However, the fact that Wall-Mart is big enough to influence what others are selling, and to influence what the magazine's are printing seems illegal to me.
There's nothing illegal or unethical about it. They don't influence what others are selling, only what is sold in their own stores.
I don't know enough about anti-trust laws, but it doesn't seem like Wall-Mart should be able to tell other companies what to do. To me, this seems like an improper use of Wall-Mart's huge market share.
They're not telling other corporations what to do. They're merely enforcing policies about what is sold in their own stores. If they want their products sold in WalMart, they'll simply have to abide by WalMart's policies.
Like I said in a previous post, I don't know how accurate 15% is. But by any stretch of imagination, that's not a huge market share. Microsoft has a huge market share, in both the desktop OS and office suite arenas. WalMart may be the biggest retailer, but they are far from even a majority market share, even further from being a monopoly.
Time is certainly big enough to tell Walmart to "bugger off".
And the fact that they regularly produce localized covers in many places. They did a Minnesota only cover when Jesse Ventura was elected governor here (a day that will live in infamy, luckily he decided not to run for re-election, he would have been squashed at the polls). It was an extra cover over the top of the national cover.
Other large magazines do similar things: local advertising news or inserts depending on where you buy it or your subscription address.
The problem is that Wal-Mart is such a major distribution power. What if telecoms "made a choice" that they are no longer going allow you to transmit information of which they don't approve. I suppose that isn't censorship either. They are both private companies, and both control means of distribution.
If all the telecoms conspired to block certain information, it would be collusion, which is illegal. This is what the big 5 recording companies got slapped by the FTC for price-fixing CDs (not that the prices have changed any). Also, they do not control the means of distribution, only one mean. There are plenty of other retailers that carry products WalMart doesn't.
Once a company reaches a certain level of size and control of its given market they SHOULD lose much of their choices, because it is censorship, and it is dangerous. It is someone saying, "This you may not hear, this you may not see, this you are forbidden to know." It does not matter whether the entity is public or private. The decision whether or not to view something should rest ultimately with the consumer, and if some delicate little sensibilities are upset along the way, too bad.
So WalMart should be forced to carry everything under the sun, no matter how dangerous or objectionable? You want unlimited individual freedom, but want to force large corporations' behavior. You can't have it both ways. Freedom of choice must be protected for all. Besides, we may have the right to freedom of speech, but we don't have a right to be heard.
Grow up. People bleed, People die. Babies aren't brought by the stork, and they don't come from under cabbage leaves. Real live is rated at least NC-17, and if you don't like it, live in a bubble, but there's no reason the rest of us should sacrifice to make it easy for you.
<SARCASM>Really? Then how are babies made?</SARCASM> Like I said in my previous post: I could care less, I just won't buy the stuff. I'm not asking anyone to make any sacrifices, just let corporations have the same freedom of choice you expect yourself. And my life is rated PG (besides the bathroom & bedroom).
Basically, the idea is since corporations are deemed persons, incorporated under the laws of a particular jurisdiction, that their charter to conduct business be revoked if they committed grievous crimes.
This is almost exactly how movie censorship works in Sweden. If you want to show your movie on big cinemas, you have to have it approved by the censorship board. If not, you can show it anyway, for example on satellite channels.
This is a bad analogy. Most Americans have a multitude of choices where to shop. Where I live (Minneapolis) there are literally hundreds of places to shop more convenient, and usually just as cheap, as WalMart.
If you don't think the Walmart system (since they are so dominating) is censorship, then you are either blind or otherwise challenged.
How is WalMart dominating? Elsewhere under this article, I've seen a figure of 15% market share for WalMart. I don't know how accurate it is, but that's hardly dominating. There are plenty of other retailers to sell your products in.
Heck, I still havnt seen a universal argeement on what 'militia' refers to in these times in that right to bear arms amendment, so its not even like it _can_ be followed to the letter sometimes, either.
No need for an agreement. Look no further than 10 USC Sec. 311, the official definition of militia codified in federal statutes. It states:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
How to remove tough stains: If it's small, who cares, wash it and keep wearing it. If it's really noticeable, throw it out, my clothes are cheap.
If you kill a polar bear, don't eat the liver, as it has a toxic level of Vitamin A.
I wouldn't eat the liver anyways, it's disgusting!
Fashion: Forget about current fashion trends. The Levis I'm wearing were invented 150 years ago. The various T-shirts I own range from free (industry trade shoes, college recruiting fairs, etc.) to $30 for a concert T-shirt.
1. Walmart gets magainze covers changed before they are printed. That means, *every store* carries the 'walmart approved' copy. Thats not choice. Thats Walmart unfairly influencing what musicians (Nirvana is one such band that changed the cover of their CD before releasing it, *soley* due to Walmart issuing a complaint with their label.) and magazines wish to print.
