broken down into their anti-seizure components and mixed with olive oil so patients can consume them. "So I'll fight for whoever wants this."
Doctors warn there is no proof that Charlotte's Web is effective, or even safe.
"We don't have any peer-reviewed, published literature to support it," Dr. Larry Wolk, the state health department's chief medical officer, said of Charlotte's Web.
Still, more than 100 families have relocated since Charlotte's story first began spreading last summer, according to Figi and her husband and the five brothers who grow the drug and sell it at cost through a nonprofit. The relocated families have formed a close-knit group in Colorado Springs, the law-and-order town where the dispensary selling the drug is located. They meet for lunch, support sessions and hikes.
"It's the most hope lots of us have ever had," said Holli Brown, whose 9-year-old daughter, Sydni, began speaking in sentences and laughing since moving to Colorado from Kansas City and taking the marijuana strain.
Amy Brooks-Kayal, vice president of the American Epilepsy Society, warned that a few miraculous stories may not mean anything — epileptic seizures come and go for no apparent reason — and scientists do not know what sort of damage Charlotte's Web could be doing to young brains.
"Until we have that information, as physicians, we can't follow our first creed, which is do no harm," she said, suggesting that parents relocate so their children can get treated at one of the nation's 28 top-tier pediatric epilepsy centers rather than move to Colorado.
However, the society urges more study of pot's possibilities. The families using Charlotte's Web, as well as the brothers who grow it, say they want the drug rigorously tested, and their efforts to ensure its purity have won them praise from skeptics like Wolk.
For many, Charlotte's story was something they couldn't ignore.
Charlotte is a twin, but her sister, Chase, doesn't have Dravet's syndrome, which kills kids before they reach adulthood.
In early 2012, it seemed Charlotte would be added to that grim roster. Her vital signs flat-lined three times, leading her parents to begin preparing for her death. They even signed an order for doctors not to take heroic measures to save her life again should she go into cardiac arrest.
Her father, Matt, a former Green Beret who took a job as a contractor working in Afghanistan, started looking online for ways to help his daughter and thought they should give pot a try. But there was a danger: Marijuana's psychoactive ingredient, THC, can trigger seizures.
The drug also contains another chemical known as CBD that may have seizure-fighting properties. In October, the Food and Drug Administration approved testing a British pharmaceutical firm's marijuana-derived drug that is CBD-based and has all its THC removed.
Few dispensaries stock CBD-heavy weed that doesn't get you high. Then Paige Figi found Joel Stanley.
One of 11 siblings raised by a single mother and their grandmother in Oklahoma, Stanley and four of his brothers had found themselves in the medical marijuana business after moving to Colorado. Almost as an experiment, they bred a low-THC, high-CBD plant after hearing it could fight tumors.
Stanley went to the Figis' house with reservations about giving pot to a child.
"But she had done her homework," Stanley said of Paige Figi. "She wasn't a pot activist or a hippy, just a conservative mom."
Now, Stanley and his brothers provide the marijuana to nearly 300 patients and have a waitlist of 2,000.
The CBD is extracted by a chemist who once worked for drug giant Pfizer, mixed with olive oil so it can be ingested through the mouth or the feeding tube that many sufferers from childhood epilepsy use, then sent to a third-party lab to test its purity.
Charlotte takes the medication twice a day. "A year ago, she could only say one word," her father said. "Now she says complete sentences."
The recovery of Charlotte and other kids has inspired the Figis and others to travel the country, pushing for medical marijuana laws or statutes that would allow high-CBD, low-THC pot strains.
Donald Burger recently urged a New York state legislative panel to legalize medical marijuana while his wife, Aileen, was in the family's new rental house in Colorado Springs, giving Charlotte's Web to their daughter Elizabeth, 4. The family only relocated to Colorado after neurologists told them Elizabeth's best hope — brain surgery — could only stop some of her seizures.
"It's a very big strain being away from the rest of our family," Aileen Burger said recently while waiting for her husband to return from a trip to sell their Long Island house. "But she doesn't have to have pieces of her brain removed."
