FRA 1528 Lecture 2: Top Three Reasons Why TV Remote Controls Are Frustrating to Use

58 views1 pages

skybee817

20 Sep 2018

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Top three reasons why tv remote controls are frustrating to use. The average u. s. household has five remote controls. In fact, many households have 10 or more. But despite being introduced over 50 years ago, tv remote controls still maintain a basic design that can be frustrating to use. Below are the top three reasons why tv remote controls are frustrating to use: #3 commonly used buttons are too small, making their use awkward. The most commonly used buttons are frequently the smallest buttons. They also are usually surrounded by lots of other small buttons. #2 too many rarely used buttons getting in the way. Most remotes have from 40 to 60 buttons, yet only about 10 of them are commonly used. All of these extra buttons make it difficult to find the buttons that are actually used most often. This, too, is especially problematic in low light.

Related Questions

Public subsidies for new stadiums and arenas are commonly justified on the basis of economic benefits they will confer on the local economy rather than on public consumption externalities or on the value of an enhanced community image. Yet there is virtually no evidence of any perceptible economic development benefits from sports teams or stadiums. How, then, have sports leagues been so successful in persuading government officials and voters to subsidize their industry when they seem to promote the losing argument? Many referendums on using tax revenue to construct sports stadiums and arenas have been closed (Fort, 1997). At the end of the controversy, however, almost all cities have contributed public funds to subsidize private, for-profit teams owned by some of the wealthiest individuals in the world. The close votes suggest that stadium proponents-team owners and players-have been quite sophisticated in their appeals. If the votes had been overwhelmingly in favor of the subsidies, the proponents probably sought too little. If the voters had not generally approved the subsidies, they asked for too much. Part of the explanation for the success of subsidies for sports stadiums relies on the distribution of benefits and costs. Only a small proportion of people in any metropolitan area attend professional team sports contests. But those who do often are intensely interested. Thus substantial benefits accrue to some individuals, motivating them to become politically active in supporting the use of tax revenue to procure or retain a team. Team owners and players are also well organized and have low-cost access to the media in their effort to promote subsidization. In contrast, most voters do not find it in their interest to oppose actively a referendum that may cost them $25 or $50 per year in additional taxes. The issue is complex, the subsidies are indirect, and the proponents have almost all of the information. Those who are motivated to oppose the subsidies frequently are poorly funded, disorganized and politically naive. Misleading "economic impact statements" commissioned by the proponents of subsidization often confuse the public. As we have seen, these studies are fraught with methodological errors that may be easily overlooked for those not trained in economics. Given the close votes, the studies can be enormously effective even if they deceive only 2 or 3 percent of the voters