There's nothing unfair about WalMart's policy. Nobody has a right to sell their products in any particular store. If they want to sell in WalMart, they'll just have to comply with their policies.
You really shouldn't talk like you do, in a country which claims free speech (both the right to be free of censorship, and the right to be free of undue pressures to self-censor.) is one of its founding principals.
The right of free speech is protection from the government. The first amendment starts out Congress shall make no law... Gee, I can't find WalMart anywhere in the US Constitution.
2. These are not soft-porn magazines. This is Time. Rolling Stone. Seventeen. All mainstream magazines.
Mainstream magazines and the advertisements therein show a lot more skin than they used to. Many people, myself included, see this as a problem. Just because something is popular doesn't make it right, or preferable. Personally, I could care less what's in these magazines, I just won't buy them.
Many magainzes specifically call up Walmart and seek approval for their covers pre-printed, because if Walmart refuses to carry the published run of the magazine, you cannot justify to stockholders, as a magazine publisher, giving up 15% of your sales right off the bat.
Then that's a choice they've made. No censorship involved.
After all, it's their site, so they make the rules.
It's a publicly accessible website. They can't expect to restrict deep linking unless they protect their content in some way, i.e. password authentication. Without it, they've made no effort to restrict their content pages.
IIRC, other recent so-called "deep linking" suits have been resolved in a similar manner.
Plenty of suits have been settled, but I can't recall ever hearing a court actually rule on this.
Why? It seems just a rather minor technical decision, not a strategic corporate shift from their former anti-freedom stance.
True, but why announce a minor technical decision with a press release, published in the NY Times no less? This is still a win for us. Disney can't argue against Linux before Congress or anywhere in public after publishing this.
In one sense yes, but if the various Linux distributions weren't compatible, nobody would use Linux. This is why it's great that lots of free/open source software runs on Linux, the BSDs, and commercial Unix with little more than a recompile in many cases.
Re:Gentoo is great!!
on
Gentoo Linux 1.2
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The diversity in Linux distributions is an incredible strength.
That's not entirely true. There's strength in unity: software runs on Linux across an incredible variety of distributions and platforms. Diversity gives Linux an advantage for survival, but it's not a strength.
If there was only one Linux distribution then I strongly believe there would be fewer Linux users.
The P-47 Thunderbolt may not have won any beauty pageants, but it is definitely not ugly.
On the other hand the F4U Corsair is a sleek, beautiful aircraft.
The F-4 Phantom II may have nicknames like Rhino and Double Ugly, but I don't think it's ugly. It looks mean and muscular.
The other poster mentioned the A-6 Intruder, which I don't think is ugly. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Then he mentioned the A-10 Thunderbolt II. This happens to be one of my favorite aircraft. No aircraft has ever been better suited for close air support than the A-10. As architect Louis Sullivan said, "form follows function."
Boeing's F-32 design though, was truly ugly, IMNSHO.
I've read a lot about the JSF program over the last 2 years or so, and it seems they did pick the best aircraft. Lockheed Martin simply has more (recent) experience with this type of aircraft, since they also designed the F-22.
On the other hand, I thanked God they didn't pick the hideous looking Boeing contraption. No self respecting fighter pilot would want to be seen in that.
From the rest of the article, I gathered they had some top notch unix gurus in-house. Why out source the support if they don't need it? They seem more than capable of solving their own problems.
I don't see drag as a serious problem since the only thing cooler than a high-speed, levitating train is a high-speed, levitating train with golf-ball dimples.
Golf balls have dimples because they spin rapidly in flight. I sure wouldn't want to ride a train that spun that fast. You'd have an awful lot of vomiting passengers.
NEITHER of the linked rebuttals qualifies as well written; the MITRE report qualifies as well written, and so does most of the AdTI report, but the rebuttals to the AdTI report do not.
I agree MITRE's report is well written, as should be expected. They're a well known, reasonably respected think tank.
However, the AdTI report is worse than many poorly written high school papers I've seen. They have trouble with basic grammar. I'd never heard of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute before this debacle. Now I know why. They're a complete and utter disgrace to the name.
At Autodesk University in 1995, Autodesk, Sun, HP, SGI, & IBM were all pushing AutoCAD R13 for Unix. They had lots of demos, whitepapers, seminars, etc. Most people were still using the DOS versions of AutoCAD then (us included).
Then AutoCAD R14 came out for Windows only. Autodesk is completely in bed with Microsoft now.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not telling other corporations what to do. They're merely enforcing policies about what is sold in their own stores. If they want their products sold in WalMart, they'll simply have to abide by WalMart's policies.
Like I said in a previous post, I don't know how accurate 15% is. But by any stretch of imagination, that's not a huge market share. Microsoft has a huge market share, in both the desktop OS and office suite arenas. WalMart may be the biggest retailer, but they are far from even a majority market share, even further from being a monopoly.
