They're not looking out for YOUR best interest in the case of a non-traditional house, they are looking out for the interests of everyone else. You know, like the rescue workers who will have to come to find your body when your non-tradtional house collapses. Or the fireman who falls through the giant unprotected hole in the floor (that you just thought was so cool) when he comes to put out the flames that your non-traditional electrical work caused. Or the neighbors whose property values just went through the floor with the addition of your non-traditional house in the neighborhood.
If you want to act like your actions are your business alone, and have no impact on anyone else, then go live somewhere where you can do that. There are plenty of wide-open spaces in the US where you can build and no-one will give a crap if your house burns down. If you want to live with the rest of us, then you get to play by our rules.
The problem is the whole concept of "what the device is capable of". There are many, many things that affect the performance of the device, and one of the most important, above most of the things you listed, is 'what it is doing'. While what you say about the benchmark being valid only at that particular speed is true, it is equally true that the results obtained from a benchmark are an indicator of how well a device runs that benchmark, and nothing else.
If you are using anything other than your actual usage to benchmark a machine then you are doing nothing but deluding yourself into thinking you know something that you don't.
Uh, yeah. Like some guy who just paid you to take him to the airport is going to commit perjury in a court of law by stating he is actually your friend, and that the ride was not a business transaction. Good luck with that.
And you last line is equally as ridiculous. "OK, I can take you to just outside the airport propery. You can just walk the last half mile with your luggage (and, oh yeah, you will be walking on the highway). That's OK, right?"
And what happens when the guy in his elcheapo car without all those safety features gets into an accident? He didn't have enough money to pay for safety features, but he has plenty to cover all the expenses of that accident, right? I mean, there is no way that would lead to all of us having higher insurance costs (or taxes), would it?
Let me get this straight. You are basically saying you would gladly trade the lives of your family and friends in order to be free of regulation (so long as the entity responsible for ending their lives gets 'held accountable'). Is that correct?
You're going to 'voluntarily pay' a company to check on the safetly of a power plant? Yeah, right. Who, exactly, is going to select this company? Is every individual living near a plant going to hire their own company to do that? What if they don't? Does that mean that if there is an accident only the people who didn't pay are going to be affected, while those that did will be perfecly safe? What about the people who live 300 miles from the plant but use the electricty generated by the plant - why would they care to pay to have the plant inspected?
Of course nobody is going to fly on an airline that has 'a lot' of crashes. In the meantime, on the way to 'a lot' of crashes, we have 'a lot' of dead people. But thank heavens those lucky dead people didn't have to suffer under the oppression of regulations, or have any of their money STOLEN from them to help ensure they would complete their triip successfully.
Doesn't even have to be another language. Think of all those 'Books Never Written' jokes - 'Under the Bleachers' by Seymour Butts, 'Falling Off A Cliff' by Eileen Dover, etc. There's hundreds of them, and I never heard anyone complain they were racist. Groan worthy? Sure. In bad taste? Sometimes. But racist?
What does OSS have to do with anything? If you install, configure, etc software, and collect a fee for it, then you collect sales tax on that fee.
This seems to be specifically closing the 'not a reseller' hole. If you ARE a reseller, then you are already collecting sales tax on the thing you sell (which includes your value add). This is making so you have to collect the sales tax on your service even if you are not 'selling' the system.
It is no different than collecting taxes on any other service performed (eg cooking, barbering).
What he says about taking your eyes off the road is not correct. When driving, the key thing is to not be focused on anything. That includes the road, the car in front of you, your phone, controls, etc. Instead, you want to be alert, which is the opposite of focused. Your eyes should be constantly moving - look at the road, the car in front of you, traffic in front of that car, your mirrors, your gauges, off into the distance, etc.
As long as the touch screen interface is well designed it will be no more of a hazard than any other controls. The key is to not require your focus. That means simple screens with large touch areas and as little information as possible. Scrolling, etc, is right out.
They may 'often' be overflowing rivers, but they aren't always overflowing rivers. We have plenty of flash floods where I live, and none of them involve a river.
