The only thing different about J.K. Rowling's pen name from her real name is that she made up a middle initial. The reason that she went with initials rather than her first name (Joanne) was because the publisher thought young boys (the original target market for the book) might not want to buy a book written by a woman. At the time there were already MANY established women fantasy writers (Marion Zimmer Bradley, Mercedes Lackey, Tanya Huff, Ursula LeGuin, and on and on). So, they did not have her use her initials to "prove women could write fantasy."
Amazon is not in the same business as traditional bookselling. Amazon is a tech company which sells books (among other things). As a result, the characteristics needed in its employees are those of a tech company, not those of a book company. I used to work as a bookstore manager. If you look at the types of jobs that are typically dominated by women and the types of jobs which are typically dominated by men, you discover that those jobs require different characteristics. Bookstores and publishers require a mix of those characteristics, as a result, you have a fairly even distribution between the sexes.
I tried to explain why Amazon does not need to have more women executives, unlike bookstores and publishers, but I cannot quite put it into words. I do not think Amazon would be hurt by having more women executives. It is just that the nature of the company is such that men are more likely to have the characteristics which cause them to rise to executive positions.
So, it is sort of like Amazon's Distribution centers which aren't owned by Amazon so that Amazon can say they don't have a physical presence in the state for sales tax purposes.
Once more, this is not about the actions of any corporations. It is about state laws governing who is allowed to sell new cars in the state. The dealers do not actually do anything in this regard (except to lobby state legislators and regulators on the issue, which is constitutionally protected activity). The manufacturers and dealers do not in any way actually impede Tesla's actions. It is the several state governments which are doing so.
Except that the states are not regulating interstate commerce, the state laws in question are intrastate. There is, however, an element of interstate commerce here which would allow Congress to intervene(although that could certainly be debated). If Tesla was not setting up "stores" in the various states, then what the states are doing would be regulating interstate commerce.
No, the FTC does not have a narrow charter, but it does not have a generic charter that allows it to regulate all and any interstate commerce in whatever manner it chooses. It has a charter which defines what it can regulate and what types of regulations it can create. The fact of the matter is that every novel enforcement action does require an act of Congress, unless existing laws can be shown to apply to that action.
Sorry, but it would not be a slam dunk in court. There are already other states which have such laws. Further, I really doubt that it is a violation of the anti-trust law to convince the state legislature to pass a law. It seems improbable that Congress would have written such into any law. In addition, any such ruling as you envision would put into jeopardy a lot of state licensing laws.
It is possible that Tesla could bring and win a suit because New Jersey had already given them a license to sell cars in New Jersey. However, the information I can find suggests that the FTC would not have standing to sue.
I guess they use a different kind of math in analytics.
No, they use a different kind of math in journalism. You know, the same kind of math that says that a 10% increase in government spending is really a 10% spending cut because the government had said that it was going to increase spending by 22%.
What this means is that the FTC does not like these laws, but it does not have any authority to intervene because Congress has not actually passed any laws regulating this sort of thing. Congress did not delegate its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce (and I would argue that it cannot without amending the Constitution). Congress delegated the authority to enforce the laws it has passed regulating interstate commerce to the FTC. If Congress has not passed a law on this, the FTC has no authority to regulate it. If Congress has passed such a law, the FTC would already be regulating it.
While it may be arguable as to whether the interstate commerce clause should be invoked here, I believe it legitimately could be invoked here. However, if you read that clause it says "Congress shall have power to regulate interstate commerce." Since the FTC is NOT Congress, and Congress has passed no laws regarding this, the FTC has no authority to intervene. Now it is possible that I am mistaken about the interstate commerce clause giving Congress the authority to intervene here, it is irrelevant since Congress has not done so. Until Congress does so, the FTC has no authority to intervene.
Really? I looked into the information regarding the law passed in 1914. It says nothing about automobiles or dealers. It doesn't even say anything about the FTC having authority to regulate distribution in that manner. What it does do is give the FTC the authority and responsibility to enforce federal laws regarding interstate commerce. Just because Congress passed a law creating an administrative agency named the Federal Trade Commission does not mean that they gave it the power to regulate interstate commerce in whatever way the members of the commission see fit. All Congress did was delegate enforcement of laws that Congress had passed regulating interstate commerce. In particular, it was given authority to enforce anti-trust laws and to curb corporate "unfair trade practices". This is not a case of corporate unfair trade practices. This is a case of state laws.
