"I can only assume that T-mobile demanded that the FM radio be disabled, in order to get people to use up all their data listening to streaming music."
That does not explain why another carrier outside the US would not want to do the same thing.
I should be more precise and say "Does the supply of Uber drivers actually increase *relative to demand* with surge pricing?"
If the surge pricing does not increase supply but it does reduce demand, then it is still not price gouging. It is a pricing error by the supplier which they would correct once they realize they are making less money even though they are charging a higher price.
This is why price gouging laws are often associated with emergency situations: both supply and demand have shifted away from equilibrium due to the economic shock so would not respond quickly to prices.
The difference is that your claim that surge pricing is the same as price gouging is incorrect.
Price gouging occurs when you artificially raise the price away from the supply-demand equilibrium. Surge pricing occurs when you naturally raise the price toward the supply-demand equilibrium.
Does the supply of Uber drivers actually increase with surge pricing? If so then it is not price gouging.
This is about the FAA and the regulations they enforce when certifying aircraft are safe to fly, not about Boeing's CEO making more money or shareholders getting their profits by cutting safety corners. "
The GAO is not going after the aircraft industry merely because their charter does not permit them to directly go after the aircraft industry.
Nothing is preventing the aircraft industry from meeting these safety concerns ahead of any regulation... except the CEO making more money or the shareholders getting their profits. An explicit claim that current regulation is insufficient is at least an implicit claim that the industry cannot manage without regulation.
"free software will have a great competitive advantage."
There's not even motivation to get enough labor to look for security bugs in free software, let alone for deliberate misfeatures. To get it done you'll have to pay someone to do it, and then you'll have a competitive advantage if you have done it with non-free software.
Even in the worst case, the value of fiat money is backed by a) the willingness of the issuing government to accept payments in that currency in lieu of using their monopoly of force to take your possessions, b) the willingness of the issuing government to prosecute as a criminal theft the appropriation of another's fiat money, and c) the effort individuals are willing to expend in stealing.
Nobody is going to entrust their data to Microsoft US if one day it turns out they can't get your data back from whatever foreign country they shipped it off to.
Would you be willing to pay Microsoft US to store you data if one day they could say "whoops, we gave it to Microsoft Ireland and now it is illegal to get it back. Here's your bill"?
Irrelevant. The US court isn't ordering Microsoft Ireland to do anything, it is ordering Microsoft US. If Microsoft US can't get it back from Microsoft Ireland that is not the US court's problem.
Why should it tolerate a multi-national corporation getting itself into a situation where observing the laws of one nation put it violation of another?
No individual country has an obligation to make it easy or hard for a multi-national corporation to comply with the laws of multiple countries simultaneously. That is a responsibility the corporation took on when it entered business in multiple countries.
"When a company says that they'll protect your data, can they really speak for every one of the employees or contractors they hire?"
Who else can they be speaking for? A company is not a person in the sense that it cannot do anything. Only its employees and contractors can do anything.
"Sorry, mate, but if this is too difficult for you, you shouldn't BE setting up SSL sites."
It is in our interest that everyone else have secure setups. We have no means of stopping people from setting up SSL so we might as well help them do it right.
"It's because states cannot legally impose these kinds of taxes without the consent of congress."
The states cannot impose import duties, but they are not trying to (in this case). They are imposing sales taxes which apply to all sales, regardless of whether the product was imported across state lines or not.
I'd probably be better off buying some property in the UK to establish a mailing address to get that service to use exclusively in the USA than keeping my current AT&T plan.
TO quote myself from io9: "So group cries that political consideration prevent works from being chosen on their merits, advances politically-motivated slate with a lot of crap."
Slashdot Mirror
"I can only assume that T-mobile demanded that the FM radio be disabled, in order to get people to use up all their data listening to streaming music."
That does not explain why another carrier outside the US would not want to do the same thing.
I should be more precise and say "Does the supply of Uber drivers actually increase *relative to demand* with surge pricing?"
If the surge pricing does not increase supply but it does reduce demand, then it is still not price gouging. It is a pricing error by the supplier which they would correct once they realize they are making less money even though they are charging a higher price.
This is why price gouging laws are often associated with emergency situations: both supply and demand have shifted away from equilibrium due to the economic shock so would not respond quickly to prices.