Since you aren't the same person who originally posted, and I don't know where you are, I can't really refute that. But I can point out that the OP said there are no flash floods in Minneapolis, yet here is an article about one that happened less than a month ago. If you have severe storms you have flash floods.
Say what? Where are you getting those numbers? In all of 2011, there were a total of 158 amber alerts issued in the entire US. Of those alerts, 144 resulted in a successful recovery. 28 of the recoveries were a direct result of the alert
Do you know what a flash flood is? It has nothing to do with river deltas or coastal areas. A flash flood occurs when rain falls faster than it can be removed. This occurs when the ground is saturated and/or storm sewers are overwhelmed. Low lying areas quickly fill with water, which can be extremely dangerous, particularly if the low lying area happens to be a roadway. It is not a threat to your home, it is a threat to your life.
Or, you're actually guilty and you know the prosecution has enough evidence to prove it. Nah, that never happens, people only lose in court because the defense messed up or the jury doesn't like your suit.
Holy crap. Do you even know what the case is about? The whole fucking point of the case was that IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE for ANYONE to 'renogtiate'. Why was it not possible? Because Apple and the publishers COLLUDED with each other to ensure there would be no negotiations. The ONLY options available to the other retailers were: exit the business, or agree to the terms we set up with Apple. Period. Knock it off with the 'voluntarily agreed to crap'. There was nothing voluntary about it.
Whose rights get violated when one party signs an agreement with another party that says everyone else gets screwed? Everyone else.
I guess you have no problem with the idea of total and complete monopoly control of everything, because that is exactly what this is. Sure, it may give the appearance that there are multiple competitors, but when they are all forced to sell for the same price or exit the business the effect is exactly the same as a 100% monopoly. Why is that wrong? Because the people of the country say that it is wrong, regardless of libertarian rantings.
You have an amazing gift for dancing around the issues. 'Yes, they should be free to do so, but because of the Apple agreement they aren't, but that is OK because they accepted the only option they had'. What kind of completely moronic logic is that?
Let's take this real slow, so you can get it.
'They should be free to do so'. Agreed. Now answer this question - ARE THEY FREE TO DO SO? The answer, obviously, is no. Their choice is either sell at a price and under conditions determined by Apple (a competitor) and the publishers, or don't sell at all. So what, exactly, are they free to do?
'They should also be free to sign agreements to sell at fixed prices'. Wrong. That is illegal, and rightly so.
You seem to think that the only competition possible is between producers. This is nonsense. There is also competition between retailers. THAT is the competition that has been eliminated. Why can you not see this?
Yes, the producer (publisher) is able to set any price they want for their product. They can price themselves right out of the market. That is their call, and there is nothing wrong with it, and nobody is claiming otherwise.
However, the RETAILERS are also in competition with each other. You have not provided a single valid argument as to why retailers should not be able to compete on their own terms. If Apple wants to price themselves out of the market by adding a 30% markup while Amazon is only taking a 10% markup, that is their right. What is NOT right is arranging things so that Apple can get it's 30% cut by making sure EVERY OTHER RETAILER is prevented from undercutting them. In not one of your posts have you provided any reason why that should be tolerated.
And don't try the old 'Amazon was doing the same thing with it's low prices', because that is nonsense. What Amazon was doing made in difficult to compete with them, but that is the nature of competition. Apple was not making it 'difficult' to compete on price, they were making it impossible.
You have an odd definition of 'voluntary'. Their 'choice' was accept the method that Apple arranged, or stop selling the books. That stretches any reasonable definition of 'voluntary'.
It is relevant that books are not fungible because you put forth the premise that you could simply start a competing publisher if you don't like this deal. You could, but you won't be able to sell the books or authors that anyone wants, so that is not a reasonable option either.
The case was about eliminating competition. Apple succeeded in doing that. It did not matter if the other retailers accepted the new deal or simply exitted the business, Apple has eliminated the competition either way. Pretty shocking that you can't see what it wrong with that.