Except that this is NOT under the FTC's current charter. Just because it is called the Federal Trade Commission does not mean that it has been given carte blanche to regulate all trade anymore than the Federal Communication Commission has authority to regulate all communication. Both of their charters are broad enough for either of them to issue regulations related to laws passed by Congress which were not part of their original charter (although in most cases, Congress has actually designated that role to them in the laws which were passed), but neither of their charters allow them to create regulations over areas where Congress has not passed a law. This is an area where Congress has passed no such law. If Congress had passed such a law, don't you think the FTC would have stepped into this sooner (as in before Tesla even existed)?
To summarize, yes the FTC is the official executive arm of the Federal Government's rule over interstate commerce, but it only has the authority to enforce laws that Congress has passed. It does not have the authority to extend federal regulation into areas where Congress has not yet passed a law. Congress delegated to the FTC the authority to enforce the laws it passed regulating interstate commerce. It did not delegate to the FTC the authority to decide to regulate interstate commerce in areas where Congress had not passed a law. This is such an area. Congress has the constitutional authority to pass a law regarding whether or not a state can require a manufacturer to sell through intermediaries (dealers), but I am unaware of any such law. The FTC cannot decide on its own to override the states on this issue. It requires Congress to authorize it to do so.
I did not say that Congress cannot pass a law on this. I said that these laws are not unconstitutional. If Congress passed a law on this subject, it would almost certainly supersede the state laws. However, as far as I am aware, Congress has passed no such law, which means the FTC has no authority to regulate this. The Constitution does give any authority to the FTC. The FTC only has whatever authority Congress has delegated to it and, as I said, at this point I am unaware of any law passed by Congress giving the FTC, or any other department, authority overthis.
Yes, but has Congress passed any laws regulating this? That clause does NOT give the FTC any authority whatsoever, in as much as that clause gives authority to the federal government, it gives that authority to Congress. Until Congress passes a law on the subject, the FTC has no authority to make a rule.
The constitution gives Congress authority to set policy in this. Unless Congress has passed a law on this, the FTC has no authority on the subject. I am not familiar with all of the laws authorizing the FTC, but, considering that the laws requiring car sales through dealerships have been around for a long time, it is unlikely that Congress has passed any laws overriding those state laws.
Most people weren't impressed with the first home computers, either, and couldn't see a need for one.
Of course that was because they did not have a need for one. As a result, manufacturers of those devices did not attempt to market them to "most people". They marketed them to hobbyists, who wanted a computer to play with. The problem with 3D printers is that the manufacturers are trying to move to the mass market phase before the hobbyists have played with them long enough to develop reasons why the average person would want one. For that matter, when the first home computers came out, most people had an idea what computers were good for. Right now there is no comparison in people's minds between 3D printers and their industrial big brothers like there was between the first home computers and their industrial big brothers.
The rest of the world can do whatever it wants, but when you are discussing a topic on a U.S. based website, with a majority of contributors living in the U.S., you can expect that people who are discussing a topic will be using the definition of a word as it is used in the U.S.. If you would prefer to use the word vodka to mean "any distilled beverage", that is certainly your privilege. However, do not expect to actually communicate much with that term. If you do, I will tell you that currently the best vodka is made in Kentucky.
Well, if you consider 1949 to be fairly recent I guess you are correct. According to U.S. law vodka is a neutral spirit without distinctive character, odor, or taste (there are in addition definitions regarding the degree to which it is diluted from 95% alcohol for sale). Considering that traditionally the word vodka is just an eastern european word with the same derivation as whiskey (both are derived from the word for water) ANY distilled spirit could be called "vodka", including brandy.
Basically, it comes down to this. when English speakers began using the word vodka, they already had words for distilled beverages which had distinctive character, odor, or taste. As a result, especially considering that there was no distinctive character, odor, or taste that defined vodka, vodka came to mean in English a neutral spirit with no distinctive character, odor, or taste.
If the vodka has any taste other than the taste of alcohol, the distiller has failed (except in cases where it is specifically flavored such as vanilla vodka). Vodka is supposed to be a flavorless spirit. For that matter, there have been numerous blind taste tests and the results indicate that while people can distinguish between vodkas when they drink it neat they cannot do so when it is in a mixed drink (the tests mostly compared mid-level vodkas to premium vodkas, so there may be some difference between bargain basement vodka and good vodka).
If you've ever read "This does not affect your statutory rights", it's an acknowledgement of this (and, in fact, they don't even need to say that - because not saying it wouldn't affect those rights either!).
Actually, the reason contracts have such language is because that language increases the odds that a court will allow the parts of the contract which do not call for your statutory rights to be violated to stand even if other parts are found to be inapplicable because of laws which state they cannot be enforced. It is a form of severability clause. Those parts of the contract which are not contrary to law are allowed to stand when those that are contrary to law are struck down.
