Actually, math says you *CAN* go faster than light. It's reality that imposes the limit because there's only a finite amount of energy in the universe.
Many things in math don't exist, and can't exist. That doesn't mean the math is wrong or incomplete... it just means reality can't contain the things that math can cope with.
Mere possession of stolen property will not land you in any trouble at all whenever you have proof that you acquired it from somebody else, and did not steal it yourself. A receipt of sale is generally going to be adequate in this case.
That will not entitle you to keep the stolen property, however. A buyer, regardless of innocence, must surrender stolen property to the authorities at their own expense. The only thing a buyer gets out of it is the ability to rightfully sue the party they purchased it from for their losses.
The poor shmuck who buys it off ebay would still be buying stolen property. Sucks to be him (or her), but it shouldn't matter at all if they will be hurt. Buyers don't have many protections against the risk of purchasing stolen goods other than the ability to rightfully sue who they bought it from, even if the goods were sold "as-is". That a buyer didn't know something was stolen before buying it entitles them to exactly zip.
Actually, it's not odd at all. It's extremely expedient on the company's part.
It's not in Apple's interest to contest this, because it's not their own products are being alleged to infringe.
The developers can't dispute it because they aren't the targets of the claim.
The end result is either Apple gets rid of the allegedly infringing apps one way or another, and the company gets their way.
If there was any chance that Apple themselves were to dispute the validity of the trademark, then things might play out a bit differently, and the worst thing that happens is that the company might lose their trademark.
But there's no real incentive for Apple to do so, because Apple almost certainly (and probably correctly) figures that most developers would rather change their application's name than be discontinued from the store.
The funny thing about this is that if you only took all of the people in the USA whose single best reason for voting for either of the main two candidates was just to try to prevent "the other guy" from winning, you'd end up with a not remotely insignificant percentage of the population whose tallied votes could even be enough to actually *win* an election with an alternative candidate of their choice. Even if that alternative vote was too divided and one of the "main two" still won... the impact that would be created from seeing such election results would forever change the way people perceive voting in the USA, and the following election would have a very different feel to it indeed.
But if you're only ever looking no more than 4 years down the road, then yeah.... there's no reason at all to change.
In actuality, a third party president would accomplish far more than what you perceive.
In particular, it could deflate the perception that there are only ever two candidates that are worth voting for, which would have a profound effect on the outcome of future elections.
In fact, that would happen even *IF* a third party didn't win the election.... but as long as everybody whose best reason for voting for either of the main two was just to keep "the other guy" from winning... because independents would make a substantial showing, possibly even winning in some states.
Again... it's about perception... not who wins or who loses in the next election. That's way to short a term to make a difference. Once people are wakened to the notion that a vote for someone other than the "main two" actually might have some sort of chance, the face of American elections will never be the same.
But of course, I'm thinking long term....not something that would necessarily make any difference in a short 4 years. That's way too brief a period to be concerned with.
I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort.... the reason most people vote for either of those two candidates is because people are failing to think longer term than just one election.
If every single person whose *best* reason for voting for a particular candidate was only because they didn't want "the other guy" to win actually voted for the person who best represented their ideals, while a main candidate would still probably get in for that election, it would forever change the face of American politics as it becomes obvious that there are more than just two viable ways to vote. It's possible that the winner of the election wouldn't even have a majority
The only reason that they don't have any chance of winning is because everybody thinks that they don't have any chance of winning, and so a vote for one of them is a wasted vote that could better go to a candidate that has a chance of winning that is the lesser of the two evils.
Or they can just outlaw hoarding and deal with that as it arises.
It's difficult to just hand-wave this and say worry about it when it happens, because there are going to be problems enforcing this anywhere but in very tiny communities where everybody knows everybody (and the problem is less likely to occur anyways).
Gouging BTW is not the act of making profit.
I know.... I was nonetheless suggesting that it might not be a bad idea to prohibit profiting at all on "essential" goods and services during an emergency without a license to otherwise do so during non-emergency, or otherwise being granted special permission to do so from the state. This might not stop hoarding completely, but it would remove the incentive that private people might have to try to sell their excess, which in turn could reduce their purchasing of excess in the first place, unless they had previously sincerely thought they were going to need that much.... their lack of foresight in how they dealt with the matter would at least result in them making more conscientious choices in the future. You might be right in that there's nothing theoretically wrong with people making a respectable honest profit, but I am suggesting it could still be worthwhile to temporarily suspend that privilege for unlicensed sellers of essential goods or services when a situation has arisen that requires people to be helpful. Licensed sellers would still be free to adjust their prices with respect to what may be necessary to discourage people from hoarding too much more than what they actually need, preventing people who may arrive later from being able to get any. I expect that limiting such price adjustments to licensed businesses would probably not result in any gouging unless there really was a genuine supply shortage. I know that you said you could try outlawing hoarding during times of emergency, but try to face the fact on that matter... it's just not going to work. You won't be able to enforce it anywhere but in very small communities, and people who want to will find ways around it (because they are probably motivated by interests of self-preservation, so even if their beliefs are entirely wrong, you won't be able to convince them of their error because such irrational beliefs are just that... irrational).