Ray Mirazabegian, an optician in Glendale, Calif., brought Charlotte's Web to his state, where medical marijuana is legal. He convinced the Stanley brothers to give him some seeds he could use to treat his 9-year-old daughter Emily, who spent her days slumped on the couch. Now, she's running, jumping and talking. Mirazabegian is cloning the Charlotte's Web seeds and has opened the California branch of the Stanleys' foundation.
Mirazabegian has begun to distribute the strain to 25 families and has a waitlist of 400. It includes, he said, families willing to move from Japan and the Philippines.
Quote from: brandx on February 13, 2014, 11:49:56 PM
I really don't know what way it will go and I probably wouldn't use it anyway - for now. But if people are able to get local channels free, a lot might leave cable, which may force some re-thinking on their end. That is the benefit that I see, but I really have no sense of which way it is gonna go. Victories in lower courts don't necessarily foretell a high court decision.
Legal defeat for Aereo yesterday as it heads to Supreme Court
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/aereo-loses-copyright-fight-to-tv-networks-in-utah/
http://www.youtube.com/v/HAo5GgaJmsA
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 17, 2014, 06:01:28 PM
And today's data Forgetful
We reap what we sow.....hopefully no one you love will ever be impacted. Too late for others.
http://www.ibtimes.com/driving-while-high-dangerous-fatal-car-accidents-involving-marijuana-triple-over-10-years-1553319
What does that have to do with anything forgetful said? You don't want to debate the issue so I will choose to use the emotion card.
Plus, that article actually says marijuana is safer than drinking...
"The results of the driving experiment gives support to those who say driving while stoned is far less dangerous than driving drunk."But don't mind me...carry on
Bought and Paid for
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bought-democratic-party-matthew-continetti
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2014, 12:20:28 AM
Bought and Paid for
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bought-democratic-party-matthew-continetti
This happens on both sides of the aisle. It shows how sick our political system is, and how corporations with soft money are able to infiltrate the system. Rulings like Citizens United and the most recent Supreme Court decision of last week, makes this even easier to do.
For the record, I am just as opposed to this kind of stuff when Democrats do it too.
I posted it because I had mentioned that very thing last year and again when this thing came about a few months ago. Roberts is very cozy with POTUS, very. This thing is going through because too many people in the admin are bought and paid for IMO.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2014, 09:45:06 AM
I posted it because I had mentioned that very thing last year and again when this thing came about a few months ago. Roberts is very cozy with POTUS, very. This thing is going through because too many people in the admin are bought and paid for IMO.
No argument from me. And it will continue with the next administration, regardless of what side of the aisle it is.
I am not a fan of the merger.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 07, 2014, 12:20:28 AM
Bought and Paid for
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375116/how-comcast-bought-democratic-party-matthew-continetti
This post sponsored by: The Koch Bros.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 07, 2014, 10:48:55 AM
This post sponsored by: The Koch Bros.
Do you have a Koch fetish like so many on the left?
Quote from: Bleuteaux on April 07, 2014, 09:47:18 AM
No argument from me. And it will continue with the next administration, regardless of what side of the aisle it is.
Exactly....of course that's now what was promised and the amount of gullible people that bought into hopey changy is crazy
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2014, 04:02:39 PM
Exactly....of course that's now what was promised and the amount of gullible people that bought into hopey changy is crazy
Of course, you are making the leap to say that it is BO's fault that the House refuses to pass anything he promised.
But we all know better, really.
Follow the money and the admin
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/14/how-obamas-justice-department-selectively-blocks-mergers-by-republican-ceos/
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 14, 2014, 12:34:25 PM
Follow the money and the admin
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/14/how-obamas-justice-department-selectively-blocks-mergers-by-republican-ceos/
Couldn't you find anything nuttier? The report comes from Frontiers of Freedom.
Let's see: funding from Exxon to discredit Global Warming; Funding from Tobacco Industry to discredit the harmful effects of smoking; pushing for more poisons in the water supply and more poisons in the air.
Go ahead and believe what they say if you must - I think I'll pass on their report!!
If you wanted to be accurate, you
could look at which mergers were allowed and which ones have not but I guess it's so much easier posting a link to some fringe group with a clear-cut agenda.