There are various ways to correct monopoly abuses, including government ownership, "public utility" type regulation, and injecting competition into the industry. Direct regulation has more appeal when there is a clear natural monopoly, which does not appear to be the case for professional sports. No one believes that two baseball teams in Chicago cause problems similar to those that would arise from duplicate water or electricity distribution systems. Direct regulation also risks the usual inefficiencies associated with political rather than economic motives, muting incentives for working, saving, investing and entrepreneurial activity. New entry would introduce competition to the monopoly sports leagues, but it is unlikely. Many have tried, but few have succeeded (Quirk and Fort, 1992, chs. 8-9). The successes came primarily in the 1960s and 1970s, after a long period during which franchise expansion in the major sports leagues failed to keep pace with population growth, and in the midst of rapidly increasing demand for sports entertainment fueled by the coming of sports interest age of the post-World War II baby boomers and the expansion of access to television. Those were days before astronomical broadcast rights contracts and stadium subsidies had driven players' salaries beyond the realm of normal incomes, and before the leagues realized that they could restrict the number of franchises so much as to attract an entirely new league. Today it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a new league to successfully enter any of the four major team sports, and individual teams cannot enter without the cooperation of incumbents because they would have no one to play. Unfortunately, the successful entrants three decades ago-the American Football League, the American Basketball Association and the World Hockey Association-all too quickly recognized their financial interest in joining rather than fighting the established leagues whose monopoly power they had challenged. In the case of football, in 1966 Congress even went so far as to pass special interest legislation that immunized the merger of the American and National Football Leagues from antitrust challenge. One possible road to remedy would be for the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Governors' Association to agree not to use publicly collected monies to finance the construction or maintenance of a sports facility for a privately-owned team (Rosentraub, 1997). While initiatives to this effect have been brought before these groups in the past, no action has ever been taken. The problem is that at any one point in time there are just a few cities or states affected by the demand for a new sports facility. Those mayors or governors not facing a threat are not inclined to alienate the professional leagues with whom they have or want a relationship. Moreover, the prospect of attracting a team with a subsidy may be too great a temptation for any one community to resist, and there is virtually no cost to a community for cheating on such a voluntary agreement. A variant of this scheme was proposed by U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who proposed a bill that would have prohibited the use of the federal tax exemption on municipal bonds for sports facilities where privately-owned teams would play. Like many similar efforts, Moynihan's bill died in committee. Divestiture may be the best remaining option. Each of the professional sports leagues is now approaching 30 teams. Dividing each sport into, say, four separate leagues could instill important elements of competition without destroying the value of a championship playoff. Competition could prevail in the market for players and, more importantly, in the market for team locations. Individual leagues might be exempted from antitrust prosecution for intra-league coordination, but coordination other than to arrange uniform playing rules and a championship playoff among the leagues would be prohibited. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) provides an example of such an organization of leagues. Although the NCAA is intimately involved in the regulation of the player labor market, it does not constrain either the size of college sports leagues or team locations. The various leagues participate jointly in many national championship competitions. Divestiture would solve many of the problems plaguing professional sports. The competitive imbalance problem would be ameliorated as teams with large revenue bases found their home territories invaded by entrants from smaller revenue bases in the other leagues. Such invasions would persist until revenue potential per team was approximately equal on the margin. Cities that could financially support new franchises would find entry into one of the leagues easier and (much) cheaper as the leagues competed to add viable new locations. Attractive places for sports teams (like Los Angeles for football or Washington, D.C., for baseball) would find interest from currently struggling franchises and probably would not have to provide a free stadium or arena to procure a team. Television networks could play the competitive leagues off against each other in bidding for broadcasting rights, which would likely fall precipitously. The most serious risk in a sports industry comprised of competing leagues is the possibility that one league will eventually be viewed as "better" than the others, and the weaker leagues will fail or be absorbed by the stronger leagues. Minimally, the legislation would be needed to permit periodic divestiture if this should occur. An alternative approach is to prohibit existing leagues from exercising collective control over team relocations. This approach would reduce the disparity in revenue potential because some teams from markets with lower revenue potential would invade the geographic territories of teams currently monopolizing the largest revenue potential markets. The result, for instance, could easily be more baseball teams in New York City and Los Angeles. Competitive team imbalance would decline because the revenue potential would equalize across teams as the geographic territories of current "haves" were invaded by current "have nots." Subsidies from cities to teams would shrink because leagues would be unable to prevent teams from competing to enter a city offering attractive market potential. Player salaries also would decline because both local television revenues and government subsidies would decline. Some cities would lose teams initially, but this would apply political pressure on the leagues to expand the number of franchises, thereby helping to attenuate the ultimate source of their market power. Franchise mobility may increase in the short run but should stabilize once a balance between demand for and supply of teams is established. Introducing competition into the market for franchise locations could be accomplished by either congressional or judicial action. Even with competitive leagues, existing teams would have some leverage in negotiating for publicly subsidized playing facilities because fans develop emotional ties to particular teams. The collection of such ties constitutes a sunk investment in a particular team for a community and can rationalize subsidies to retain a particular franchise that would not be sensible if the identity of the service provider were of no concern to fans. A common solution to such contracting problems (similar to those which arise between a coal mine and a single purpose railroad spur to the mine) is common ownership-that is, vertical integration. In the context of professional sports, vertical integration would constitute common ownership of the team and the emotional investment in it-in short, team ownership by the municipal government. Unfortunately, at the top level, none of the four major team sports leagues in the United States permit municipal ownership.9 This restriction is also subject to challenge under the Sherman Antitrust Act, but unless or until it is overturned, it is another way in which monopoly power stands in the way of economic efficiency in professional sports. Implementing either divestiture or a competitive market for team relocations would be a substantial challenge. Either reform would make team owners and players worse off. Both groups are well organized and have powerful incentives to maintain any monopoly power that enhances team revenues. Taxpayers, in contrast, would end up better off as a result of either reform. We believe that potential gains to the winners exceed the likely burden on the losers because the reforms, which rely on competitive prices to shape the allocation of resources between the private and public sectors and within the public sector itself, should improve efficiency. However, because the winners are a diffuse group of numerous individuals with but modest individual incentives to press for reform, the prospects for change are grim.