A defense to gouging is showing increased costs associated with the resource.
If supplies that are being brought in are not keeping up with the actual demand, then it seems to me that there *are* increased costs associated with bringing in the resource.... and even if those costs don't necessarily *directly* correspond to dollars and cents. It's not unreasonable to translate such non-monetary costs to financial ones, however.
the whole "warranty will be void" shtick doesn't fly with me.
If you are unsatisfied with the terms of service, then don't buy the product in the first place. Warranties are, in many areas, at the discretion of the seller, and not mandated by law.
I like having the ability to tinker with stuff I buy too, and install custom firmware or OS's or whatnot, although I can reasonably agree that if I'm going to retain any rights to be able to do anything that I want to products that I buy, including altering its function in ways that the manufacturer did not expressly intend [even including making it more useful], then the manufacturer should retain the right to suspend supporting the product for me.
Unless Toshiba's objection is that if people lose their manuals and cannot easily replace them (on account of a difficult to navigate website), then they might be inclined to more expediently purchase replacement equipment than they otherwise would if people could hold onto their increasingly obsolete equipment because they still have a resource available that gives them all the particulars of operating it, I really have absolutely no idea what Toshiba's problem with this is, unless Toshiba already charges for manuals in the first place.
Rationing effectively controls shortages due to hoarding
True.... but it becomes quite difficult to enforce in all but very tiny communities.
You have to understand. An emergency situation is not a normal day by any means
I know.... but that doesn't mean that normal market forces in an affected area cannot, more expediently, redirect additional resources to that area from outside. It makes it so that it is in one's own best interest to actively endeavor to offer assistance from outside, motivated by the opportunity for profit. Once the supply starts to exceed demand, prices will invariably return to normal levels, again, because it is in a seller's own best interest to do so (otherwise they are simply sitting on unsold stock indefinitely.... whether the demand has apparently only been reduced because of high prices or else has been reduced by the availability of additional resources coming in from outside at competitive [but still profitable] prices).
In an ideal world, people who are more able to offer assistance from outside an area where an emergency situation has occurred would do so without the incentive for profit, but this isn't an ideal world.
I think that at best, you might be able to regulate that, during a declared time of emergency, a person could not sell any goods or services that are deemed "essential" for *ANY* profit, without possessing a business license that is applicable to ordinarily selling them. Enforced, that should more or less spontaneously resolve the issue of private individuals hoarding and then trying to sell excess at grossly inflated markups, which would resolve the situation that this story appears to be talking about, but would leave the normal market forces free to resolve any genuine supply shortages in whatever most efficient way can be achieved.
That the shortage may be artificially caused by the hoarding mentality that switches on in many people during an emergency or not is entirely irrellevant... since raising the price can effectively discourage such people from buying too much more than they actually need, thereby making the available supplies last longer (even though poorer people may be unable to buy some, it's preferable to many more people not being able to buy some at *ANY* price because of a few people who hoarded all the goods at lower prices near the beginning of the disaster.. something they would be less able to do if prices were raised).
Not completely indistinguishable, only indistinguishable to any purely technical and wholly automated process.
Networks will always want their ads loud and annoying because apparently they think that gets the viewer's attention
It also makes it very easy to automate a technological process that skips them entirely, thereby failing to gather any attention at all from people who might be watching a recording..
I was suggesting that the only ones who would be entitled to *ANY* profit on goods that are considered essential once a state of emergency has been declared in an area, or in the case of an anticipated emergency, once warnings have been issued, are those with a business license to operate in that area, where the license is applicable to the ordinary selling of such goods and services for profit during times of non-emergency, effectively temporarily revoking many "first sale" rights for such goods or services for all but licensed businesses that would have been selling it anyways.
That would eliminate the situation of people hoarding and trying to sell at obscene prices when retailers have not felt a need to.
Actually, fingerprinting would be the worst way to deal with it from the broadcaster's perspective as it leaves a way to automate detecting the difference between a commercial and a program, enabling them to be easily autoskipped.