Quote from: rmi210 on March 04, 2014, 04:09:35 AM
What does that have to do with anything forgetful said? You don't want to debate the issue so I will choose to use the emotion card.
Plus, that article actually says marijuana is safer than drinking..."The results of the driving experiment gives support to those who say driving while stoned is far less dangerous than driving drunk."
But don't mind me...carry on
Brain damage article last week from Harvard.
Now study about heart damage from marijuana out today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
But don't mind me....carry on
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 23, 2014, 10:08:58 PM
Brain damage article last week from Harvard.
Now study about heart damage from marijuana out today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
But don't mind me....carry on
You are getting the science completely wrong, but that is not really a surprise. The Harvard article did not indicate "brain damage" rather reported that there were changes in brain matter (an increase) that correlated with smoking. I'll note that the statistical significance of the data can be questioned, but regardless, there studies cannot differentiate between whether the change in brain structure results in increased function or decreased function.
So it would be equally true to say that smoking marijuana makes you smarter according to there study (note the point is not that it makes you smarter, just that there data does not speak to one or the other at all).
As for the heart studies, again you are getting the science wrong. It says that smoking marijuana causes an acute (meaning temporary) increase in the probability of immediately having a heart attack. The increase is consistent with the increase due to having sex, climbing a flight of stairs or going for a jog.
Quote from: forgetful on April 23, 2014, 10:39:48 PM
You are getting the science completely wrong, but that is not really a surprise. The Harvard article did not indicate "brain damage" rather reported that there were changes in brain matter (an increase) that correlated with smoking. I'll note that the statistical significance of the data can be questioned, but regardless, there studies cannot differentiate between whether the change in brain structure results in increased function or decreased function.
So it would be equally true to say that smoking marijuana makes you smarter according to there study (note the point is not that it makes you smarter, just that there data does not speak to one or the other at all).
As for the heart studies, again you are getting the science wrong. It says that smoking marijuana causes an acute (meaning temporary) increase in the probability of immediately having a heart attack. The increase is consistent with the increase due to having sex, climbing a flight of stairs or going for a jog.
The doctors in the study explicitly say damage and go on to list examples. Sorry, but you're just wanting to ignore what the doctors are saying.
http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/att-mulls-40-billion-acquisition-of-directv-report-1201169045/
I LOVE everyone in this industry. Oh, and our elected officials.
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
Quote from: jesmu84 on May 06, 2014, 09:28:46 PM
I LOVE everyone in this industry. Oh, and our elected officials.
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
http://www.realcleartechnology.com/lists/myths-debunked/us-internet.html?state=stop
About the author, his real name is Mark Stephens. He's had a few issues, like claiming to have a PhD from Stanford (he does not) and claiming to be a professor at Stanford (he was a TA).
In terms of his claims, well hard to say how accurate they are. Yes, some truth to them. His articles are fun to read, a dash of truth, a dash of speculation passed as truth, some things that are mere opinion, etc. He's definitely a populist, but some of his facts are way off like the link I gave above.
In Connecticut only, AT&T is trying to sell U-verse & landline phone service to Frontier Communications. Frontier is locally headquarted in Stamford and it's still not certain the sale will go through.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on May 07, 2014, 07:13:08 AM
In Connecticut only, AT&T is trying to sell U-verse & landline phone service to Frontier Communications. Frontier is locally headquarted in Stamford and it's still not certain the sale will go through.
That's interesting, it seems to be the opposite of the general industry trend of consolidation, which would point to AT&T buying companies like Frontier.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on May 07, 2014, 09:14:58 AM
That's interesting, it seems to be the opposite of the general industry trend of consolidation, which would point to AT&T buying companies like Frontier.
They're just abandoning that portion of the market and raising cash. It costs a ton for them to run the TV side, if they accounted for it solely without the $$ that get for wireless and internet, their TV side would be updside down.
If you saw the other link I provided, it isn't hard to speculate why they might be doing that. I know the union for AT&T is hopping mad because they think Frontier is going to axe a bunch of jobs.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 07, 2014, 09:25:21 AM
They're just abandoning that portion of the market and raising cash. It costs a ton for them to run the TV side, if they accounted for it solely without the $$ that get for wireless and internet, their TV side would be updside down.
