digg

Tell that to the people listening to the radio and the advertisers paying to have their spots run.

Excellent point, sir. Dugg up. As an outsider of this sort of *****, it's always entertaining to listen to people who have every choice in the world in alternatives bitch about things like that.

No, the bitrates on satellite radio vary by channel; they cram a lot of content into a small amount of bandwidth (I think about 4 mbit/sec.) Many of the music channels have quality that I subjectively judge to be worse than FM; most of the talk channels are pretty low bitrate, but usually better than any AM broadcast. Still, I choose to use Sirius because I like some of the non-music content, and keeping an iPod updated with enough content to avoid too many repeats without avoiding too many songs I don't like takes too much time.

so you can pay for it forever as opposed to paying just the initial cost?

no,what im saying is that the article wasn't posted when i submitted it jackass. Engadget wanted to get the news out so fast that they didn't wait to right the article first. it only had those 5 words. "XM and Sirius Merger approved". i acted quick so i could submit it, and it had no other news. and when i did find out, i realized the diggers would comment with more detail.

You couldn't wait for a more substantive article with some actual information? You just HAD to be first.

If you want to be the first person to submit a story, you can't take the time to read all of it or look into details. Accuracy, on Digg (and probably journalism as a whole), is second to being the first one to "break" a story (though, on Digg, you're not actually breaking a story - you're just the first person to submit it).

Give the guy a break...we're all trying to land our first big article submission! I am still working hard on mine.

And there is nothing to compete with satellite radio.....

OHHHH, HE SAID IT!!!!

I bet you double-checked the apostrophe placement on "peoples'" before you click that "submit comment." =)

And not to be a dick, but it should be "people's." People is already pluralized.

No, I'd write "him's".

:-D

the correct spelling is his's

The age of unrestricted capitalism has come and gone, and workers, the backbone of an industrial economy, lost. Thus, restrictions were put in place to keep things like worker exploitation and the kinds of economic disasters that set the stage for the depression in check.
Obviously they're not really adequate yet, because we still have worker exploitation and our economy is about to collapse just like it did in 1929-1934. But that's not a valid argument for simply removing all restrictions on business practices. It is, however, a valid argument that they need an overhaul to correct the loopholes that have been built in by free-market thinkers then and since.
Corporations have no soul to damn and no shins to kick. The guys at the top can rape the shareholders and most of them stay out of prison. Commerce between corporations ought to be as heavily regulated as anything else we have that can plunge most of the country into ruin.
As far as what one person wants to do business-wise with one other person, there's a much different story, and in that context I would favor individual rights.