The ideal, from the broadcaster's perspective, would be that there is no technological method that could be used to distinguish a commercial from the regular program short of having an AI that is just as sophisticated as a living human being, and so the ads could not readily be automatically skipped.
This would not prevent manual fast-forwarding, of course.
If the independent greedy bastard has a license to sell, then I see no reason why he should not be permitted to. I could see It being reasonable to prohibit any unlicensed sellers from distributing essential goods or services for profit during a time of emergency, but not prohibiting places like gas stations from doing the same.
But it would be a big negative for Google too if Google didn't even try to offer an application that was on the same level as what their Android version had.
If Apple then turns around and rejects that, then Google gets a HUGE amount of free publicity as having actually tried to be the good guys and give iOS users what they want, and Apple gets painted as an even worse character than they already are. That decision by Apple, unless accompanied by a decision to also remove *ALL* mapping applications from the iOS app store (which would also result in a lot of bad publicity for Apple), would be enough of an incentive for myself that although I don't urgently need a new cell phone anytime soon, I'd be buying a new Android phone at the earliest opportunity.
If Google does not develop a mapping app for the iPhone, or tries to artificially keep their Android application as a vastly superior alternative, then that would not inspire me to go out and buy an Android any sooner than when my current phone vitally needs replacing due to ordinary wear and tear or damage. By that time, Apple might even have improved their mapping application to the point that it is more level with Google, and the incentive to switch platforms would be lowered.
Had Apple pulled this sort of stunt 18 months ago, before I actually bought my current phone, I do not think I would have bought an iPhone at all. But this action alone is not incentive enough for me to switch platforms and bear the costs associated with that.
Good for them. If they were able to do so and still keep up with the demand, then the retailers would not be able to continue to sell at such exorbitant prices. The price gouging problem solves itself.
If they cannot keep up with the demand by keeping prices down, then in my opinion, the government and state should just shut the fucking hell up about it. Yes, it's true that poorer people will be but able to buy much less of what they may need, but that's one hell of a lot better than nobody being able to buy any at all, just because the prices weren't increased enough to keep people with a hoarding mentality from exhausting the supply before it can be replenished.
If you still want to try to keep prices down, and keep price gouging illegal during emergencies, then the only way to make sure that the supply of such stock will serve the greatest number of people is to fine the people who buy more of such supplies in anticipation of an emergency than they actually need. Good luck trying to regulate and enforce *THAT*.
Slashdot Mirror
What about grandchildren?
Actually, math says you *CAN* go faster than light. It's reality that imposes the limit because there's only a finite amount of energy in the universe.
You aren't bounded to finite constraints in math.
Many things in math don't exist, and can't exist. That doesn't mean the math is wrong or incomplete... it just means reality can't contain the things that math can cope with.
Imprisonment.... but it does not prohibit capital punishment.
Mere possession of stolen property will not land you in any trouble at all whenever you have proof that you acquired it from somebody else, and did not steal it yourself. A receipt of sale is generally going to be adequate in this case.
That will not entitle you to keep the stolen property, however. A buyer, regardless of innocence, must surrender stolen property to the authorities at their own expense. The only thing a buyer gets out of it is the ability to rightfully sue the party they purchased it from for their losses.
The insurer could make it in Apple's interest by raising the cost of insurance if they don't have provisions to do this.
The poor shmuck who buys it off ebay would still be buying stolen property. Sucks to be him (or her), but it shouldn't matter at all if they will be hurt. Buyers don't have many protections against the risk of purchasing stolen goods other than the ability to rightfully sue who they bought it from, even if the goods were sold "as-is". That a buyer didn't know something was stolen before buying it entitles them to exactly zip.
Actually, it's not odd at all. It's extremely expedient on the company's part.
It's not in Apple's interest to contest this, because it's not their own products are being alleged to infringe.
The developers can't dispute it because they aren't the targets of the claim.
The end result is either Apple gets rid of the allegedly infringing apps one way or another, and the company gets their way.
If there was any chance that Apple themselves were to dispute the validity of the trademark, then things might play out a bit differently, and the worst thing that happens is that the company might lose their trademark.
But there's no real incentive for Apple to do so, because Apple almost certainly (and probably correctly) figures that most developers would rather change their application's name than be discontinued from the store.
I would imagine roughly the same thing that happens if you begin to daydream while you might be talking. You stop.
The funny thing about this is that if you only took all of the people in the USA whose single best reason for voting for either of the main two candidates was just to try to prevent "the other guy" from winning, you'd end up with a not remotely insignificant percentage of the population whose tallied votes could even be enough to actually *win* an election with an alternative candidate of their choice. Even if that alternative vote was too divided and one of the "main two" still won... the impact that would be created from seeing such election results would forever change the way people perceive voting in the USA, and the following election would have a very different feel to it indeed.