If you saw the other link I provided, it isn't hard to speculate why they might be doing that. I know the union for AT&T is hopping mad because they think Frontier is going to axe a bunch of jobs.
And more to your point Chicos, then SBC (now AT&T) bought SNET - Southern New England Telephone 15-20 years ago. It was a stand alone company that only had Connecticut as a market. It was an AT&T/SBC island as every other telcom company in the northeast was owned by someone else other than them. Other than mobile phones isn't the current AT&T U-verse & landline phones centered in the Soutwest & Midwest and the local Conn. operations still an island? I can see why they would want to unload for that reason in addition to declining landlines.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/05/how-comcast-trying-turn-internet-old
Each day, the open internet/net neutrality battle gets a bit more interesting. We just covered Tim Lee's excellent look at how Comcast and other big telcos were effectively using interconnection disputes to get the same result as violating net neutrality, without technically violating the basic concept of what most people believe is net neutrality. And he's back with an even more important explanation of how Comcast's ultimate goal is to effectively make the internet more like the old phone system, post AT&T breakup, in which everyone had to pay to access the end points of the network. Ironically, they're trying to recreate the internet in the form of the old telephone network, while at the same time doing everything to resist being classified as a telephone network by the FCC.
The short version is that, after AT&T was broken up into the baby bells, and you had some amount of long distance competition, the real bottlenecks were the baby bells who had a terminating monopoly. Anyone who wanted to call someone long distance had to pay the terminating baby bell to reach those people, and since they were monopolies, they drove up the prices quite a bit. This is what happens under a sender-party pays system with monopolies on the last mile/termination points. The internet, on the other hand, was built under a very different system, what's known as "bill and keep", where by the end users pay for their own bandwidth, and ISPs are expected to work out the transit and interconnections on their own -- often with no money changing hands, thanks to what had been mostly informal (and later more formal) peering agreements.
In short: under the old baby bell model, payment mainly went from the "sender/caller" to the terminating provider for access to that end node. Under the internet model, the end nodes paid for access to "the internet" recognizing that part of the deal was that they were getting equal access to everyone else. The shift that Comcast (and now others) have been making, is to try to take their dominant position to recreate the old system, seeking to charge for access to those end nodes as well (effectively, as we've been saying for years, double charging for the internet). That is, they're seeking to have you both pay for your bandwidth and having internet companies pay again to get to you on the bandwidth you already paid for.
And the only reason they can do this is because they have tremendous market power. Comcast pretends that it's doing this because of differing traffic ratios between peering partners, but as Lee notes, that's not right:
But that's not how the internet works. Consumer-facing ISPs have always received more traffic than they send out. Comcast itself sells "unbalanced" internet service to its customers, with download speeds much faster than upload speeds. That makes it inevitable that ISPs like Comcast will receive more data than they send. But in the bill-and-keep model, ISPs generally pay transit providers for connectivity, regardless of traffic ratios.
The traffic ratio rule Comcast advocated in 2010 was a variation on the sender-pays rule. It will create the same kind of terminating monopoly problem that plagued the long distance telephone market. But that might not seem like a bad thing if you own the monopoly.
Again, what's really happening is that Comcast is trying to quietly recreate the baby bell system of old, in which it has enough power as a terminating monopoly to charge monopoly rents for "access" in a system that was built off of the idea that no one needs to pay to access another end point, you're just paying for your own connection to the network.
And the simple fact is that the other large ISPs (including AT&T and Verizon -- who understand this deeply, given their own histories) have caught onto what's happening and are doing the same thing. That's why the transit players are pointing out that the five biggest US ISPs have all been effectively clogging up the internet in order to effectively hold end internet sites hostage, to get them to pay for access, and to remake the internet's more open system into something that much more resembles the old telco system with monopoly rents.
