You are only looking at the 'factory' side of the question. Who makes a buying decision based on the 'cost to produce'? No one. People, including people in companies, make buying decisions based on value to them. In your example, the widget must have been worth at least $11 to you. What if the widget, that you think has an $11 value, actually cost $100 to make? Would you be willing to pay $101 for it (even though the value to you is only $11) just because the factory is only making $1 profit? On the other hand, what if you found that that widget that you paid $11 for actually saved you $100, would you sent the factory another $40 so the factory shared in your windfall? Of course not.
Each party is trying to get the maximum benefit out of the transaction, and neither is required, morally or otherwise, to ensure that the other party gets equal benefit. The only way either party can 'lose' is to pay more (or accept less) than the value of the thing TO THEM. And why would anyone enter such a transaction?
It doesn't say they 'lost' $1B, it says they lowered their expected revenue by $1B. How do they know the amount and reason? Simple. There are only 3 weeks left in the year. Their sales are not where they expected/wanted them to be - they are $1B lower. They call their largest customers and say 'why are your actual purchases lower than projected' and the customer says 'can't get hard drives, so no need for processors'.
You mean the 'big entertainment companies', whose income is derived either from directly selling their own products, or by selling advertising for other products, don't support 'Buy nothing day'? Shocking!!! What's next? Oil companies not supporting 'don't drive week' or labor unions not supporting 'exploit your workers month'?
Also, I forgot to point out that the fact you got such wildly disparate answers further cements the point - there is no goal. There are just a bunch of people complaining about whoever they blame their problems on.
No. 1 is a pipe dream. You are not going to get the money out of politics, nor should you. How is a candidate going to get his message out without money?
No.2 is just blame shifting. The crises was not caused by bankers taking risks, it was caused by people taking loans they could not afford and then defaulting on them.
No 3. is just bizarre. Little-known loophole? What is the loophole? Of course members of Congress can pass laws affecting corporations, and of course members of Congress have financial interests. Members of Congress also can pass tax laws, even though they pay taxes. Members of Congress can vote for military action, even though they have no family members in the military. Members of Congress have a personal interest in EVERY decision they make. Sometimes the interest is because they are personally affected, sometimes it is because they are not personally affected.
And how is fixing any of those things going to improve the lives of the 99%?
The civil rights movement had a clear message: people should not be denied opportunities that everyone else has simply because their skin is a different color. The protests were used to demonstrate how bad things really were - people were refused lunch service because they were black, people couldn't decide where to sit on a bus because they were black, etc. The protests appealed to peoples basic sense of decency, and it did not take long before they expressed their opinions as votes and change was made.
Occupy, on the other hand, seems to have no message at all other than 'I am extremely envious of those few people who have more than the rest of us'. What, exactly, do you expect people to do with that message? What do you want the ultimate outcome of your 'movement' to be? The elimination of banks? The elimination of publicly owned corporations? How are your goals going to positively affect the day-to-day lives of the 99% you claim to represent? Am I going to have cheaper food? A better job? A bigger house? More leisure time? More toys? Where is the benefit to me?
The Occupy protesters are the ones living in fantasy land if they think any significant portion of the population is going to be on their 'side' without having questions such as those answered. Real concrete answers, not just more name-calling and accusations of stupidity and blindness.
If Facebook doesn't let either company have the name, how are they going to be sued for violating trademark laws?
I'll bet the contract Facebook has contains terms like 'you can not infringe on someone else's trademarks'. Since the german Merck was infringing on the US trademark, they, not Facebook, have broken the contract.
It has already been explained about a dozen times, but here is one more:
Merck & Co owns the trademark to 'Merck' in North America. No-one else is allowed to use the name Merck for pharmaceuticals in North America. Merck KGaA owns the trademark to 'Merck' outside North America. No-one else is allowed to use the name Merck for pharmaceuticals outside North America.
Because Facebook is global, no matter which 'Merck' they give the name to there is a trademark problem somewhere.