The difference is that your claim that surge pricing is the same as price gouging is incorrect.
Price gouging occurs when you artificially raise the price away from the supply-demand equilibrium. Surge pricing occurs when you naturally raise the price toward the supply-demand equilibrium.
Does the supply of Uber drivers actually increase with surge pricing? If so then it is not price gouging.
corporation : person :: money : speech
The exemption on filing a 1023 for churches is under 508(c)(1)(a): https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
" They are not the ones the GAO is going after...
This is about the FAA and the regulations they enforce when certifying aircraft are safe to fly, not about Boeing's CEO making more money or shareholders getting their profits by cutting safety corners. "
The GAO is not going after the aircraft industry merely because their charter does not permit them to directly go after the aircraft industry.
Nothing is preventing the aircraft industry from meeting these safety concerns ahead of any regulation... except the CEO making more money or the shareholders getting their profits. An explicit claim that current regulation is insufficient is at least an implicit claim that the industry cannot manage without regulation.
Steal the watch, pawn it, hire a hooker.
"Other smart watches have been hard to navigate, "
Heck, even "normal" watches are hard to navigate. This is what could get me interested in the Apple Watch.
"free software will have a great competitive advantage."
There's not even motivation to get enough labor to look for security bugs in free software, let alone for deliberate misfeatures. To get it done you'll have to pay someone to do it, and then you'll have a competitive advantage if you have done it with non-free software.
So you have only two anecdotes, only one of which has even the potential to be a failure of the system, and you're ready to throw the whole thing out?
... which is already refuted in the abstract, since they measured BMI at the beginning of the study not the end.
"Fiat money also has no real value"
Even in the worst case, the value of fiat money is backed by a) the willingness of the issuing government to accept payments in that currency in lieu of using their monopoly of force to take your possessions, b) the willingness of the issuing government to prosecute as a criminal theft the appropriation of another's fiat money, and c) the effort individuals are willing to expend in stealing.
Nobody is going to entrust their data to Microsoft US if one day it turns out they can't get your data back from whatever foreign country they shipped it off to.
Irrelevant. Microsoft US already stipulated that they could aces the records.
Would you be willing to pay Microsoft US to store you data if one day they could say "whoops, we gave it to Microsoft Ireland and now it is illegal to get it back. Here's your bill"?
Irrelevant. The US court isn't ordering Microsoft Ireland to do anything, it is ordering Microsoft US. If Microsoft US can't get it back from Microsoft Ireland that is not the US court's problem.
Why should it tolerate a multi-national corporation getting itself into a situation where observing the laws of one nation put it violation of another?
No individual country has an obligation to make it easy or hard for a multi-national corporation to comply with the laws of multiple countries simultaneously. That is a responsibility the corporation took on when it entered business in multiple countries.
"When a company says that they'll protect your data, can they really speak for every one of the employees or contractors they hire?"
Who else can they be speaking for? A company is not a person in the sense that it cannot do anything. Only its employees and contractors can do anything.
"Sorry, mate, but if this is too difficult for you, you shouldn't BE setting up SSL sites."
It is in our interest that everyone else have secure setups. We have no means of stopping people from setting up SSL so we might as well help them do it right.
" they have no jurisdiction over a seller residing outside of their own borders"
This was not your original point, which is why I did not address it before you made it.
"That is why you are legally required to pay sales tax on all interstate purchases for which sales tax was not otherwise collected.
You do do that, right?"
Of course not: I was smart enough to move to a state without sales tax.
"a quarter of the state the feds have given to Indian reservations"
This is an interesting use of the word "given".
"Why should a mom-and-pop internet business be exempt from taxes that the mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar store has to pay?"
Because a business also need authorization to collect sales tax for a state.
"It's because states cannot legally impose these kinds of taxes without the consent of congress."
The states cannot impose import duties, but they are not trying to (in this case). They are imposing sales taxes which apply to all sales, regardless of whether the product was imported across state lines or not.
I'd probably be better off buying some property in the UK to establish a mailing address to get that service to use exclusively in the USA than keeping my current AT&T plan.
TO quote myself from io9:
"So group cries that political consideration prevent works from being chosen on their merits, advances politically-motivated slate with a lot of crap."