But if you're only ever looking no more than 4 years down the road, then yeah.... there's no reason at all to change.
Such a short term perspective...
In actuality, a third party president would accomplish far more than what you perceive.
In particular, it could deflate the perception that there are only ever two candidates that are worth voting for, which would have a profound effect on the outcome of future elections.
In fact, that would happen even *IF* a third party didn't win the election.... but as long as everybody whose best reason for voting for either of the main two was just to keep "the other guy" from winning... because independents would make a substantial showing, possibly even winning in some states.
Again... it's about perception... not who wins or who loses in the next election. That's way to short a term to make a difference. Once people are wakened to the notion that a vote for someone other than the "main two" actually might have some sort of chance, the face of American elections will never be the same.
But of course, I'm thinking long term....not something that would necessarily make any difference in a short 4 years. That's way too brief a period to be concerned with.
If every single person whose *best* reason for voting for a particular candidate was only because they didn't want "the other guy" to win actually voted for the person who best represented their ideals, while a main candidate would still probably get in for that election, it would forever change the face of American politics as it becomes obvious that there are more than just two viable ways to vote. It's possible that the winner of the election wouldn't even have a majority
The only reason that they don't have any chance of winning is because everybody thinks that they don't have any chance of winning, and so a vote for one of them is a wasted vote that could better go to a candidate that has a chance of winning that is the lesser of the two evils.
[nt]
It's difficult to just hand-wave this and say worry about it when it happens, because there are going to be problems enforcing this anywhere but in very tiny communities where everybody knows everybody (and the problem is less likely to occur anyways).
I know.... I was nonetheless suggesting that it might not be a bad idea to prohibit profiting at all on "essential" goods and services during an emergency without a license to otherwise do so during non-emergency, or otherwise being granted special permission to do so from the state. This might not stop hoarding completely, but it would remove the incentive that private people might have to try to sell their excess, which in turn could reduce their purchasing of excess in the first place, unless they had previously sincerely thought they were going to need that much.... their lack of foresight in how they dealt with the matter would at least result in them making more conscientious choices in the future. You might be right in that there's nothing theoretically wrong with people making a respectable honest profit, but I am suggesting it could still be worthwhile to temporarily suspend that privilege for unlicensed sellers of essential goods or services when a situation has arisen that requires people to be helpful. Licensed sellers would still be free to adjust their prices with respect to what may be necessary to discourage people from hoarding too much more than what they actually need, preventing people who may arrive later from being able to get any. I expect that limiting such price adjustments to licensed businesses would probably not result in any gouging unless there really was a genuine supply shortage. I know that you said you could try outlawing hoarding during times of emergency, but try to face the fact on that matter... it's just not going to work. You won't be able to enforce it anywhere but in very small communities, and people who want to will find ways around it (because they are probably motivated by interests of self-preservation, so even if their beliefs are entirely wrong, you won't be able to convince them of their error because such irrational beliefs are just that... irrational) .
If supplies that are being brought in are not keeping up with the actual demand, then it seems to me that there *are* increased costs associated with bringing in the resource.... and even if those costs don't necessarily *directly* correspond to dollars and cents. It's not unreasonable to translate such non-monetary costs to financial ones, however.
If you are unsatisfied with the terms of service, then don't buy the product in the first place. Warranties are, in many areas, at the discretion of the seller, and not mandated by law.
I like having the ability to tinker with stuff I buy too, and install custom firmware or OS's or whatnot, although I can reasonably agree that if I'm going to retain any rights to be able to do anything that I want to products that I buy, including altering its function in ways that the manufacturer did not expressly intend [even including making it more useful], then the manufacturer should retain the right to suspend supporting the product for me.
Unless Toshiba's objection is that if people lose their manuals and cannot easily replace them (on account of a difficult to navigate website), then they might be inclined to more expediently purchase replacement equipment than they otherwise would if people could hold onto their increasingly obsolete equipment because they still have a resource available that gives them all the particulars of operating it, I really have absolutely no idea what Toshiba's problem with this is, unless Toshiba already charges for manuals in the first place.
True.... but it becomes quite difficult to enforce in all but very tiny communities.
