Oh bullshit. The purpose of MOST taxi regulations is safety. Things like making sure you have qualified drivers (not people convicted of FELONY DWI and reckless driving like Uber has been shown to have), the cars are safe, metering is fair, driver is properly insured, etc. The only way those regulations 'keep new companies from entering the business' is if the 'new company' is unable to provide qualified drivers in safe cars charging a fair rate (ie, Uber). In MOST places those are the ONLY regulations.
The only regulations that 'limit' anything are medallion systems, like in NYC. And the purpose there is not to limit COMPANIES, it is to limit CABS. There are literally thousands of cab 'companies' in NYC. And all one has to do to find out why limiting cabs is a good idea is a little research into what conditions were like before those regulations. People being run over by cabbies trying to beat a competitor to a fare. Cabbies with someone to flag down competitors to tie them up without actually using the cab. Idle cabs clogging the streets. Drivers working extremely long hours, in poorly maintained cabs, because they are unable to get enough business because of the glut of cabs. And, here is a surprise, all those things sound EXACTLY like stuff Uber has done.
There is no 'taxi monopoly' in NYC. 40% of the medallions are owned by a driver with only ONE medallion. The rates, car requirements, minimum and maximum hours on the road, inspection requirements, etc are all set by the CITY.
What new regulations? What new burdens? All they are required to do is the same as EVERYONE ELSE in the transportation for hire business. Pretending (ie lying) about what business you are in is not 'innovative' and does not magically excuse you from the same laws that apply to everyone else.
You appear to have absolutely no understanding of what descended from means, as it means exactly what you claim it doesn't. Either that or you are too dumb to know the difference between a teleGRAM (the message itself) and teleGRAPHY (the method used to send the message). It doesn't have anything to do with 'an improved solution to a problem', it has to do with extending an EXISTING thing to a new purpose.
The telegraph was sending DIGITAL signals SERIALLY over a wire using a CODE. Are you really going to claim that does not still happen in modern computers? Telegraph using Morse Code led to teletype using Baudot code. Teletype using Baudot code led to RS-232 using ASCII led to Ethernet and so on. Of course over time the electrical characteristics of the connections changed, but the exact same concepts are still in place.
I think another difference is decanting. I remember when I was a kid and my parents had wine it was first decanted, then poured into relatively small glasses. The decanting is when the 'breathing' happened. The problem there is that the decanting process took some time (it seems to me they let it sit about 1/2 hour before drinking), so you want to be sure to decant enough for what you will be drinking. But once decanted, you pretty much have to drink it or throw it out. The larger glasses allow you to skip the decanting by allowing swishing.
Radio is an obsolete technology? And this may surprise you, but the two ends of a ham conversation may be in different places, hundreds or thousands of miles apart as they were during the recent tragedy in Puerto Rico. The electric may not be out in both locations.
Other than criminal activity, name ONE thing that makes bitcoin worth anything at all. What can bitcoin do that no other currency or cryptocurrency can? What can bitcoin do as opposed to a cryptocurrency backed by a government, or a cryptocurrency supported by some big financial players (banks,Visa, MC, even Apple, etc)? What can bitcoin do as opposed to a cryptocurrency traded on legitimate, regulated, exchanges?
Cryptocurrency MAY (or may not) have a siginificant impact on the world. There is absolutely ZERO indication that BITCOIN will have the slightest impact.
There are 'billions of people' with $10K of bitcoin? Do tell!
While bitcoin may or may not see widespread global use, it certainly will not be the ONLY currency in widespread use, and that will greatly limit its value.
As long as there is a 'bitcoin market' that remains wildly speculative (which it MUST do to keep gaining value) bitcoin is utterly useless as currency.
And once the speculation ends, guess what happens to the value?
Yes, we would have said the same thing two months ago, and we'd STILL be correct. The only reason the price keeps going up is because no-one is selling. Once people actually start selling, that will be the end of the bubble.
And no, it is not like the stock market. With the stock market there is actual information available to make informed decisions about your investments (note I said investments and not speculation). If you have a diverse stock portfolio, you will usually make money over time, the complete opposite of gambling. With bitcoin, there is absolutely NO information available to give any indication of future value. All you are relying on is that other people are just as stupid as you when it comes to 'investing' in bitcoin so the price keeps going up. Once you run out of suckers, watch out.
Why? When has an airline ever prevented you from carrying your phone or tablet on-board? They do, however, sometimes prevent bags from being carried on.
