Wait a second. If they are modifying the DNA so the plants can't reproduce, then what are all these stories of Monsanto suing thousands of farmers because their crops were 'accidentaly' pollinated by GM crops about?
Oh wait, I know. The only thing preventing this years crop from being used to plant next years crop is a contract, and not DNA. Your 'concern', just like the stories of supposed lawsuits, is pure FUD.
Show a single case where a farmer was sued because his crops 'showed' the patented crop, where the farmer was not causing that to happen (by intentionally killing off all the non-GM crop).
I think you mean part 15, and you have it wrong. Part 15 means if your device is interfered with you have no legal recourse, and if your device is causing interference you must stop using it. There is no exemption for working correctly or as certified, and there is no need to show malicious intent. If you are causing interference and do not stop, you will be fined.
Yes, that is correct. Under the agency model the publisher sets the retail price. And under the deal with Apple, the publisher can not set a lower retail price for any other retailer than they do for Apple.
And how exactly do Amazon and Walmart set the minimum price that another retailer can sell at? They don't.
Amazon and Walmart may well have contracts that say they can PURCHASE goods at the best price, but there is nothing that says anything about the price they SELL the good for. Any other retailer can, if they so desire, beat Amazon and Walmart on price. It may be painful, but it can be done. With the Apple deal, it is simply not possible for anyone to beat Apple on the price the consumer pays. Not 'difficult' or 'painful' to beat Apple, impossible.
Do you know how to read? The first sentence you quoted is 'first place'. The second sentence is 'second place'. How, exactly, is that 'quoting 2nd place instead of first'?
There is a very simple formula for deciding if the price of a luxury item (like a book) is fair: If the seller is willing to accept the price, and the buyer is willing to pay the price, then the price is fair.
What possible long-term negative impact could Amazon's low prices have on consumers? The only one I see mentioned is that once they have removed the competitors they can raise prices. That, however, doesn't hold water because selling ebooks has a very low barrier to entry, so as soon as they raise prices even a little competitors will re-appear, forcing prices back down.
The current case has an obviuous and immediate short-term and long-tem negative impact on consumers.
Wrong. You can't make the deal because APPLE has a contract with the publishers that prevents YOU from setting your prices.
You: Mr Publisher, I would like to lower the prices to my customers. To do this, I will take only a 20% cut, you will still make the same money.
Publisher: No can do. We have this deal with Apple that says nobody gets a lower price than their customers. However, since you offered to take only 20%, you will get only 20%, but your customers will pay the same. We will keep the difference.
Standard Oil didn't get in trouble because they had low prices, they got in trouble because they created a trust. They not only sold oil, but they either owned or controlled most of the oil transportation system. Because of that control, nobody could compete with them in the oil market because it would have been too expensive for a competitor to build their own transportation system. Therefore, competitors could not arise, and SO could in fact raise prices to very high levels.
Ebooks are not remotely like that. Sure, Amazon could drive competitors out of the ebook market by having very low prices, but as soon as they try to raise prices competitors will pop up, as it is stupidy cheap to retail ebooks.
According to another poster, that is exactly what happened. Almost nobody used the police for that anymore. The few who did use the police probably could have found the person themselves if they tried at all. This announcement is just officially ending that service, along with a reminder that there are effective tools for doing this work yourself.
It doesn't say DR datacenters, it just says DR. There are of course disasters that require recovery that don't involve datacenters (eg office fire). Since his selling point for this idea is 'access to stores and eateries for displaced workers' I am guessing he is talking about more workers than would be in a datacenter.
Simple. If the person went missing today (or very recently) they will do a normal 'missing person' investigation. If it is 'I wonder were cousin Pierre is, last I heard he was moving up north', they won't.
The problem seems to be in the phrase 'missing person', which I guess is a translation thing. When people hear 'missing person', they think of someone who has suddenly disappeared - didn't come home from work, etc. Those cases they will still investigate, of course. What they are no longer doing is helping to find a person you have lost contact with (and I can't imagine their are many police forces in the world that would help with that under normal circumstances).
The locks on the Erie Canal can handle a vessel 43.5 feet wide. The magnet is around 49 feet wide. In addition, there is only 15 feet of bridge clearance (not sure if that is a problem or not).
The question was why ship on water instead of overland. I answered that - if you are shipping overland you are going to cross hundreds of bridges. As to the weight limit - a normal tractor trailer is limited to 20 tons on 4 axles, right? This thing is 30x that weight. 120 axles is no longer a truck, it is a train. My guess is that the route from where it docks to where it is installed is chosen to cross no bridges.
For starters, this thing weighs 600 tons. It would have to cross hundreds of bridges, most of which are probably not rated for 600 tons. And of course it is much wider than normal travel lanes and would move very slowly, creating a traffic nightmare. Then there is the can`t tilt more than a few degrees, which would make crossing mountains kind of hard.
But taxes aren't the only offset to the infrastructure. What about things like jobs (not only their employees, but also the retailers, shippers, etc) and the benefits those bring, including taxes.
First definition of fair: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice - under that definition slavery was of course not fair, and Apple's taxes may not be fair.
Second definition: legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: - under that definition owing slaves was fair, and Apple's taxes are fair.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a second. If they are modifying the DNA so the plants can't reproduce, then what are all these stories of Monsanto suing thousands of farmers because their crops were 'accidentaly' pollinated by GM crops about?