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing different about J.K. Rowling's pen name from her real name is that she made up a middle initial. The reason that she went with initials rather than her first name (Joanne) was because the publisher thought young boys (the original target market for the book) might not want to buy a book written by a woman. At the time there were already MANY established women fantasy writers (Marion Zimmer Bradley, Mercedes Lackey, Tanya Huff, Ursula LeGuin, and on and on). So, they did not have her use her initials to "prove women could write fantasy."
It is a little more complicated than that, but that hits it pretty close.
Amazon is not in the same business as traditional bookselling. Amazon is a tech company which sells books (among other things). As a result, the characteristics needed in its employees are those of a tech company, not those of a book company. I used to work as a bookstore manager. If you look at the types of jobs that are typically dominated by women and the types of jobs which are typically dominated by men, you discover that those jobs require different characteristics. Bookstores and publishers require a mix of those characteristics, as a result, you have a fairly even distribution between the sexes.
I tried to explain why Amazon does not need to have more women executives, unlike bookstores and publishers, but I cannot quite put it into words. I do not think Amazon would be hurt by having more women executives. It is just that the nature of the company is such that men are more likely to have the characteristics which cause them to rise to executive positions.
So, it is sort of like Amazon's Distribution centers which aren't owned by Amazon so that Amazon can say they don't have a physical presence in the state for sales tax purposes.
Once more, this is not about the actions of any corporations. It is about state laws governing who is allowed to sell new cars in the state. The dealers do not actually do anything in this regard (except to lobby state legislators and regulators on the issue, which is constitutionally protected activity). The manufacturers and dealers do not in any way actually impede Tesla's actions. It is the several state governments which are doing so.
Yes, I read that, did you? The law gave the FTC authority to regulate corporations.
Except that the states are not regulating interstate commerce, the state laws in question are intrastate. There is, however, an element of interstate commerce here which would allow Congress to intervene(although that could certainly be debated). If Tesla was not setting up "stores" in the various states, then what the states are doing would be regulating interstate commerce.
No, the FTC does not have a narrow charter, but it does not have a generic charter that allows it to regulate all and any interstate commerce in whatever manner it chooses. It has a charter which defines what it can regulate and what types of regulations it can create. The fact of the matter is that every novel enforcement action does require an act of Congress, unless existing laws can be shown to apply to that action.
Sorry, but it would not be a slam dunk in court. There are already other states which have such laws. Further, I really doubt that it is a violation of the anti-trust law to convince the state legislature to pass a law. It seems improbable that Congress would have written such into any law. In addition, any such ruling as you envision would put into jeopardy a lot of state licensing laws.
It is possible that Tesla could bring and win a suit because New Jersey had already given them a license to sell cars in New Jersey. However, the information I can find suggests that the FTC would not have standing to sue.
I guess they use a different kind of math in analytics.
No, they use a different kind of math in journalism. You know, the same kind of math that says that a 10% increase in government spending is really a 10% spending cut because the government had said that it was going to increase spending by 22%.
What this means is that the FTC does not like these laws, but it does not have any authority to intervene because Congress has not actually passed any laws regulating this sort of thing. Congress did not delegate its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce (and I would argue that it cannot without amending the Constitution). Congress delegated the authority to enforce the laws it has passed regulating interstate commerce to the FTC. If Congress has not passed a law on this, the FTC has no authority to regulate it. If Congress has passed such a law, the FTC would already be regulating it.
While it may be arguable as to whether the interstate commerce clause should be invoked here, I believe it legitimately could be invoked here. However, if you read that clause it says "Congress shall have power to regulate interstate commerce." Since the FTC is NOT Congress, and Congress has passed no laws regarding this, the FTC has no authority to intervene. Now it is possible that I am mistaken about the interstate commerce clause giving Congress the authority to intervene here, it is irrelevant since Congress has not done so. Until Congress does so, the FTC has no authority to intervene.
Really? I looked into the information regarding the law passed in 1914. It says nothing about automobiles or dealers. It doesn't even say anything about the FTC having authority to regulate distribution in that manner. What it does do is give the FTC the authority and responsibility to enforce federal laws regarding interstate commerce. Just because Congress passed a law creating an administrative agency named the Federal Trade Commission does not mean that they gave it the power to regulate interstate commerce in whatever way the members of the commission see fit. All Congress did was delegate enforcement of laws that Congress had passed regulating interstate commerce. In particular, it was given authority to enforce anti-trust laws and to curb corporate "unfair trade practices". This is not a case of corporate unfair trade practices. This is a case of state laws.