Just because you don't see them that way does not mean they aren't. From The Free Dictionary: "Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort." You do not need books to live (whether you think you do or not), so they are inessential.
Bullshit. The correct price (for luxury items like books) is whatever both parties agree on, and has absolutely nothing to do with cost (except that cost may set a lower limit on what the seller may accept). Anything else is just stupid. Note that 'agree on' does not imply any negotiation, just a simple 'this is my price, ok I'll take it' is enough.
That is probably a 'minimum advertised price', not a fixed price. Lots of things have MAPs. This is why you will often see 'call to get price' or 'add to cart to see price' statements. The retailer is not restricted from selling at a lower price, they are just not allowed to advertise the lower price. Big difference.
What is so difficult to understand about this? The publishers are perfectly free to set whatever price they want for their books. They can NOT restrict the right of the retailers to set whatever price THEY want. The 'individuals' (retailers) did NOT 'voluntarily' agree to this, they had it forced on them by the collusion of Apple and the publishers. If the publishers want to make $10 from their book, they are perfectly free to set the price at $10 (no matter how many of them do it). If Apple wants to try to sell the book for $13, and Amazon wants to sell it for $9, that is perfectly fine. What is NOT fine is saying that because Apple wants $13 for the book, Amazon MUST sell it for $13, which is exactly what this is about.
Here's the problem - there is nothing illegal or wrong with having a monopoly. The problems depend on what you DO with the monopoly. And what, exactly, did Amazon do that hurt the consumer? Nothing.
Of course Apple was able to gain a sizable share of the ebook market - that is what happens when you abuse your monopoly in one area to remove competition in a different area. Once Apple was able to remove that pesky need to compete they were easily able to expolit their dominant position in app and music sales to get a share of the ebook market.
That is not, in any meaningful way, 'busting a monopoly'. That is screwing the consumer simply so a giant does not have to worry about that annoying competition.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not looking out for YOUR best interest in the case of a non-traditional house, they are looking out for the interests of everyone else. You know, like the rescue workers who will have to come to find your body when your non-tradtional house collapses. Or the fireman who falls through the giant unprotected hole in the floor (that you just thought was so cool) when he comes to put out the flames that your non-traditional electrical work caused. Or the neighbors whose property values just went through the floor with the addition of your non-traditional house in the neighborhood.
If you want to act like your actions are your business alone, and have no impact on anyone else, then go live somewhere where you can do that. There are plenty of wide-open spaces in the US where you can build and no-one will give a crap if your house burns down. If you want to live with the rest of us, then you get to play by our rules.
The problem is the whole concept of "what the device is capable of". There are many, many things that affect the performance of the device, and one of the most important, above most of the things you listed, is 'what it is doing'. While what you say about the benchmark being valid only at that particular speed is true, it is equally true that the results obtained from a benchmark are an indicator of how well a device runs that benchmark, and nothing else.
If you are using anything other than your actual usage to benchmark a machine then you are doing nothing but deluding yourself into thinking you know something that you don't.
It's not safety as in road safety, it's safety as in not going to take you somewhere and rob, rape, or kill you.
Uh, yeah. Like some guy who just paid you to take him to the airport is going to commit perjury in a court of law by stating he is actually your friend, and that the ride was not a business transaction. Good luck with that.
And you last line is equally as ridiculous. "OK, I can take you to just outside the airport propery. You can just walk the last half mile with your luggage (and, oh yeah, you will be walking on the highway). That's OK, right?"
And what happens when the guy in his elcheapo car without all those safety features gets into an accident? He didn't have enough money to pay for safety features, but he has plenty to cover all the expenses of that accident, right? I mean, there is no way that would lead to all of us having higher insurance costs (or taxes), would it?
Let me get this straight. You are basically saying you would gladly trade the lives of your family and friends in order to be free of regulation (so long as the entity responsible for ending their lives gets 'held accountable'). Is that correct?