Some people have suggested some sort of disambiguation page. While that may be a technical solution, it does not solve the legal issue at all. The whole point of trademarks is to remove ambiguity. Saying 'there are two Mercks, pick the one you want' is the same as saying there is no trademark on Merck, something Facebook does not have the authority to do.
If Facebook does not have a technical solution (such as selecting the correct page based on location), then the correct thing to do is not give the name to anyone.
This is nonsense. First, you do not 'file' copyrights. You can register them, but almost no-one does.
To win a copyright case, you must prove that copying (intentional or otherwise) occurred. For software, that means that either the binaries are the same (very easy to prove), or the source code was copied. For the source code to be copied, you must have had access to it. So the first thing the plaintiff must do is show you had access to his source. Then, they make you turn over your source, and compare them. If they are substantially similar, you have a problem. How often does that happen when in fact there was no copying? Almost never.
Now, let's take a more likely case - one that does in fact occur. You spend years designing and developing a product. You release the product. I managed to get your source code (legally or otherwise). I spend a few weeks modifying your code to make it faster, prettier, etc. Users like yours better, so mine doesn't sell. How is THAT fair market competition? It isn't.
US law trumps Facebook. US law says Merck & Co owns the rights to the word 'Merck' as related to pharmaceuticals in the US. Facebook had no right to give that page to Merck in Germany, so the agreement is meaningless. It may well be that German law says Merck in Germany owns that word in Germany. Since there is no way for Facebook to resolve this, they did the sensible thing and said no-one gets that page.
'Walking to the office' is certainly the ideal method. Humans have thousands of years of development of face-to-face communication. Face-to-face you get not just the words but the body language. With written or phone communication you of course lose the body language.
Of written communication, I think chats are the worst. I find that if I am composing an email, I take the time to think about what I am saying, and how I can structure the mail so the recipient understands me. Chats, on the other hand, tend to be composed much quicker, with meaning lost. Does 'ok' on a chat mean 'yes, I agree this is the correct thing to do', or 'I give up, just go away'?
If this guy is so concerned about efficient communications, here is an idea: stop spreading your 'teams' all over the place. Put them all in the same place.
So you are saying you can pass 'the laboratory phase of driver education in Texas' without being road tested? Bullshit. You already have been road tested by someone certified by the state in that case. Your point that no demonstration of driving skill is required is still 100% false.
From the Texas Administrative Code: (a) The department administers a road test to determine an applicant's ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable control of a motor vehicle; such applicant must meet a predetermined score. The road test will be given in English or Spanish only and will consist of three separate standalone examinations, designated as the on-street test, the backing test, and parallel parking test, and will include the following maneuvers:
A drivers license does not 'literally tell that you are over 18, and that is it'. A drivers license says that the state authorizes you to drive on public roads. Getting such authorization in the first place requires as least some demonstration of knowledge and skill. The more important function of the license is that it can be revoked once you demonstrate that you in fact do not belong on public roads, so that your driving on public roads now becomes a crime. That is regulation.
I don't think time spent with a permit is normally considered to be a driving test. However, if you take a drivers ed class with a state-certified instructor some states may waive the 'road test'. In those cases, the certification of the instructor no doubt includes requirements that he test the students the same as a state examiner would.
Both OR and WA state in their drivers manuals that both 'written' and 'drive' tests must be passed before getting a license. They both state that the applicant must provide the vehicle for the 'drive' portion of the test.
When I said 'road test', I did not mean a test on public roads, but a test where you must demonstrate at least some skill driving an actual vehicle.
I still maintain that there is no state which will give a new, unlicensed driver a license based solely on tests 'entirely on a computer'.
Hmm, OK, if you say so. However, the Kansas Driving Handbook says you must pass both the written and driving tests, or have a certificate of completion from driver education.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that basically what photo-finish cameras for horse races and athletic events do? Those have indeed been around a long time.