I know.... but that doesn't mean that normal market forces in an affected area cannot, more expediently, redirect additional resources to that area from outside. It makes it so that it is in one's own best interest to actively endeavor to offer assistance from outside, motivated by the opportunity for profit. Once the supply starts to exceed demand, prices will invariably return to normal levels, again, because it is in a seller's own best interest to do so (otherwise they are simply sitting on unsold stock indefinitely.... whether the demand has apparently only been reduced because of high prices or else has been reduced by the availability of additional resources coming in from outside at competitive [but still profitable] prices).
In an ideal world, people who are more able to offer assistance from outside an area where an emergency situation has occurred would do so without the incentive for profit, but this isn't an ideal world.
I think that at best, you might be able to regulate that, during a declared time of emergency, a person could not sell any goods or services that are deemed "essential" for *ANY* profit, without possessing a business license that is applicable to ordinarily selling them. Enforced, that should more or less spontaneously resolve the issue of private individuals hoarding and then trying to sell excess at grossly inflated markups, which would resolve the situation that this story appears to be talking about, but would leave the normal market forces free to resolve any genuine supply shortages in whatever most efficient way can be achieved.
That the shortage may be artificially caused by the hoarding mentality that switches on in many people during an emergency or not is entirely irrellevant... since raising the price can effectively discourage such people from buying too much more than they actually need, thereby making the available supplies last longer (even though poorer people may be unable to buy some, it's preferable to many more people not being able to buy some at *ANY* price because of a few people who hoarded all the goods at lower prices near the beginning of the disaster.. something they would be less able to do if prices were raised).
It also makes it very easy to automate a technological process that skips them entirely, thereby failing to gather any attention at all from people who might be watching a recording..
I was suggesting that the only ones who would be entitled to *ANY* profit on goods that are considered essential once a state of emergency has been declared in an area, or in the case of an anticipated emergency, once warnings have been issued, are those with a business license to operate in that area, where the license is applicable to the ordinary selling of such goods and services for profit during times of non-emergency, effectively temporarily revoking many "first sale" rights for such goods or services for all but licensed businesses that would have been selling it anyways.
That would eliminate the situation of people hoarding and trying to sell at obscene prices when retailers have not felt a need to.
Actually, fingerprinting would be the worst way to deal with it from the broadcaster's perspective as it leaves a way to automate detecting the difference between a commercial and a program, enabling them to be easily autoskipped.
The ideal, from the broadcaster's perspective, would be that there is no technological method that could be used to distinguish a commercial from the regular program short of having an AI that is just as sophisticated as a living human being, and so the ads could not readily be automatically skipped.
This would not prevent manual fast-forwarding, of course.
If the independent greedy bastard has a license to sell, then I see no reason why he should not be permitted to. I could see It being reasonable to prohibit any unlicensed sellers from distributing essential goods or services for profit during a time of emergency, but not prohibiting places like gas stations from doing the same.
Of course this is a big negative for Apple.
But it would be a big negative for Google too if Google didn't even try to offer an application that was on the same level as what their Android version had.
If Apple then turns around and rejects that, then Google gets a HUGE amount of free publicity as having actually tried to be the good guys and give iOS users what they want, and Apple gets painted as an even worse character than they already are. That decision by Apple, unless accompanied by a decision to also remove *ALL* mapping applications from the iOS app store (which would also result in a lot of bad publicity for Apple), would be enough of an incentive for myself that although I don't urgently need a new cell phone anytime soon, I'd be buying a new Android phone at the earliest opportunity.
If Google does not develop a mapping app for the iPhone, or tries to artificially keep their Android application as a vastly superior alternative, then that would not inspire me to go out and buy an Android any sooner than when my current phone vitally needs replacing due to ordinary wear and tear or damage. By that time, Apple might even have improved their mapping application to the point that it is more level with Google, and the incentive to switch platforms would be lowered.
Had Apple pulled this sort of stunt 18 months ago, before I actually bought my current phone, I do not think I would have bought an iPhone at all. But this action alone is not incentive enough for me to switch platforms and bear the costs associated with that.
Good for them. If they were able to do so and still keep up with the demand, then the retailers would not be able to continue to sell at such exorbitant prices. The price gouging problem solves itself.
If they cannot keep up with the demand by keeping prices down, then in my opinion, the government and state should just shut the fucking hell up about it. Yes, it's true that poorer people will be but able to buy much less of what they may need, but that's one hell of a lot better than nobody being able to buy any at all, just because the prices weren't increased enough to keep people with a hoarding mentality from exhausting the supply before it can be replenished.
If you still want to try to keep prices down, and keep price gouging illegal during emergencies, then the only way to make sure that the supply of such stock will serve the greatest number of people is to fine the people who buy more of such supplies in anticipation of an emergency than they actually need. Good luck trying to regulate and enforce *THAT*.