And this is also why Comcast is being dreadfully misleading in arguing that its merger with Time Warner Cable won't impact anything, because the two are not in competitive markets. As Lee notes, Comcast is (purposefully) mis-identifying the market that's actually important here:
Defenders of the merger have argued that it won't reduce competition because Comcast and Time Warner don't serve the same customers. That's true, but it ignores how the merger would affect the interconnection market. A merged cable giant would have even more leverage to demand monopoly rents from companies across the internet.
A century ago, the Wilson administration decided not to press its antitrust case against AT&T, allowing the firm to continue the acquisition spree that made it a monopoly. In retrospect, that decision looks like a mistake. Wilson's decision not to intervene in the market led to a telephone monopoly, which in turn led to 70 years of regulation and a messy, 10-year antitrust case.
Obviously, the combination of Comcast and Time Warner would not dominate the internet the way AT&T dominated the telephone industry. But recent events suggest that Comcast is already large enough to threaten competition on the internet. Preventing the company from getting even larger might avoid the need for a lot more regulation in the years ahead.
The interconnection market is where Comcast has tremendous leverage, and Time Warner Cable will only give them much more leverage. And they're using it to reshape the internet in a very dangerous way, which will make internet connections more expensive, with no direct benefit. On top of that, it will slow down the ability for startups to create new innovations by increasing the cost (potentially massively) to innovate on the network by creating access tolls.
Oh, and the major problem is that the FCC still doesn't even seem to realize this is the issue, with Tom Wheeler arguing that the interconnection issue isn't really an issue at all, despite it likely being the issue here. As Lee explains concerning telco regulations around a terminating monopoly system: Unfortunately, while all-knowing perfectly benevolent regulators could make this work, in practice regulators tend to be neither all-knowing nor benevolent. So imagine what kind of internet we'll have when you recreate the terminating monopoly tollbooths, combined with regulators who still don't seem to even realize what's going on.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 30, 2014, 11:16:24 PM
The doctors in the study explicitly say damage and go on to list examples. Sorry, but you're just wanting to ignore what the doctors are saying.
Where did they say that, exactly? I read the actual research paper, and they do not link the abnormalities (which is
not the same as "damages") to a decrease in functioning. The paper looked at changes in brain structure and how those changes are "abnormal" compared to the general population; but they never state damages. There are other studies which have indicated decreased functioning in individuals that have smoked marijuana, but those studies are in individuals under the age of 25. The doctors of the Harvard study did say, in this article*, that no one under the age of 16 should smoke marijuana, but I didn't think that's what's being debated here.
(you'll note that the only use of "damage" in that article is the headline, which is written by a copy editor. They want you to click on it, not be informed about the actual contents of the piece)
* http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/16/casual-marijuana-use-may-damage-your-brain/
http://www.livescience.com/45087-marijuana-heart-problems-deaths.html
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/smoking-cannabis-can-cause-lethal-damage-to-heart-30212927.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2611377/Cannabis-increases-heart-problems-prove-fatal.html
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 07, 2014, 09:30:29 PM
http://www.livescience.com/45087-marijuana-heart-problems-deaths.html
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/smoking-cannabis-can-cause-lethal-damage-to-heart-30212927.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2611377/Cannabis-increases-heart-problems-prove-fatal.html
That's the same article/study 3 different times. Not sure why you repeated the same thing.
1.8%? Really? I'm betting people who eat unhealthy foods are higher than 1.8%. And, should it really be surprising that SMOKING something would increase heart problems? Smoking ANYTHING would increase heart problems.
Not to mention the study stated that the results are not conclusive.
I will say there hasn't been enough research/studies done yet. But using these articles/studies is garbage at best, scare tactics at worst.
Disclaimer: I am not a marijuana user
From someone smarter than I:
"Stats nerd here. Let's talk about some of the specific problems with this study.
First, their N value is 35 (lol, my sophomore psych midterm had an N value of higher than that and my sample was collected from a school that has less than 2000 people). The N value is the number of participants in the study. The idea that a study about an issue of this magnitude with an N value of less than 1000 would even get published is beyond me.
