I thought the 40% I paid in taxes covered prosecution of fraudulent advertising. Nick On Mar 23, 2014 4:02 PM, "Matthew Petach" <mpet...@netflight.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Niels Bakker <niels=na...@bakker.net > >wrote: > > > * mpet...@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:06 CET]: > > > > Doesn't sound too outlandish. Mind you, I'm sure > >> it would raise costs, as that testing and validation > >> wouldn't be free. But I'm sure we'd all be willing to > >> pay an additional $10/month on our service to be > >> sure it could deliver what was promised, or at least > >> to ensure that what was promised was scaled down > >> to match what could actually be delivered. > >> > > > > Nice strawman you erected there. > > > > > Thanks! I thought it looked quite nice up on its pole. :) > > Now it's time for people to take turns poking > holes in it. ^_^ > > > Thanks! > >> > > > > Yeah, thanks for standing up for industries holding their customers > > hostage to extract rents from companies trying to serve those customers. > > > > I'm not so much standing up for them as > pointing out that simply calling for additional > oversight and regulation often brings increased > costs into the picture. Oddly enough, I'm having > a hard time identifying exactly *where* the money > comes from to pay for government verification of > industry performance claims; I'm sure it's just my > weak search-fu, however, and some person with > more knowledge on the subject will be able to > shed light on how such validation and > compliance testing is typically paid > for. > > > > > > -- Niels. > > > > > Thanks! > > Matt >