You are only looking at the 'factory' side of the question. Who makes a buying decision based on the 'cost to produce'? No one. People, including people in companies, make buying decisions based on value to them. In your example, the widget must have been worth at least $11 to you. What if the widget, that you think has an $11 value, actually cost $100 to make? Would you be willing to pay $101 for it (even though the value to you is only $11) just because the factory is only making $1 profit? On the other hand, what if you found that that widget that you paid $11 for actually saved you $100, would you sent the factory another $40 so the factory shared in your windfall? Of course not.
Each party is trying to get the maximum benefit out of the transaction, and neither is required, morally or otherwise, to ensure that the other party gets equal benefit. The only way either party can 'lose' is to pay more (or accept less) than the value of the thing TO THEM. And why would anyone enter such a transaction?
It doesn't say they 'lost' $1B, it says they lowered their expected revenue by $1B. How do they know the amount and reason? Simple. There are only 3 weeks left in the year. Their sales are not where they expected/wanted them to be - they are $1B lower. They call their largest customers and say 'why are your actual purchases lower than projected' and the customer says 'can't get hard drives, so no need for processors'.
You mean the 'big entertainment companies', whose income is derived either from directly selling their own products, or by selling advertising for other products, don't support 'Buy nothing day'? Shocking!!! What's next? Oil companies not supporting 'don't drive week' or labor unions not supporting 'exploit your workers month'?
Also, I forgot to point out that the fact you got such wildly disparate answers further cements the point - there is no goal. There are just a bunch of people complaining about whoever they blame their problems on.
No. 1 is a pipe dream. You are not going to get the money out of politics, nor should you. How is a candidate going to get his message out without money?
No.2 is just blame shifting. The crises was not caused by bankers taking risks, it was caused by people taking loans they could not afford and then defaulting on them.
No 3. is just bizarre. Little-known loophole? What is the loophole? Of course members of Congress can pass laws affecting corporations, and of course members of Congress have financial interests. Members of Congress also can pass tax laws, even though they pay taxes. Members of Congress can vote for military action, even though they have no family members in the military. Members of Congress have a personal interest in EVERY decision they make. Sometimes the interest is because they are personally affected, sometimes it is because they are not personally affected.
And how is fixing any of those things going to improve the lives of the 99%?
The civil rights movement had a clear message: people should not be denied opportunities that everyone else has simply because their skin is a different color. The protests were used to demonstrate how bad things really were - people were refused lunch service because they were black, people couldn't decide where to sit on a bus because they were black, etc. The protests appealed to peoples basic sense of decency, and it did not take long before they expressed their opinions as votes and change was made.
Occupy, on the other hand, seems to have no message at all other than 'I am extremely envious of those few people who have more than the rest of us'. What, exactly, do you expect people to do with that message? What do you want the ultimate outcome of your 'movement' to be? The elimination of banks? The elimination of publicly owned corporations? How are your goals going to positively affect the day-to-day lives of the 99% you claim to represent? Am I going to have cheaper food? A better job? A bigger house? More leisure time? More toys? Where is the benefit to me?
The Occupy protesters are the ones living in fantasy land if they think any significant portion of the population is going to be on their 'side' without having questions such as those answered. Real concrete answers, not just more name-calling and accusations of stupidity and blindness.
If Facebook doesn't let either company have the name, how are they going to be sued for violating trademark laws?
I'll bet the contract Facebook has contains terms like 'you can not infringe on someone else's trademarks'. Since the german Merck was infringing on the US trademark, they, not Facebook, have broken the contract.
It has already been explained about a dozen times, but here is one more:
Merck & Co owns the trademark to 'Merck' in North America. No-one else is allowed to use the name Merck for pharmaceuticals in North America.
Merck KGaA owns the trademark to 'Merck' outside North America. No-one else is allowed to use the name Merck for pharmaceuticals outside North America.
Because Facebook is global, no matter which 'Merck' they give the name to there is a trademark problem somewhere.
Some people have suggested some sort of disambiguation page. While that may be a technical solution, it does not solve the legal issue at all. The whole point of trademarks is to remove ambiguity. Saying 'there are two Mercks, pick the one you want' is the same as saying there is no trademark on Merck, something Facebook does not have the authority to do.