All Li-ion batteries are prohibited from being in checked luggage (they can be carried on). The difference with bags is that sometimes, for whatever reason, your 'carry-on' can not be carried on, and they check it for you at the gate. This could be because the bag is too large, or there isn't enough room, or for some other reason. With other devices, you just remove them before they take the bag and carry them on with you. If your BAG has a non-removable battery however, you are screwed as it can't be checked and it can't be carried on.
The PIECE OF PAPER is what is included with the sale. THAT is what qualifies as sellable under first-sale doctrine. Redbox isn't selling that piece of paper, they are selling a COPY of it.
You didn't buy the 'code' any more than you bought 'the movie'. You bought piece of media containing 'the movie' and a piece of paper that contains a code. Sell that physical media? Fine. Sell a copy of the media (which contains the movie you supposedly 'bought')? Nope. Sell that piece of paper? Fine. Sell a COPY of the piece of paper? Not nearly as clear cut.
What license are you talking about? When you buy the disc, you also buy a piece of paper with a code to get a digital copy. The piece of paper is your license to get the digital copy. If Redbox were actually selling that piece of paper, THEN there could be arguments made about licenses and whether or not first sale applies. But they aren't doing that, they are making COPY of the piece of paper, and selling that. How would first sale, or what is or is not printed on the outside of the box authorize that?
But the 'goods' that were purchased are a box, some physical media, and a piece of paper with a code. If they were actually selling any of those things then first sale might apply. But they aren't selling any of those purchased goods, they are selling a COPY of one of the purchased goods.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Any of that might matter IF Nashville actually had the legal authority to make those rules. As this case shows, they don't.
The law, as in the Constitution, says that federal laws are supreme over other laws. There is a federal law for pole attachment rules. In that law is an option for a state to certify that they have their own attachment rules. Tennessee has no such rules, therefore the applicable rules are governed by the federal law.
Slashdot Mirror
Updateable BIOS's have been around since at least the mid 90s. BIOS has not been on a ROM since then.
Oh bullshit. The purpose of MOST taxi regulations is safety. Things like making sure you have qualified drivers (not people convicted of FELONY DWI and reckless driving like Uber has been shown to have), the cars are safe, metering is fair, driver is properly insured, etc. The only way those regulations 'keep new companies from entering the business' is if the 'new company' is unable to provide qualified drivers in safe cars charging a fair rate (ie, Uber). In MOST places those are the ONLY regulations.
The only regulations that 'limit' anything are medallion systems, like in NYC. And the purpose there is not to limit COMPANIES, it is to limit CABS. There are literally thousands of cab 'companies' in NYC. And all one has to do to find out why limiting cabs is a good idea is a little research into what conditions were like before those regulations. People being run over by cabbies trying to beat a competitor to a fare. Cabbies with someone to flag down competitors to tie them up without actually using the cab. Idle cabs clogging the streets. Drivers working extremely long hours, in poorly maintained cabs, because they are unable to get enough business because of the glut of cabs. And, here is a surprise, all those things sound EXACTLY like stuff Uber has done.
That happened over 20 years ago. Time to get over it.
There is no 'taxi monopoly' in NYC. 40% of the medallions are owned by a driver with only ONE medallion. The rates, car requirements, minimum and maximum hours on the road, inspection requirements, etc are all set by the CITY.
What new regulations? What new burdens? All they are required to do is the same as EVERYONE ELSE in the transportation for hire business. Pretending (ie lying) about what business you are in is not 'innovative' and does not magically excuse you from the same laws that apply to everyone else.
You appear to have absolutely no understanding of what descended from means, as it means exactly what you claim it doesn't. Either that or you are too dumb to know the difference between a teleGRAM (the message itself) and teleGRAPHY (the method used to send the message). It doesn't have anything to do with 'an improved solution to a problem', it has to do with extending an EXISTING thing to a new purpose.
The telegraph was sending DIGITAL signals SERIALLY over a wire using a CODE. Are you really going to claim that does not still happen in modern computers? Telegraph using Morse Code led to teletype using Baudot code. Teletype using Baudot code led to RS-232 using ASCII led to Ethernet and so on. Of course over time the electrical characteristics of the connections changed, but the exact same concepts are still in place.
What sense does that make? If you are not participating in the economy by using fiat money, exactly what are your precious bitcoins good for?
Obviously he is talking about the important characteristics of a CURRENCY, and nobody considers gold a currency. The comparison is meaningless.