------------------------------------------------Question

According to the article by Siegfried and Zimbalist, what do they recommend as the most effective policy for reducing team bargaining power with state and municipal governments? That is, what policy do they suggest so that local governments will no longer have to subsidize new stadiums? Explain.

viridianpig408

Read the article below and write a brief (1-2 paragraph) summary. This assignment should be approximately 250 words . Complete this assignment as a Word document.

Time to Scrap Performance Appraisals

Times have changed. More and more companies have decided to radically change (read âscrapâ or âre-engineerâ) their performance appraisal process.

Last week at our research conference we spoke with Adobe, Juniper, Kelly Services, and a variety of other companies who have decided to do away with traditional performance ratings and dramatically change the annual appraisal process.

Our research shows that this is a strong and positive trend.

Why the process must change.

Why do companies have annual reviews in the first place? They are an artifact from traditional top-down organizations where we had to âweed outâ the bottom performers every year. By forcing managers to rate people once per year we can have annual talent reviews and decide who gets more money, who to promote, and who to let go.

Coupled with the performance rating is the âpotentialâ rating, which tries to capture an individualâs potential to move up two levels in the organization (the traditional definition).

This approach is based on a philosophy that â we cant totally trust managersâ so weâre going to force them to fit people into these rating scales. And in many companies (around 20%) there are forced distributions, which mandate that some percent of employees are rated at the bottom and only a limited percent can be rated at the top.

The well publicized problems with this process abound. These include:

Employees need and want regular feedback (daily, weekly), so a once-a-year review is not only too late but itâs often a surprise. Regular coaching is the key to alignment and performance.

Managers cannot typically âjudgeâ an entire year of work from an individual at one time (imagine if your spouse gave you an annual review!), so the annual review is awkward and uncomfortable for both manager and employee.

Manager-employee relationships are not 1:1 like they used to be. We work with many leaders and peers during the year, so one person cannot adequately rate you without lots of peer input.

While some employees are a poor fit and likely are poor performers, these issues should be addressed immediately, not at the end of the year.

Some companies really do have a lot of high performers, so forced ranking eliminates great people and damages the culture.

People are inspired and motivated by positive, constructive feedback â and the âappraisalâ process almost always works against this.

The most valuable part of an appraisal is the âdevelopment planningâ conversation â what can one do to improve performance and engagement â and this is often left to a small box on the review form.

Companies are nervous about eliminating this process because:

We need a fair and validated way to distribute compensation increases (donât we?)

We need a record of low performance when we let someone go

We need to capture performance data in an employeeâs profile for future promotion and other talent reviews, development plans, and career migration

We need a way to make sure managers are doing their jobs well.

Well, Iâve probably discussed these issues with 100+ companies over the last five years and our research shows more and more that companies are ready to let this process go.

Organization structures have changed and companies need to be more agile. We have a shortage of key talent and the keys to success now focus on regular alignment, coaching, creating passion and engagement, and continuous employee development.

The new keys to success:

Develop a âfeedback-richâ culture and set of tools (often online, sometimes formal, often informal) that encourages all employees to give each other feedback. Tools from companies like Achievers, Globoforce, and most HR software vendors now enable and make this easy.

Separate the discussions about performance from discussions about potential and future career plans. Yes we need to evaluate people when raise time comes, but that can be a totally different conversation from.

Talk about performance regularly and let employees create their own goals on a regular basis. Force managers to provide ongoing feedback and teach them how to have honest conversations.

Assume that employees already know something about their own performance, and force them to self-assess. People tend to have a good idea of their own strengths and weaknesses â give them an open and positive opportunity to share it. That starts the dialogue about expectations and the match between their self-assessment and that of the organization.

Enable managers to assess performance regularly. Software teams now use Agile tools which evaluate code on a weekly basis. Managers should be giving people feedback regularly. If they learn to do this on a regular basis it will get easier and employees will learn to appreciate it.