Next, This line is key: "Cases could be included even if data such as management of patients or toxicologic analysis information were lacking." Toxicologic analysis. That seems important in a study that claims to be specific to a substance. What does this mean? Say I go into the ER because I am having an acute coronary episode. I'm a meth/heroin addict who happened to smoke weed a few hours before my episode. If a doctor asks me what I've taken, chances are I'll respond with Marijuana. Though it's obvious (hopefully) that meth and heroin would be more detrimental, without the Tox report, this patient can come into this study and be categorized as a pot smoker. They later try to address this by saying "Concomitant use of other psychoactive substances was also taken into account if available and reported in the medical records or when investigated in toxicologic analyses." If available...or when investigated in tox analyses...but you just said that patients without tox reports could be included in the astronomically small sample size.
Third, they correctly report that "The percentage of cannabis‐related cardiovascular complications increased from 1.1% in 2006 to 3.6% in 2010 of all cannabis‐related reports." However, I would argue that this has less to do with toxicity of substances and more to do with legalization. People are more likely to disclose marijuana use to doctors if they aren't afraid of the legal ramifications of doing so. Does this mean that these events are even remotely attributable to marijuana? Not at all. The burden of proof still rests on the shoulders of those who oppose marijuana use. Later in the paper they disclose that "Toxicologic analyses were performed in 13 cases". Only 13. And in only 10 of these was marijuana the only substance found.
Fourth, this stat is pretty key, "9 subjects had personal and 7 had familial cardiovascular history." Predisposition to heart problems weakens their case for marijuana being the cause of these attacks. I'm inclined to disregard these 16 cases which brings their usable N value to 19. Actually, on that note, I'll just leave this here, "Personal cardiovascular history consisted of high blood pressure (n=2), acute coronary syndrome (n=2), and atherogenic hypercholesterolemia (n=1) in patients with cardiac complications and of Raynaud disease (n=3), intermittent claudication (n=2), high blood pressure (n=1), deep vein thrombosis (n=1), and acute coronary syndrome (n=1) in patients with extracardiac complications. Familial history of coronary (n=4) or vascular (n=2) diseases or cerebral stroke (n=1) was documented. Twenty‐one patients (60%) were identified as concomitant tobacco smokers, of whom 6 had personal cardiovascular history. Details about these preexisting cardiovascular risk factors are presented in Table S1. Body mass index could be assessed in only 31% (11/35) of the patients. Among these patients, all of whom belonged to the "acute coronary syndrome" group, 6 (54%, 6/11) were in the normal healthy weight category, 4 (36%) were overweight, and 1 was in the first obese class (body mass index=32.1 kg/m2)."
Last point, "Financial support was provided by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction (MILDT, Mission interministérielle de lutte contre les drogues et toxicomanies), and by the French drug agency (ANSM, Agence Nationale de Sécurité des Médicaments)." This study is funded by anti-drug agencies."
I'm having DirecTV installed Sunday at my new house, this better be worth it Chico.
Quote from: jesmu84 on May 07, 2014, 09:51:35 PM
"Stats nerd here. Let's talk about some of the specific problems with this study.
First, their N value is 35 (lol, my sophomore psych midterm had an N value of higher than that and my sample was collected from a school that has less than 2000 people). The N value is the number of participants in the study. The idea that a study about an issue of this magnitude with an N value of less than 1000 would even get published is beyond me.
As someone who uses statistics in manufacturing, 30 is the absolute minimum for the data to tell you anything. The preference is to use 300 or more as a good indicator of a trend.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 07, 2014, 09:30:29 PM
http://www.livescience.com/45087-marijuana-heart-problems-deaths.html
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/smoking-cannabis-can-cause-lethal-damage-to-heart-30212927.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2611377/Cannabis-increases-heart-problems-prove-fatal.html
Forgetful was talking about the Harvard study on the brain when he said you were wrong about "damages". The Harvard study is what I was also referring to. Now I see where the mix up occurred.
" cardiologists writing in the Journal of the American Heart Assn. warned that "clinical evidence ... suggests the potential for serious cardiovascular risks associated with marijuana use."
