I would have the parent company own 0% of the child companies. Parent would make 100% of its money as a holding company selling access to the index. Franchise would make marginal profits based on how well the sell ads. Of course I'm not a lawyer so this could be a stupid idea.
This doesn't fix the root cause. I have 1 ISP in my region that provides cable internet. As long as they have monopoly power they will abuse it. Fix the monopoly issue and the federal goverment might not need to regulate the internet like this.
It seems Google should restructure its operations. It should split it search buisness into sepperate legal entities for some regions. These Google franshise's would purchase index data from the parent company. The franshise would have there own servers and have control over there own site. That Canada franshise would have servers in Canada and would sell advertisments on the Google.ca site. The parent company would keep all its assest in CA.
Sure but in this specifc market is the opposite of a monopoly. Any consumer can purchase this product. Consumers have lots of choices for this product. They can get good prices and good service. You can get it online from serveral retailers. You can get it locally from Walmart, BestBuy, or Target. And consumers use those choices. Walmart isn't a niche place to buy dvds from. Amazon can only sell products like this if they have the low prices. No one would purchase from Amazon if they can get the same thing cheaper from Walmart. Price comparison takes a few minutes.
To be fair, WB is the one who put amazon in a crap situation in this one. They had a pre-order for a blue ray, for like $25....The move did exceptionally better than they anticipated, so WB decided NOT to produce the cheaper blu ray, and then put out a new $40 one. Amazon then had to cancel all the other cheaper pre orders, and deal with the legitimately pissed off customers. Amazon is doing some shady things, but they certainly aren't alone in it.
Is there a link to that story. Not finding anything in Google.
... and vegas puts all of that to shame with its slot machines and blackjack.
but I do think phones are the future for mobile consoles.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tr...
I would say Iphone is getting closer to console numbers. In the above artical they estimate mobile developers are making $21,000 a year on apple. ($6,000 a year on and Android). As the phones get better and the games get more complex those number will rise. Currently I don't think mobile could support all the developers and artists working in the console industry. If everything switched to mobile tommorow there would be huge layoffs.
I think they may get more "sales" but less revenue.
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/05...
In the above some of the delelopers made more money on psn because they sold more games at full price.
I think there may be a bit of an Apple/Android effect going on. Where console gamers are more willing to spend money than steam gamers.
(generalization as many steam users are console users)
No from what I read. They had the infrastructure. They were just not willing to turn it on. After they got a check. They turned it on and overnight the problem went away.
The history of democracies suggest that violent reviolution is 90% going to happen over the next 100 years. The civil war was only 149 years ago. The riots of the civil rights movement was only 50 years ago. Human nature doesn't change. There will be a military coup or a revolution.
You use location if your selling tourism. You use orbital velocity if you view it as a sport.
The 50 mile point describes the line between the mesosphere and the thermosphere. The 100km point is a height that can't be reached using air as lift. This point is based on orbital velocity. There is also a 150km point where air no longer drags things out of orbit.
Virgin Galactic is not claiming suborbatal flight.. So I think it is unfair to use the second two measures.
What is the point of a passenger train to Alaska? There is not even a pasenger train from LA to Anchorage. From what I have seen there is only bus/plane/ferry travel from USA to Alaska.
you don't need to be a trust to break "anti-trust" laws. The laws are not actually worded as "anti trust". That is just the common effect they have. You have the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commision Act. For example here is the sherman act
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.
The sell a disc version. They also sell a full priced downloadable version. People are voluntarilly buying the game this way to save $10. Not really big anti trust issue.
Robots don't have 2nd amendment rights. I think a Judge would look at the words "keep and bear" arms. Your not holding a drone. So your not really bearing it. Technically the drone is bearing arms.
The word Federal is more important than the word Aviation. Federal agencies are only supposed to get involved in interstate or national security related issues. A local issue should be handled by local police. If they hit a federal building, or flew over a interstate road, or flew near an airport then thats Federal. Since this is New York the plane likely did two of those things. In any city in America your likely a few miles from an airport. Fly any distance you likely fly over an interstate road.
Technically they are restricted in what they control by the US Constition. The FAA is concerned with commercial activity because they get their power from the interstate commerce clause. Flying away from roads, airports and interstate airways is mostly regulated by state laws. Your local state probably requires you to be licenses with the faa. Because you local state doesn't want to regulate it.
It is a matter of interstate commerce. Lots of flights cross state lines. Your flying your aircraft in airspace shared with interstate flights. Or your flying your aircraft near interstate roads. Or your flying your aircraft near an airport. Now flying your aircraft of local roads might be out of faa range.
Constitution for the most part limits only the federal goverment. So the initial statement is somewhat true. It is also somewhat false. The 14 amendment expanded the bill of rights to state and local goverments. (the amendement was passed after the civil war to legally end slavery) That includes the right to bear arms. That is why a Chicago gun law was recenty tossed.
Actually thier argument is it would be illegal to just take the output and transmit it because Congress outlawed what CableVision did in 1992. Digitizing the signal for a single channel is how they are different from CableVision.
I think they will rule that Aereo is a cable company and is required to pay the fee. Congress wrote a special law that requires cable companies to pay the fees. Congress did this in reponse to a court ruling saying something similer to your position.
Slashdot Mirror
I would have the parent company own 0% of the child companies. Parent would make 100% of its money as a holding company selling access to the index. Franchise would make marginal profits based on how well the sell ads. Of course I'm not a lawyer so this could be a stupid idea.