Focus managers on hiring the best, so they build a team which strives for 100% high performers. This is never possible of course, but rather than assuming that 20% of your employees will perform poorly, spend more time on assessment, culture, and fit to make sure very few low performers make it into the organization in the first place.

Remember that everyone wants to succeed. If they arenât performing well itâs not necessarily their fault â the organization should take responsibility for helping them find a better fit if possible.

Set and reset goals frequently. Companies that set performance goals quarterly generate 31% greater returns from their performance process than those who do it annually, and those who do it monthly get even better results. This means employees get feedback on a continuous basis (most sales organizations work this way). Read our research for more details.

Beware of pay for performance plans. While many companies (particularly investment banking, sales) have large pay for performance plans, research showsthat these can create perverse behavior. People focus on their own goals at the expense of the organization. In sales related roles this process works well â when you move to customer service, engineering, and other âbuilderâ roles they can create problems.

Give your leaders a cultural framework and set of values to work from. Companies like Juniper and Deckers (Uggs shoes) focus very heavily on corporate values, forcing managers to hire and manage to these values. This makes selection easier and enables us to evaluate and coach people against higher level frameworks.

Invest in leadership development. Being a manager is a tough job. Managers at all levels struggle with selection, hiring, training, coaching, and evaluation. Give them time and tools to learn, a framework for feedback, and a continuous development process so they learn how to become better.

Reward talent âproductionâ not talent âhoarding.â If you pay your managers to âproduce output,â they will focus heavily on talent performance and evaluation. This may be a good thing, but ultimately companies thrive by building skills â so in addition to encouraging managers to produce good work, incent them to produce good talent as well.

Iâve had the opportunity to study HR and performance management for almost 15 years now, and this topic has been controversial for a long time. In todayâs globalized,talent constrained workplace itâs clear to me that the traditional appraisal has to change.

Businesses thrive on agility, speed, passion, and alignment. The process of driving and measuring performance has to do the same.

UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR BY A STAR EMPLOYEE

Background

It had been another long and sleepless night, not at all whatRobbie expected when he became chief executive officer of the banktwo years ago. His wife, Beth, had noticed that something seemed tobe bothering him. "What is it, honey?"

"I was thinking about how good life was a couple of years ago,"Robbie answered. "I was the CEO of a small, local, financialinstitution with seven offices and about fifty employees. Assetswere less than $500 million. The challenging operational systems,such as asset/liability management and information technology, wereoutsourced to another bank. The truth of the matter was I didn'thave to work too hard and there were few difficult decisions. I hadplenty of time to promote myself as the successor to the retiringCEO of the much larger bank that provided the support systems to myold bank. You know what I mean, Beth. You used to be a banker."

Now Robbie was the CEO of a bank with operations in more thantwelve states, 1,000 locations and more than 4,500 employees. Only300 of these employees were at the main office. Assets were inexcess of $10 billion and growing rapidly. Robbie was responsiblefor a highly complex environment he really didn't know much about.The support of the bank's two executive vice presidents, especiallyMark, was what saved him from bad decisions, and, at the same time,caused him sleepless nights.

A Difficult Key Employee

Mark had been one of the finalists to replace the retiring CEO,having worked his way up in the financial and lending areas of thebank. Everyone agreed that his intellectual abilities were strong,as was his vision for the future direction of the bank. Mark wasalso strong willed and determined to implement his vision no matterwhat the obstacles. He had been the dominant manager in the bankbefore Robbie arrived, and continued in this role after Robbie washired.

"Why do you think Mark wasn't selected for the top job?" Bethasked. Robbie believed Mark's biggest problem was a total absenceof tact combined with a volatile temper. Mark was fond of tellingpeople how stupid they were when he was irate about something.Worse, Mark didn't distinguish between clerical employees,managers, customers or even members of the board of directors.

In addition, there was Liz, Sarah, Leslie and possibly others.Mark had sexual relationships with these employees and didn'ttrouble himself to attempt to be discreet. The affairs were carriedout during work hours, at bank functions and while travelingextensively throughout the country at bank expense. The total costwas easily in excess of six figures, all of which hit the bank'sincome statement as legitimate bank expenses.

Worse, these three employees were so inept at their assignedresponsibilities that it was clear they were being retained forsexual favors. This brought the total cost up to more than $250,000per year.