"There is now compelling evidence on the growing risk of marijuana-associated adverse cardiovascular effects, especially in young people,"
"We think the time has come to stop and think about what is the best way to protect our communities from the potential danger of widespread marijuana use in the absence of safety studies," added Rezkalla, a cardiologist at the Marshfield Clinic in Wisconsin, and Kloner, a cardiologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine. "It is the responsibility of the medical community to determine the safety of the drug before it is widely legalized for recreational use."
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-heart-attack-stroke-marijuana-20140423,0,3208786.story
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2014, 09:13:43 PM
" cardiologists writing in the Journal of the American Heart Assn. warned that "clinical evidence ... suggests the potential for serious cardiovascular risks associated with marijuana use."
"There is now compelling evidence on the growing risk of marijuana-associated adverse cardiovascular effects, especially in young people,"
"We think the time has come to stop and think about what is the best way to protect our communities from the potential danger of widespread marijuana use in the absence of safety studies," added Rezkalla, a cardiologist at the Marshfield Clinic in Wisconsin, and Kloner, a cardiologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine. "It is the responsibility of the medical community to determine the safety of the drug before it is widely legalized for recreational use."
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-heart-attack-stroke-marijuana-20140423,0,3208786.story
Chicos, are you being serious right now? This is ANOTHER article referencing the same study. Essentially saying the same thing as the ones you already provided based on the French study that was questionable at best. Move on, or at least wait till we get some serious, relevant data on the matter.
This is akin to people freaking out when the vaccines linked to autism study came out.
Kind of fun watching the GOP go to bat for the lefties here on this merger. Heads exploding. As I said earlier, the current administration is so in bed with the Comcast guys, they are going to let it happen if I had to guess. So the GOP is the one asking questions about net neutrality, consumer bills, etc.
http://time.com/92251/comcast-time-warner-cable-congress/
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 09, 2014, 02:43:41 PM
Kind of fun watching the GOP go to bat for the lefties here on this merger. Heads exploding. As I said earlier, the current administration is so in bed with the Comcast guys, they are going to let it happen if I had to guess. So the GOP is the one asking questions about net neutrality, consumer bills, etc.
http://time.com/92251/comcast-time-warner-cable-congress/
You mean the GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee looking at the merger-
EVERY one of whom has received money from Comcast.
That GOP?
Or that 4 of the top 5 recipients of Comcast $$$$ are from the GOP?
That GOP?
Or of the congressmen who own Comcast shares - 56% of whom are from the GOP?
That GOP?
Or the two members of Congress who have received the most $$$$ - Boehner and McConnell?
That GOP?
Maybe there is another GOP that I don't know about.
Or, maybe you get your "News" from a dung heap like Newsmax?
Quote from: brandx on May 09, 2014, 03:16:41 PM
You mean the GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee looking at the merger- EVERY one of whom has received money from Comcast.
That GOP?
Or that 4 of the top 5 recipients of Comcast $$$$ are from the GOP?
That GOP?
Or of the congressmen who own Comcast shares - 56% of whom are from the GOP?
That GOP?
Or the two members of Congress who have received the most $$$$ - Boehner and McConnell?
That GOP?
Maybe there is another GOP that I don't know about.
Or, maybe you get your "News" from a dung heap like Newsmax?
I believe the link I provided was Time magazine. A simple click of the link and the questions raised yesterday would have answered your statements. The article talks about the irony of who is asking tough questions about it and who isn't. Again, Time, not Newsmax. Whatever.
Quote from: brandx on May 09, 2014, 03:16:41 PM
You mean the GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee looking at the merger- EVERY one of whom has received money from Comcast.
That GOP?
Or that 4 of the top 5 recipients of Comcast $$$$ are from the GOP?
That GOP?
Or of the congressmen who own Comcast shares - 56% of whom are from the GOP?
That GOP?
Or the two members of Congress who have received the most $$$$ - Boehner and McConnell?
That GOP?
Maybe there is another GOP that I don't know about.
Or, maybe you get your "News" from a dung heap like Newsmax?