And the fact that they regularly produce localized covers in many places. They did a Minnesota only cover when Jesse Ventura was elected governor here (a day that will live in infamy, luckily he decided not to run for re-election, he would have been squashed at the polls). It was an extra cover over the top of the national cover.
Other large magazines do similar things: local advertising news or inserts depending on where you buy it or your subscription address.
So WalMart should be forced to carry everything under the sun, no matter how dangerous or objectionable? You want unlimited individual freedom, but want to force large corporations' behavior. You can't have it both ways. Freedom of choice must be protected for all. Besides, we may have the right to freedom of speech, but we don't have a right to be heard.
<SARCASM>Really? Then how are babies made?</SARCASM> Like I said in my previous post: I could care less, I just won't buy the stuff. I'm not asking anyone to make any sacrifices, just let corporations have the same freedom of choice you expect yourself. And my life is rated PG (besides the bathroom & bedroom).
Here's some more info about corporate personhood and the corporate death penalty .
Basically, the idea is since corporations are deemed persons, incorporated under the laws of a particular jurisdiction, that their charter to conduct business be revoked if they committed grievous crimes.
How is WalMart dominating? Elsewhere under this article, I've seen a figure of 15% market share for WalMart. I don't know how accurate it is, but that's hardly dominating. There are plenty of other retailers to sell your products in.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
How to remove tough stains: If it's small, who cares, wash it and keep wearing it. If it's really noticeable, throw it out, my clothes are cheap.
I wouldn't eat the liver anyways, it's disgusting!
Fashion: Forget about current fashion trends. The Levis I'm wearing were invented 150 years ago. The various T-shirts I own range from free (industry trade shoes, college recruiting fairs, etc.) to $30 for a concert T-shirt.
The right of free speech is protection from the government. The first amendment starts out Congress shall make no law... Gee, I can't find WalMart anywhere in the US Constitution.
Mainstream magazines and the advertisements therein show a lot more skin than they used to. Many people, myself included, see this as a problem. Just because something is popular doesn't make it right, or preferable. Personally, I could care less what's in these magazines, I just won't buy them.
Then that's a choice they've made. No censorship involved.
Plenty of suits have been settled, but I can't recall ever hearing a court actually rule on this.
Thanks! I think I'm going to switch to Mozilla, that's a feature I've wished for.
Maybe we should start a campaign/petition/etc. for the state of MN to quit buying Microsoft products.
In one sense yes, but if the various Linux distributions weren't compatible, nobody would use Linux. This is why it's great that lots of free/open source software runs on Linux, the BSDs, and commercial Unix with little more than a recompile in many cases.
I agree wholeheartedly!
First, as an AC posted below, this post was lifted in its entirety from kuro5hin.
Second, Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the US Constitution.
The P-47 Thunderbolt may not have won any beauty pageants, but it is definitely not ugly.
On the other hand the F4U Corsair is a sleek, beautiful aircraft.
The F-4 Phantom II may have nicknames like Rhino and Double Ugly, but I don't think it's ugly. It looks mean and muscular.
The other poster mentioned the A-6 Intruder, which I don't think is ugly. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Then he mentioned the A-10 Thunderbolt II. This happens to be one of my favorite aircraft. No aircraft has ever been better suited for close air support than the A-10. As architect Louis Sullivan said, "form follows function."
Boeing's F-32 design though, was truly ugly, IMNSHO.
I've read a lot about the JSF program over the last 2 years or so, and it seems they did pick the best aircraft. Lockheed Martin simply has more (recent) experience with this type of aircraft, since they also designed the F-22.
On the other hand, I thanked God they didn't pick the hideous looking Boeing contraption. No self respecting fighter pilot would want to be seen in that.
From the rest of the article, I gathered they had some top notch unix gurus in-house. Why out source the support if they don't need it? They seem more than capable of solving their own problems.
Have you ever seen aircraft with these dimples?
Buses, travelling an equivalent amount of passenger miles, pollute more than cars, as do diesel powered trains.
Electric powered trains don't directly pollute more, but the electricity they consume can increase power plant pollution.
6' is the average height of a grown male. 600' would be roughly 45 stories.
The WTC was 1360' and 100 stories. The Sears Tower is 1450' and 110 stories.
Need any more proof?
However, the AdTI report is worse than many poorly written high school papers I've seen. They have trouble with basic grammar. I'd never heard of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute before this debacle. Now I know why. They're a complete and utter disgrace to the name.
You're right on.
At Autodesk University in 1995, Autodesk, Sun, HP, SGI, & IBM were all pushing AutoCAD R13 for Unix. They had lots of demos, whitepapers, seminars, etc. Most people were still using the DOS versions of AutoCAD then (us included).
Then AutoCAD R14 came out for Windows only. Autodesk is completely in bed with Microsoft now.