Liz was a high school graduate who had worked as a secretary ata small law firm before coming to work at the bank. She was marriedto a plumber, lived in a small town not too far from the mainoffice of the bank, and hadn't been exposed to extensive travel orexpensive hotels and meals. Her sexual relationship with Markdidn't take long to develop and it had continued for at least sixyears.

Liz's life at the bank was excellent. She was deeply fearedbecause of her relationship with Mark, and was frequently rude toother employees and managers at all levels. Liz had told Robbie offtwice since he became CEO, and neither experience had beenpleasant. She went to conferences throughout the country with Mark,which were designed for financial executives, not secretaries. Lizspent her time shopping rather than attending the programs, anyway,though. She was included in the bank's senior management bonusprogram, the only clerical employee on the list, over the protestsof many other managers. During the bank's internal educationprograms, which were usually held at resort locations, Liz wasoften at the pool, where she was easily seen by other employees ontheir way to attend training sessions.

Liz steadily progressed up the management ladder despite manygrim exit interviews with her former employees, who complainedabout the way they had been treated. Not only was she extremelyunpleasant to work for, she also lacked even basic knowledge aboutthe functional activities she managed. She reported directly toMark, who approved her travel plans and expenses as legitimate bankexpenses.

Robbie shook his head and told Beth, "Liz is a real managementproblem and an excellent example of fraudulent use of bank funds. Ireally don't know what to do about her."

"And what about Sarah?" Beth asked. Sarah was employed as asenior financial manager at the bank. She met Mark at conferencesout of town when Liz wasn't able to attend.

"Beth, let me tell you about a couple of situations involvingMark and Sarah. During a small break-out session at one conference,Sarah and Mark sat in the back of the room and talked about howdrunk they had been when they were together the night before. Theconversation was easily heard by everyone in the room. At anotherconference, Mark told the person in charge of the meeting he had toleave for the bank's main office immediately due to an emergency.Within a minute, Sarah told the same person she had an officeemergency and would be working in her hotel room for the afternoon.When the training class took a break several hours later and movedoutside to enjoy the beautiful weather, the hotel valet was justdelivering Mark's car to him. Mark laughed and said he had waitedmore than two hours for the valet to retrieve his car from thehotel garage. The employees who heard the explanation weren'tnearly as stupid as Mark thought they were. Can you imagine thishappening at the old bank, Beth?"

And then there was Leslie. She was the bank's most senior femaleofficer. She had previously had sexual relationships with both Markand William, the bank's other executive vice president, and wasthus "double-protected." She reported to William and managed thebank's public relations area. Robbie had received many complaintsabout Leslie's work, even from the bank's customers. Leslie alsohad a habit of failing to complete performance appraisals on timeor authorize the salary increases that went with the reviews. Shewas often more than a year late with these and her employees hadreached the point of mutiny. The salary increases were so faroverdue the employees' retirement contributions and 401(k) matcheswere understated. This control weakness had been reported to theaudit committee twice, and each time Robbie told them the problemhad been corrected. He knew it continued to exist, but holdingLeslie accountable would mean conflict with both Mark and William.Still, one of Leslie's employees had written a letter of complaintto one of the bank's directors and it could prove troublesome.

"I don't know how much longer I can cover for her, Beth."

"That sounds like a real mess, Robbie."

The Dilemma

Robbie started thinking about the general auditor, who had beenwith the bank for nearly ten years. The auditor had receivednothing but praise from the retiring CEO, the external auditors andthe regulators. His credibility and stature with the auditcommittee and the board of directors were excellent.

The auditor, Fred, had talked with Robbie twice about the use ofbank resources to facilitate Mark's sexual relationships. Fredpointed to bank regulations, the Financial Institutions ReformRecovery and Enforcement Act, the bank's internal policies andemployee perceptions as support for preventing the use of bankfunds to pay for sexual relationships. He also commented at lengthon the use of promotions as rewards for Liz, Sarah and Leslie inspite of their well-known lack of qualifications and ability. Thebank's clerical employees and managers believed the only reasonthese three employees remained employed was to provide sexualfavors and companionship during business travel. Fred concluded themeeting by saying, "There isn't any gray area on this one Robbie.Using bank funds and resources in this manner is plain oldfraud."