Yeah, because there is no way that Comcast gives $$ to Democrats. Sheesh.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 09, 2014, 02:43:41 PM
Kind of fun watching the GOP go to bat for the lefties here on this merger. Heads exploding. As I said earlier, the current administration is so in bed with the Comcast guys, they are going to let it happen if I had to guess. So the GOP is the one asking questions about net neutrality, consumer bills, etc.
http://time.com/92251/comcast-time-warner-cable-congress/
It is funny. It's also a sad sad commentary on our current political system. We desperately need to get the money out of politics. And a third or fourth party would help as well.
Quote from: mu-rara on May 09, 2014, 03:26:53 PM
Yeah, because there is no way that Comcast gives $$ to Democrats. Sheesh.
Of course they do and it is almost equal to what they give Republicans. I was responding to CCB's post that they owned the Dem party.
Similar to Wall Street of many large corps. They play both sides so they are covered either way.
And every new ruling or law means even more "dark" money for politicians. Sad thing.
Quote from: jesmu84 on May 09, 2014, 03:54:45 PM
It is funny. It's also a sad sad commentary on our current political system. We desperately need to get the money out of politics. And a third or fourth party would help as well.
Yup.
Unfortunately I think a 3rd or 4th party doesn't help a ton, especially in our system vs a parliamentary style. It can work, just more difficult in my view. You typically end up splintering so much on one side that the other side dominates too much. I actually enjoy divided gov't, I don't enjoy the money aspect. That being said, Citizens United I believe is the proper ruling, but I'm up for a trade. Remove the ability of corporations to spend but also remove the ability for Unions to do the same and forcing members to push their dollars to support causes they don't care for. I'd be up for that...would eliminate a lot of money in politics.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 09, 2014, 03:18:58 PM
I believe the link I provided was Time magazine. A simple click of the link and the questions raised yesterday would have answered your statements. The article talks about the irony of who is asking tough questions about it and who isn't. Again, Time, not Newsmax. Whatever.
The first paragraph:
QuoteComcast's top executives endured hours of intense questioning from lawmakers worried a merger with Time Warner Cable will hurt consumers and competition, including from Republicans who might have been expected to back the deal
Both sides asked questions, this article is unique in that it highlights even Republicans are against it. Sounds like the author's working assumption was that Republicans would back the deal, and it turns out they don't, and she gave quotes supporting how they don't. At no point does she say Democrats weren't asking questions, because that wasn't the purpose of the article. In fact the second paragraph talks about how liberals have been the biggest critics of the merger.
See this article saying both sides asked questions: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/08/us-timewarnercable-comcast-congress-idUSBREA4703O20140508
Quote from: brandx on May 09, 2014, 03:57:44 PM
Of course they do and it is almost equal to what they give Republicans. I was responding to CCB's post that they owned the Dem party.
Similar to Wall Street of many large corps. They play both sides so they are covered either way.
And every new ruling or law means even more "dark" money for politicians. Sad thing.
Uhm, I said they own this administration. Please, let's stay on target. I've provided plenty of evidence of that. I didn't say party, I said current administration. BIG difference, as it is the administration's DOJ and FCC and FTC that will approve the merger.
I'll be the first to say I was wrong on this one. It started to die a few weeks ago, but I'm still surprised it didn't get done. Comcast pulling out. They might be getting bit, too, for meddling in the Hulu Directv acquisition which doesn't surprise me one bit. Many people at DTV thought there was something funny going on there when that deal was killed.
As for the other big one, I'm still 99% confident it happens. We'll see.
Quote from: mu-rara on May 09, 2014, 03:26:53 PM
Yeah, because there is no way that Comcast gives $$ to Democrats. Sheesh.
Tough to do for some people - but try to read my comment in context of what I was replying to.
Um.... No Deal!!
And now Charter is going to put together an offer for TWC. Crazy!
Quote from: Skatastrophy on April 24, 2015, 01:54:57 PM
And now Charter is going to put together an offer for TWC. Crazy!
We're really not surprised about this, are we?
Quote from: Skatastrophy on April 24, 2015, 01:54:57 PM
And now Charter is going to put together an offer for TWC. Crazy!
As always happens in these situations where two large companies come together to form one giant company, this will surely benefit customers and the low-level employees of both companies.
I don't understand why we don't just have one company overseeing every area of business in the world. Customers would be so much better off.