davidw

crowley said:

Does stammer mean something else in the US?  I don’t even understand why anyone would think that emoji might be relevant to stammering.

Not so much different meanings but different usages. 

A person that has a speech disorder that causes them to "stutter", we say that they are "stuttering". 

But if a person is"stuttering" because they are drunk, drowsy, under medication, have other things weighing on their mind when speaking, then we tend to use the word "stammering", instead of "stuttering". 

Plus here in the US, I don't ever recall hearing anyone referring to a person that "stutters" or is "stuttering", a "stammerer". But a person's speech can be "stammered" or is "stammering" when speaking.  (Not that I actually hear either of these words (stutter and stammer) being used often, in everyday conversations.)    

Speaking of competition, security and the EU .........

I recently paid over $700 for two duplicate keys (Smart keys) for my wife's Mercedes.

It seems for security reasons, the software needed to make a Mercedes smart key is proprietary and only a Mercedes dealer has access to it. So even the most well equipped locksmith specializing in making duplicate auto smart keys, can not make one for a Mercedes.

Not only this, for security reasons, not even the Mercedes dealers keep any blank keys in stock. They have to order the key from the factory and this might be from Germany. So it's a 3 to 7 days wait, after paying for the order. 

Plus one need to show ID and registration in order to make a duplicate Mercedes key. Even if you have the original key in hand. And the owner might even have to drive the Mercedes in, if the dealer needs access to the car computer in order to program the key. Mercedes is very concern about security. 

And the chip in a Mercedes key is also proprietary and can only be flashed once. So even if one buy a used key of the same year and model off eBay for less than $30, the key can not be reprogramed to work on another Mercedes. This even if one got access to the software and the know how.

So it cost me $350 to program a new duplicate key at a Mercedes dealer and $175 for the blank key. Which took 5 days to arrive. I had two keys made as i would not need to pay for the the $350 programing on the second key (if made at the same time). All this for a Mercedes my wife bought from a friend, for less than $1000 (That came with only one key.).  

I would like to see Vestager look into how Mercedes, which is HQed in Germany, is limiting competition by only having one source (a Mercedes dealer) from where Mercedes owners can buy keys for their Mercedes. And at a cost that is more than twice what most other car makers charges. All for the reason of ..... "security".

Using the definition of a "monopoly" some are applying to Apple with iOS users, Mercedes can be said to have a "monopoly" with Mercedes owners as they only have one choice from where they can buy their Mercedes keys from.    

foregoneconclusion said:

Microsoft is NOT exempt. They currently have a $2 trillion market cap. Congress is proposing a $600 billion market cap for the various measures that could be introduced. Companies under the cap can continue with the status quo while companies over the cap will face potential restrictions. 

Microsoft might not be completely exempt, but if this article is to be believe, it seems clear that special treatment was given to Microsoft to exclude them from these Big Tech anti-trust bills, as much as possible.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/microsoft-has-evaded-the-antitrust-scrutiny-of-its-rivals-playing-the-white-knight-11624897722?siteid=yhoof2

>Microsoft’s diversionary tactics were called into question last week during markup of a package of sweeping antitrust bills designed to rein in Big Tech. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., claimed on the House floor that an early draft of the bills that would have covered Microsoft was rewritten to have the company carved out. Original versions of the draft bills, he pointed out, defined “online platform” as including “operating systems” while the amended versions that were introduced and approved define “online platform” to only include “mobile operating systems.” 

This would mean Windows is not a covered platform under the bills. Earlier drafts also included a much lower total of monthly active users (500,000) to be a target of the bill, but it was raised to 50 million, which would exclude Microsoft’s Xbox videogame console. (The bills target companies based on the definition of a “covered platform” with 50 million MAUs or 100,000 monthly active business users run by a company with a market cap of more than $600 billion.)<

>Apple went with AT&T because it -- or rather the Cingular network that was then bought by AT&T --- <

As simple as that sounds, that not quite how it went down. Apple went with Cingular Wireless in 2006 and it was Cingular Wireless that bought out ATT Wireless in 2004. This formed the new Cingular Wireless Service and ATT Wireless became no more in 2005.

And then SBC, who owned most of Cingular Wireless, (along with Bell South (a Baby Bell from the ATT break up), acquires the original ATT Corp. and kept the ATT name as it was more well known to consumers. This formed the new ATT Inc.

This new ATT Inc.then bought out Bell South. So now ATT Inc. own all of Cingular Wireless and rebranded as ATT Mobility. Who ended up with the original iPhone release because of the deal Apple made with Cingular Wireless. But ATT Mobility is just the renaming of Cingular Wireless and ATT Inc is just the renaming of SBC. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_Services

"The idea to compel technology giants to pay into a pool of money to subsidized broadband access first originated with Republican FCC commissioner Brendan Carr, Axios reported Monday. Several key GOP lawmakers have expressed interest in the proposal."

 FYI- that ...... "pool of money to subsidize broadband access" ..... already exist in the 1998 "Universal Service Fund" (under Connect America Fund in 2010) and is now being funded in the tune of around $8B a year. Before any politician collect any more taxes from corporations, billionaires, millionaires or just regular tax payers paying the USF fee on their telecom services, these politicians need to fix the leak in the pool. Continuing to collect more tax money to fill the pool is like continuously running a garden hose into the pool to make up for the leaking water lost.

 https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service

 https://www.accountingtoday.com/opinion/federal-universal-service-the-government-fee-that-knows-no-limit

 Just google ...... "universal service slush fund"........ , to see just how wasteful and mismanaged this fund has been in the over 20 years they been charging telecom consumers in order to fund it.

 http://www.teletruth.org/USFReport.htm https://www.businessinsider.com/call-it-the-universal-slush-fund-2010-10

 https://constantinecannon.com/2019/06/07/usf-e-rate-fraud-whistleblowers/

 https://www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/reforms-are-needed-financing-universal-service-fund

 https://www.networkworld.com/article/2285205/universal-services-fund-fraud--present-and-future.html