If Facebook does not have a technical solution (such as selecting the correct page based on location), then the correct thing to do is not give the name to anyone.
This is nonsense. First, you do not 'file' copyrights. You can register them, but almost no-one does.
To win a copyright case, you must prove that copying (intentional or otherwise) occurred. For software, that means that either the binaries are the same (very easy to prove), or the source code was copied. For the source code to be copied, you must have had access to it. So the first thing the plaintiff must do is show you had access to his source. Then, they make you turn over your source, and compare them. If they are substantially similar, you have a problem. How often does that happen when in fact there was no copying? Almost never.
Now, let's take a more likely case - one that does in fact occur. You spend years designing and developing a product. You release the product. I managed to get your source code (legally or otherwise). I spend a few weeks modifying your code to make it faster, prettier, etc. Users like yours better, so mine doesn't sell. How is THAT fair market competition? It isn't.
US law trumps Facebook. US law says Merck & Co owns the rights to the word 'Merck' as related to pharmaceuticals in the US. Facebook had no right to give that page to Merck in Germany, so the agreement is meaningless. It may well be that German law says Merck in Germany owns that word in Germany. Since there is no way for Facebook to resolve this, they did the sensible thing and said no-one gets that page.
Entirely possible. But he didn't say 'other variables', he said 'heat', which they did account for.
'Walking to the office' is certainly the ideal method. Humans have thousands of years of development of face-to-face communication. Face-to-face you get not just the words but the body language. With written or phone communication you of course lose the body language.
Of written communication, I think chats are the worst. I find that if I am composing an email, I take the time to think about what I am saying, and how I can structure the mail so the recipient understands me. Chats, on the other hand, tend to be composed much quicker, with meaning lost. Does 'ok' on a chat mean 'yes, I agree this is the correct thing to do', or 'I give up, just go away'?
If this guy is so concerned about efficient communications, here is an idea: stop spreading your 'teams' all over the place. Put them all in the same place.
What? It says right in the summary: compared to healthy sperms stored for the same time in the same temperature away from the computer
So you are saying you can pass 'the laboratory phase of driver education in Texas' without being road tested? Bullshit. You already have been road tested by someone certified by the state in that case. Your point that no demonstration of driving skill is required is still 100% false.
From the Texas Administrative Code: (a) The department administers a road test to determine an applicant's ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable control of a motor vehicle; such applicant must meet a predetermined score. The road test will be given in English or Spanish only and will consist of three separate standalone examinations, designated as the on-street test, the backing test, and parallel parking test, and will include the following maneuvers:
Looks like Texas requires a road test. Try again.
The SS office is not the IRS.
A drivers license does not 'literally tell that you are over 18, and that is it'. A drivers license says that the state authorizes you to drive on public roads. Getting such authorization in the first place requires as least some demonstration of knowledge and skill. The more important function of the license is that it can be revoked once you demonstrate that you in fact do not belong on public roads, so that your driving on public roads now becomes a crime. That is regulation.
I don't think time spent with a permit is normally considered to be a driving test. However, if you take a drivers ed class with a state-certified instructor some states may waive the 'road test'. In those cases, the certification of the instructor no doubt includes requirements that he test the students the same as a state examiner would.
Both OR and WA state in their drivers manuals that both 'written' and 'drive' tests must be passed before getting a license. They both state that the applicant must provide the vehicle for the 'drive' portion of the test.
When I said 'road test', I did not mean a test on public roads, but a test where you must demonstrate at least some skill driving an actual vehicle.
I still maintain that there is no state which will give a new, unlicensed driver a license based solely on tests 'entirely on a computer'.
Hmm, OK, if you say so. However, the Kansas Driving Handbook says you must pass both the written and driving tests, or have a certificate of completion from driver education.
Be sure to let us know how your tax case works out when you refuse to provide your SSN to the IRS.
This is about the fifth time you posted this crap. What states allow a previously unlicensed driver to obtain a license without a road test?
Geez, that scenario happens to me many times a day already...
I think you misread that. He is not saying vaccines don't work, he is saying that using vaccines won't lead to superbugs.