You're going to 'voluntarily pay' a company to check on the safetly of a power plant? Yeah, right. Who, exactly, is going to select this company? Is every individual living near a plant going to hire their own company to do that? What if they don't? Does that mean that if there is an accident only the people who didn't pay are going to be affected, while those that did will be perfecly safe? What about the people who live 300 miles from the plant but use the electricty generated by the plant - why would they care to pay to have the plant inspected?
Of course nobody is going to fly on an airline that has 'a lot' of crashes. In the meantime, on the way to 'a lot' of crashes, we have 'a lot' of dead people. But thank heavens those lucky dead people didn't have to suffer under the oppression of regulations, or have any of their money STOLEN from them to help ensure they would complete their triip successfully.
Doesn't even have to be another language. Think of all those 'Books Never Written' jokes - 'Under the Bleachers' by Seymour Butts, 'Falling Off A Cliff' by Eileen Dover, etc. There's hundreds of them, and I never heard anyone complain they were racist. Groan worthy? Sure. In bad taste? Sometimes. But racist?
What does OSS have to do with anything? If you install, configure, etc software, and collect a fee for it, then you collect sales tax on that fee.
This seems to be specifically closing the 'not a reseller' hole. If you ARE a reseller, then you are already collecting sales tax on the thing you sell (which includes your value add). This is making so you have to collect the sales tax on your service even if you are not 'selling' the system.
It is no different than collecting taxes on any other service performed (eg cooking, barbering).
That's nonsense. If you can make the payments (and meet your other obligations), you can afford it.
TFA says it is for undersea cables, not LANs.
What he says about taking your eyes off the road is not correct. When driving, the key thing is to not be focused on anything. That includes the road, the car in front of you, your phone, controls, etc. Instead, you want to be alert, which is the opposite of focused. Your eyes should be constantly moving - look at the road, the car in front of you, traffic in front of that car, your mirrors, your gauges, off into the distance, etc.
As long as the touch screen interface is well designed it will be no more of a hazard than any other controls. The key is to not require your focus. That means simple screens with large touch areas and as little information as possible. Scrolling, etc, is right out.
They may 'often' be overflowing rivers, but they aren't always overflowing rivers. We have plenty of flash floods where I live, and none of them involve a river.
Since you aren't the same person who originally posted, and I don't know where you are, I can't really refute that. But I can point out that the OP said there are no flash floods in Minneapolis, yet here is an article about one that happened less than a month ago. If you have severe storms you have flash floods.
Say what? Where are you getting those numbers? In all of 2011, there were a total of 158 amber alerts issued in the entire US. Of those alerts, 144 resulted in a successful recovery. 28 of the recoveries were a direct result of the alert
Do you know what a flash flood is? It has nothing to do with river deltas or coastal areas. A flash flood occurs when rain falls faster than it can be removed. This occurs when the ground is saturated and/or storm sewers are overwhelmed. Low lying areas quickly fill with water, which can be extremely dangerous, particularly if the low lying area happens to be a roadway. It is not a threat to your home, it is a threat to your life.
Or, you're actually guilty and you know the prosecution has enough evidence to prove it. Nah, that never happens, people only lose in court because the defense messed up or the jury doesn't like your suit.
Holy crap. Do you even know what the case is about? The whole fucking point of the case was that IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE for ANYONE to 'renogtiate'. Why was it not possible? Because Apple and the publishers COLLUDED with each other to ensure there would be no negotiations. The ONLY options available to the other retailers were: exit the business, or agree to the terms we set up with Apple. Period. Knock it off with the 'voluntarily agreed to crap'. There was nothing voluntary about it.
Whose rights get violated when one party signs an agreement with another party that says everyone else gets screwed? Everyone else.
I guess you have no problem with the idea of total and complete monopoly control of everything, because that is exactly what this is. Sure, it may give the appearance that there are multiple competitors, but when they are all forced to sell for the same price or exit the business the effect is exactly the same as a 100% monopoly. Why is that wrong? Because the people of the country say that it is wrong, regardless of libertarian rantings.