The human resources director was also highly regarded by thebank's board. Sam had talked with Robbie on several occasionsregarding complaints about the sexual relationships and theexceedingly favorable treatment extended to Liz, Sarah and Leslie.It was clear to other female employees the surest way to win apromotion wasn't through excellent job performance; it was throughsex--if you were relatively young and attractive. "I'm veryconcerned about the possible legal implications," Sam told Robbie,"as well as the example being set for our employees, to say nothingof the improper use of bank funds."

"How are you going to handle this, Robbie?" Beth asked, when hehad explained it all.

"I'm not exactly sure yet. Please listen to what I've beenthinking."

Robbie was having sleepless nights because he knew that Fred andSam were right on target in their assessments of the situation. ButRobbie also knew Mark would most likely seek other employment ifquestioned about his relationships, and without Mark, Robbie's daysas CEO might be numbered. Only Mark was capable of managing thebank to the earnings records that had been achieved recently. Markhad also been able to convince the board to greatly increasesalaries and bonuses for the CEO and two executive vicepresidents.

Mark and William were close personal friends and Robbie hadtalked with William about the situation. William reinforcedRobbie's conclusion that Mark would leave the bank if approachedabout his relationships and agreed the bank's financial resultswould not be nearly as strong without Mark. "Robbie, Mark's ego istoo strong to be dragged through the mud over these women. He'dleave for sure," William said.

Robbie told William that he had decided to ignore Mark's"personal behavior" and hope that it would soon be forgotten.

Several months later, William's new girlfriend, also an employeeat the bank, received a very poor performance appraisal. Susie wasin danger of being terminated soon unless her performance improveddramatically. William quickly transferred his secretary to anotherarea and put Susie in the position. Her new office was a few feetfrom Robbie's office and he noticed she only worked about 20 hoursper week rather than full-time. Although the bank did not allowchildren of employees in the building, Susie's three children werein her office when she was there. She used a couple of other bankemployees to help her kids with their schoolwork, and Susie spentmost of her time planning field trips and working on other schoolfunctions.

Susie and William took two hour lunch breaks together every dayand traveled together frequently. At company functions, they atefood from each other's plates in front of bank employees. Susiewielded power in William's name and became feared.

William and Susie worked late often. An hour or so after thebank closed, they would leave the bank together and get inWilliam's car. A couple of hours later, the car would return to thebank, Susie would get out and head for home in her own car. Thebank's second shift of security personnel enjoyed watching this ontheir cameras and it became widely known through the bank'sgrapevine.

Since Robbie had seemingly condoned Mark's behavior, it appearedthat William thought he had permission to become completelyindiscreet about Susie. Now more trouble was on the horizon.

Fred, the auditor, and Sam, the HR director, had agreed to giveRobbie time to end bank funding for the relationships. Robbie hadtalked with each of them twice about Mark's importance to the bank,and he asked for their patience to give him time to straightenthings out. He promised Fred and Sam they would see changes overtime implemented in such a way that no one would lose face. He didchange Liz's reporting relationship away from Mark to the chieffinancial officer. But that was the only change he had made afterseveral months.

Fred and Sam had talked with him again, but Robbie was firm inhis decision. "I don't plan any further corrective action because Ifear losing Mark. The risk of losing a star performer is too great,especially since it's simply based on personal indiscretions." BothFred and Sam were asked to cover up the situations with Mark andWilliam for the good of the bank and to ignore the regulatory,legal and policy violations. Robbie had closed the meeting bysaying he was confidant things would work out for the best, and heappreciated their support.

When Beth heard the entire sorry tale, she was worried. "Robbie,we're in trouble, aren't we?"

In your discussion comment on thefollowing:

Is Markâs behavior unethical or fraudulent?

Should Mark be terminated?

Should Leslie be terminated?

What is your opinion in regard to how Robbie handled thissituation?

FRA 1528 Lecture 2: Top Three Reasons Why TV Remote Controls Are Frustrating to Use

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

CIS 2250 Lecture 6: The Good, Bad, and UGLY

ENGINEER 1P03 Lecture Notes - Lecture 13: Shopping Bag, Cutting Board, Door Handle

MKTG204 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: User-Generated Content, Time Shifting, Mobile Telephony

Related Questions