I think another difference is decanting. I remember when I was a kid and my parents had wine it was first decanted, then poured into relatively small glasses. The decanting is when the 'breathing' happened. The problem there is that the decanting process took some time (it seems to me they let it sit about 1/2 hour before drinking), so you want to be sure to decant enough for what you will be drinking. But once decanted, you pretty much have to drink it or throw it out. The larger glasses allow you to skip the decanting by allowing swishing.
Or any other 64 bit arch.
Radio is an obsolete technology? And this may surprise you, but the two ends of a ham conversation may be in different places, hundreds or thousands of miles apart as they were during the recent tragedy in Puerto Rico. The electric may not be out in both locations.
Other than criminal activity, name ONE thing that makes bitcoin worth anything at all. What can bitcoin do that no other currency or cryptocurrency can? What can bitcoin do as opposed to a cryptocurrency backed by a government, or a cryptocurrency supported by some big financial players (banks,Visa, MC, even Apple, etc)? What can bitcoin do as opposed to a cryptocurrency traded on legitimate, regulated, exchanges?
Cryptocurrency MAY (or may not) have a siginificant impact on the world. There is absolutely ZERO indication that BITCOIN will have the slightest impact.
There are 'billions of people' with $10K of bitcoin? Do tell!
While bitcoin may or may not see widespread global use, it certainly will not be the ONLY currency in widespread use, and that will greatly limit its value.
As long as there is a 'bitcoin market' that remains wildly speculative (which it MUST do to keep gaining value) bitcoin is utterly useless as currency.
And once the speculation ends, guess what happens to the value?
Yes, we would have said the same thing two months ago, and we'd STILL be correct. The only reason the price keeps going up is because no-one is selling. Once people actually start selling, that will be the end of the bubble.
And no, it is not like the stock market. With the stock market there is actual information available to make informed decisions about your investments (note I said investments and not speculation). If you have a diverse stock portfolio, you will usually make money over time, the complete opposite of gambling. With bitcoin, there is absolutely NO information available to give any indication of future value. All you are relying on is that other people are just as stupid as you when it comes to 'investing' in bitcoin so the price keeps going up. Once you run out of suckers, watch out.
Why? When has an airline ever prevented you from carrying your phone or tablet on-board? They do, however, sometimes prevent bags from being carried on.
All Li-ion batteries are prohibited from being in checked luggage (they can be carried on). The difference with bags is that sometimes, for whatever reason, your 'carry-on' can not be carried on, and they check it for you at the gate. This could be because the bag is too large, or there isn't enough room, or for some other reason. With other devices, you just remove them before they take the bag and carry them on with you. If your BAG has a non-removable battery however, you are screwed as it can't be checked and it can't be carried on.
The PIECE OF PAPER is what is included with the sale. THAT is what qualifies as sellable under first-sale doctrine. Redbox isn't selling that piece of paper, they are selling a COPY of it.
You didn't buy the 'code' any more than you bought 'the movie'. You bought piece of media containing 'the movie' and a piece of paper that contains a code. Sell that physical media? Fine. Sell a copy of the media (which contains the movie you supposedly 'bought')? Nope. Sell that piece of paper? Fine. Sell a COPY of the piece of paper? Not nearly as clear cut.
What license are you talking about? When you buy the disc, you also buy a piece of paper with a code to get a digital copy. The piece of paper is your license to get the digital copy. If Redbox were actually selling that piece of paper, THEN there could be arguments made about licenses and whether or not first sale applies. But they aren't doing that, they are making COPY of the piece of paper, and selling that. How would first sale, or what is or is not printed on the outside of the box authorize that?
But the 'goods' that were purchased are a box, some physical media, and a piece of paper with a code. If they were actually selling any of those things then first sale might apply. But they aren't selling any of those purchased goods, they are selling a COPY of one of the purchased goods.
Engine: a machine with moving parts that converts power into motion.
So I take it you don't consider price when purchasing a flight (or anything else)?
And no amendment has altered the supremacy clause, so what is your point? And wtf is your second sentence supposed to mean?
US Constitution, Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Any of that might matter IF Nashville actually had the legal authority to make those rules. As this case shows, they don't.
The law, as in the Constitution, says that federal laws are supreme over other laws. There is a federal law for pole attachment rules. In that law is an option for a state to certify that they have their own attachment rules. Tennessee has no such rules, therefore the applicable rules are governed by the federal law.