You have an amazing gift for dancing around the issues. 'Yes, they should be free to do so, but because of the Apple agreement they aren't, but that is OK because they accepted the only option they had'. What kind of completely moronic logic is that?
Let's take this real slow, so you can get it.
'They should be free to do so'. Agreed. Now answer this question - ARE THEY FREE TO DO SO? The answer, obviously, is no. Their choice is either sell at a price and under conditions determined by Apple (a competitor) and the publishers, or don't sell at all. So what, exactly, are they free to do?
'They should also be free to sign agreements to sell at fixed prices'. Wrong. That is illegal, and rightly so.
You seem to think that the only competition possible is between producers. This is nonsense. There is also competition between retailers. THAT is the competition that has been eliminated. Why can you not see this?
Yes, the producer (publisher) is able to set any price they want for their product. They can price themselves right out of the market. That is their call, and there is nothing wrong with it, and nobody is claiming otherwise.
However, the RETAILERS are also in competition with each other. You have not provided a single valid argument as to why retailers should not be able to compete on their own terms. If Apple wants to price themselves out of the market by adding a 30% markup while Amazon is only taking a 10% markup, that is their right. What is NOT right is arranging things so that Apple can get it's 30% cut by making sure EVERY OTHER RETAILER is prevented from undercutting them. In not one of your posts have you provided any reason why that should be tolerated.
And don't try the old 'Amazon was doing the same thing with it's low prices', because that is nonsense. What Amazon was doing made in difficult to compete with them, but that is the nature of competition. Apple was not making it 'difficult' to compete on price, they were making it impossible.
You have an odd definition of 'voluntary'. Their 'choice' was accept the method that Apple arranged, or stop selling the books. That stretches any reasonable definition of 'voluntary'.
It is relevant that books are not fungible because you put forth the premise that you could simply start a competing publisher if you don't like this deal. You could, but you won't be able to sell the books or authors that anyone wants, so that is not a reasonable option either.
The case was about eliminating competition. Apple succeeded in doing that. It did not matter if the other retailers accepted the new deal or simply exitted the business, Apple has eliminated the competition either way. Pretty shocking that you can't see what it wrong with that.
Just because you don't see them that way does not mean they aren't. From The Free Dictionary: "Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort." You do not need books to live (whether you think you do or not), so they are inessential.
Bullshit. The correct price (for luxury items like books) is whatever both parties agree on, and has absolutely nothing to do with cost (except that cost may set a lower limit on what the seller may accept). Anything else is just stupid. Note that 'agree on' does not imply any negotiation, just a simple 'this is my price, ok I'll take it' is enough.
That is probably a 'minimum advertised price', not a fixed price. Lots of things have MAPs. This is why you will often see 'call to get price' or 'add to cart to see price' statements. The retailer is not restricted from selling at a lower price, they are just not allowed to advertise the lower price. Big difference.
What is so difficult to understand about this? The publishers are perfectly free to set whatever price they want for their books. They can NOT restrict the right of the retailers to set whatever price THEY want. The 'individuals' (retailers) did NOT 'voluntarily' agree to this, they had it forced on them by the collusion of Apple and the publishers. If the publishers want to make $10 from their book, they are perfectly free to set the price at $10 (no matter how many of them do it). If Apple wants to try to sell the book for $13, and Amazon wants to sell it for $9, that is perfectly fine. What is NOT fine is saying that because Apple wants $13 for the book, Amazon MUST sell it for $13, which is exactly what this is about.
Here's the problem - there is nothing illegal or wrong with having a monopoly. The problems depend on what you DO with the monopoly. And what, exactly, did Amazon do that hurt the consumer? Nothing.
Of course Apple was able to gain a sizable share of the ebook market - that is what happens when you abuse your monopoly in one area to remove competition in a different area. Once Apple was able to remove that pesky need to compete they were easily able to expolit their dominant position in app and music sales to get a share of the ebook market.
That is not, in any meaningful way, 'busting a monopoly'. That is screwing the consumer simply so a giant does not have to worry about that annoying competition.