Oh wait, I know. The only thing preventing this years crop from being used to plant next years crop is a contract, and not DNA. Your 'concern', just like the stories of supposed lawsuits, is pure FUD.
Show a single case where a farmer was sued because his crops 'showed' the patented crop, where the farmer was not causing that to happen (by intentionally killing off all the non-GM crop).
I think you mean part 15, and you have it wrong. Part 15 means if your device is interfered with you have no legal recourse, and if your device is causing interference you must stop using it. There is no exemption for working correctly or as certified, and there is no need to show malicious intent. If you are causing interference and do not stop, you will be fined.
Yes, that is correct. Under the agency model the publisher sets the retail price. And under the deal with Apple, the publisher can not set a lower retail price for any other retailer than they do for Apple.
And how exactly do Amazon and Walmart set the minimum price that another retailer can sell at? They don't.
Amazon and Walmart may well have contracts that say they can PURCHASE goods at the best price, but there is nothing that says anything about the price they SELL the good for. Any other retailer can, if they so desire, beat Amazon and Walmart on price. It may be painful, but it can be done. With the Apple deal, it is simply not possible for anyone to beat Apple on the price the consumer pays. Not 'difficult' or 'painful' to beat Apple, impossible.
Do you know how to read? The first sentence you quoted is 'first place'. The second sentence is 'second place'. How, exactly, is that 'quoting 2nd place instead of first'?
The only thing Amazon was to lower prices. The consumers decided that the higher-priced 'competition' did not need to exist.
There is a very simple formula for deciding if the price of a luxury item (like a book) is fair: If the seller is willing to accept the price, and the buyer is willing to pay the price, then the price is fair.
What possible long-term negative impact could Amazon's low prices have on consumers? The only one I see mentioned is that once they have removed the competitors they can raise prices. That, however, doesn't hold water because selling ebooks has a very low barrier to entry, so as soon as they raise prices even a little competitors will re-appear, forcing prices back down.
The current case has an obviuous and immediate short-term and long-tem negative impact on consumers.
Wrong. You can't make the deal because APPLE has a contract with the publishers that prevents YOU from setting your prices.
You: Mr Publisher, I would like to lower the prices to my customers. To do this, I will take only a 20% cut, you will still make the same money.
Publisher: No can do. We have this deal with Apple that says nobody gets a lower price than their customers. However, since you offered to take only 20%, you will get only 20%, but your customers will pay the same. We will keep the difference.
Standard Oil didn't get in trouble because they had low prices, they got in trouble because they created a trust. They not only sold oil, but they either owned or controlled most of the oil transportation system. Because of that control, nobody could compete with them in the oil market because it would have been too expensive for a competitor to build their own transportation system. Therefore, competitors could not arise, and SO could in fact raise prices to very high levels.
Ebooks are not remotely like that. Sure, Amazon could drive competitors out of the ebook market by having very low prices, but as soon as they try to raise prices competitors will pop up, as it is stupidy cheap to retail ebooks.
According to another poster, that is exactly what happened. Almost nobody used the police for that anymore. The few who did use the police probably could have found the person themselves if they tried at all. This announcement is just officially ending that service, along with a reminder that there are effective tools for doing this work yourself.
It doesn't say DR datacenters, it just says DR. There are of course disasters that require recovery that don't involve datacenters (eg office fire). Since his selling point for this idea is 'access to stores and eateries for displaced workers' I am guessing he is talking about more workers than would be in a datacenter.
The 'one time' refers to the key, not the physical device. Just don't re-use the same portion of the data from the device.
Simple. If the person went missing today (or very recently) they will do a normal 'missing person' investigation. If it is 'I wonder were cousin Pierre is, last I heard he was moving up north', they won't.
The problem seems to be in the phrase 'missing person', which I guess is a translation thing. When people hear 'missing person', they think of someone who has suddenly disappeared - didn't come home from work, etc. Those cases they will still investigate, of course. What they are no longer doing is helping to find a person you have lost contact with (and I can't imagine their are many police forces in the world that would help with that under normal circumstances).
Nov 29, 2012 was more than a year ago?
The locks on the Erie Canal can handle a vessel 43.5 feet wide. The magnet is around 49 feet wide. In addition, there is only 15 feet of bridge clearance (not sure if that is a problem or not).
The question was why ship on water instead of overland. I answered that - if you are shipping overland you are going to cross hundreds of bridges. As to the weight limit - a normal tractor trailer is limited to 20 tons on 4 axles, right? This thing is 30x that weight. 120 axles is no longer a truck, it is a train. My guess is that the route from where it docks to where it is installed is chosen to cross no bridges.
For starters, this thing weighs 600 tons. It would have to cross hundreds of bridges, most of which are probably not rated for 600 tons. And of course it is much wider than normal travel lanes and would move very slowly, creating a traffic nightmare. Then there is the can`t tilt more than a few degrees, which would make crossing mountains kind of hard.
The Erie Canal is not used for commercial traffic very much anymore. 2008 was its busiest recent year, and there were only 42 shipments that year.
Quietly shelved? I don't think so.
You mean like this ?
But taxes aren't the only offset to the infrastructure. What about things like jobs (not only their employees, but also the retailers, shippers, etc) and the benefits those bring, including taxes.
First definition of fair: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice - under that definition slavery was of course not fair, and Apple's taxes may not be fair.
Second definition: legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: - under that definition owing slaves was fair, and Apple's taxes are fair.