Except that this is NOT under the FTC's current charter. Just because it is called the Federal Trade Commission does not mean that it has been given carte blanche to regulate all trade anymore than the Federal Communication Commission has authority to regulate all communication. Both of their charters are broad enough for either of them to issue regulations related to laws passed by Congress which were not part of their original charter (although in most cases, Congress has actually designated that role to them in the laws which were passed), but neither of their charters allow them to create regulations over areas where Congress has not passed a law. This is an area where Congress has passed no such law. If Congress had passed such a law, don't you think the FTC would have stepped into this sooner (as in before Tesla even existed)?
To summarize, yes the FTC is the official executive arm of the Federal Government's rule over interstate commerce, but it only has the authority to enforce laws that Congress has passed. It does not have the authority to extend federal regulation into areas where Congress has not yet passed a law. Congress delegated to the FTC the authority to enforce the laws it passed regulating interstate commerce. It did not delegate to the FTC the authority to decide to regulate interstate commerce in areas where Congress had not passed a law. This is such an area. Congress has the constitutional authority to pass a law regarding whether or not a state can require a manufacturer to sell through intermediaries (dealers), but I am unaware of any such law. The FTC cannot decide on its own to override the states on this issue. It requires Congress to authorize it to do so.
I did not say that Congress cannot pass a law on this. I said that these laws are not unconstitutional. If Congress passed a law on this subject, it would almost certainly supersede the state laws. However, as far as I am aware, Congress has passed no such law, which means the FTC has no authority to regulate this. The Constitution does give any authority to the FTC. The FTC only has whatever authority Congress has delegated to it and, as I said, at this point I am unaware of any law passed by Congress giving the FTC, or any other department, authority overthis.
Yes, but has Congress passed any laws regulating this? That clause does NOT give the FTC any authority whatsoever, in as much as that clause gives authority to the federal government, it gives that authority to Congress. Until Congress passes a law on the subject, the FTC has no authority to make a rule.
The constitution gives Congress authority to set policy in this. Unless Congress has passed a law on this, the FTC has no authority on the subject. I am not familiar with all of the laws authorizing the FTC, but, considering that the laws requiring car sales through dealerships have been around for a long time, it is unlikely that Congress has passed any laws overriding those state laws.
That is because, while such laws are bad policy, they are not unconstitutional.
Most people weren't impressed with the first home computers, either, and couldn't see a need for one.
Of course that was because they did not have a need for one. As a result, manufacturers of those devices did not attempt to market them to "most people". They marketed them to hobbyists, who wanted a computer to play with. The problem with 3D printers is that the manufacturers are trying to move to the mass market phase before the hobbyists have played with them long enough to develop reasons why the average person would want one. For that matter, when the first home computers came out, most people had an idea what computers were good for. Right now there is no comparison in people's minds between 3D printers and their industrial big brothers like there was between the first home computers and their industrial big brothers.
Yeah, but that's OK, he's a Democrat.
The rest of the world can do whatever it wants, but when you are discussing a topic on a U.S. based website, with a majority of contributors living in the U.S., you can expect that people who are discussing a topic will be using the definition of a word as it is used in the U.S.. If you would prefer to use the word vodka to mean "any distilled beverage", that is certainly your privilege. However, do not expect to actually communicate much with that term. If you do, I will tell you that currently the best vodka is made in Kentucky.
Well, if you consider 1949 to be fairly recent I guess you are correct. According to U.S. law vodka is a neutral spirit without distinctive character, odor, or taste (there are in addition definitions regarding the degree to which it is diluted from 95% alcohol for sale). Considering that traditionally the word vodka is just an eastern european word with the same derivation as whiskey (both are derived from the word for water) ANY distilled spirit could be called "vodka", including brandy.
Basically, it comes down to this. when English speakers began using the word vodka, they already had words for distilled beverages which had distinctive character, odor, or taste. As a result, especially considering that there was no distinctive character, odor, or taste that defined vodka, vodka came to mean in English a neutral spirit with no distinctive character, odor, or taste.
If the vodka has any taste other than the taste of alcohol, the distiller has failed (except in cases where it is specifically flavored such as vanilla vodka). Vodka is supposed to be a flavorless spirit. For that matter, there have been numerous blind taste tests and the results indicate that while people can distinguish between vodkas when they drink it neat they cannot do so when it is in a mixed drink (the tests mostly compared mid-level vodkas to premium vodkas, so there may be some difference between bargain basement vodka and good vodka).
A city is not a state.
If you've ever read "This does not affect your statutory rights", it's an acknowledgement of this (and, in fact, they don't even need to say that - because not saying it wouldn't affect those rights either!).
Actually, the reason contracts have such language is because that language increases the odds that a court will allow the parts of the contract which do not call for your statutory rights to be violated to stand even if other parts are found to be inapplicable because of laws which state they cannot be enforced. It is a form of severability clause. Those parts of the contract which are not contrary to law are allowed to stand when those that are contrary to law are struck down.