This doesn't fix the root cause. I have 1 ISP in my region that provides cable internet. As long as they have monopoly power they will abuse it. Fix the monopoly issue and the federal goverment might not need to regulate the internet like this.
It seems Google should restructure its operations. It should split it search buisness into sepperate legal entities for some regions. These Google franshise's would purchase index data from the parent company. The franshise would have there own servers and have control over there own site. That Canada franshise would have servers in Canada and would sell advertisments on the Google.ca site. The parent company would keep all its assest in CA.
That would only make sense if there were two competing drone networks trying to kill the same people.
This conversation is about physical Blue-Ray movies not ebooks. Amazon does not have any sort of lock in or monopoly on physical disks.
Sure but in this specifc market is the opposite of a monopoly. Any consumer can purchase this product. Consumers have lots of choices for this product. They can get good prices and good service. You can get it online from serveral retailers. You can get it locally from Walmart, BestBuy, or Target. And consumers use those choices. Walmart isn't a niche place to buy dvds from. Amazon can only sell products like this if they have the low prices. No one would purchase from Amazon if they can get the same thing cheaper from Walmart. Price comparison takes a few minutes.
To be fair, WB is the one who put amazon in a crap situation in this one. They had a pre-order for a blue ray, for like $25....The move did exceptionally better than they anticipated, so WB decided NOT to produce the cheaper blu ray, and then put out a new $40 one. Amazon then had to cancel all the other cheaper pre orders, and deal with the legitimately pissed off customers. Amazon is doing some shady things, but they certainly aren't alone in it.
Is there a link to that story. Not finding anything in Google.
... and vegas puts all of that to shame with its slot machines and blackjack.
but I do think phones are the future for mobile consoles. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tr... I would say Iphone is getting closer to console numbers. In the above artical they estimate mobile developers are making $21,000 a year on apple. ($6,000 a year on and Android). As the phones get better and the games get more complex those number will rise. Currently I don't think mobile could support all the developers and artists working in the console industry. If everything switched to mobile tommorow there would be huge layoffs.
I think they may get more "sales" but less revenue. http://www.joystiq.com/2013/05... In the above some of the delelopers made more money on psn because they sold more games at full price. I think there may be a bit of an Apple/Android effect going on. Where console gamers are more willing to spend money than steam gamers. (generalization as many steam users are console users)
No from what I read. They had the infrastructure. They were just not willing to turn it on. After they got a check. They turned it on and overnight the problem went away.
The history of democracies suggest that violent reviolution is 90% going to happen over the next 100 years. The civil war was only 149 years ago. The riots of the civil rights movement was only 50 years ago. Human nature doesn't change. There will be a military coup or a revolution.
They are advertising suborbital spacflight. As in not getting into orbit. If they could make orbit then it would be a much bigger deal.
Sorry they are claiming suborbital. They are not claiming orbital.
You use location if your selling tourism. You use orbital velocity if you view it as a sport. The 50 mile point describes the line between the mesosphere and the thermosphere. The 100km point is a height that can't be reached using air as lift. This point is based on orbital velocity. There is also a 150km point where air no longer drags things out of orbit.
Virgin Galactic is not claiming suborbatal flight.. So I think it is unfair to use the second two measures.
What is the point of a passenger train to Alaska? There is not even a pasenger train from LA to Anchorage. From what I have seen there is only bus/plane/ferry travel from USA to Alaska.
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.
See the or otherwise part.
The sell a disc version. They also sell a full priced downloadable version. People are voluntarilly buying the game this way to save $10. Not really big anti trust issue.
Robots don't have 2nd amendment rights. I think a Judge would look at the words "keep and bear" arms. Your not holding a drone. So your not really bearing it. Technically the drone is bearing arms.
No commercial flights are routed between buildings because the FAA regulates that airspace.
The word Federal is more important than the word Aviation. Federal agencies are only supposed to get involved in interstate or national security related issues. A local issue should be handled by local police. If they hit a federal building, or flew over a interstate road, or flew near an airport then thats Federal. Since this is New York the plane likely did two of those things. In any city in America your likely a few miles from an airport. Fly any distance you likely fly over an interstate road.
Technically they are restricted in what they control by the US Constition. The FAA is concerned with commercial activity because they get their power from the interstate commerce clause. Flying away from roads, airports and interstate airways is mostly regulated by state laws. Your local state probably requires you to be licenses with the faa. Because you local state doesn't want to regulate it.
It is a matter of interstate commerce. Lots of flights cross state lines. Your flying your aircraft in airspace shared with interstate flights. Or your flying your aircraft near interstate roads. Or your flying your aircraft near an airport. Now flying your aircraft of local roads might be out of faa range.
Constitution for the most part limits only the federal goverment. So the initial statement is somewhat true. It is also somewhat false. The 14 amendment expanded the bill of rights to state and local goverments. (the amendement was passed after the civil war to legally end slavery) That includes the right to bear arms. That is why a Chicago gun law was recenty tossed.
Actually thier argument is it would be illegal to just take the output and transmit it because Congress outlawed what CableVision did in 1992. Digitizing the signal for a single channel is how they are different from CableVision.
I think they will rule that Aereo is a cable company and is required to pay the fee. Congress wrote a special law that requires cable companies to pay the fees. Congress did this in reponse to a court ruling saying something similer to your position.