and aside from APRS (Primarily a position-reporting protocol that runs over packet as a L2 transport) there's practically no use of packet radio at all any more.
and each station in the contact must identify themselves at the start and end of the "conversation" and periodically usually every 10-15 minutes.
97.119: "... at the end of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication,..." There is no "start of communications" requirement for identification, and no mention of "conversation".
FT8 is not an encryption with the intention of obfuscating the meaning of the transmission, numb nuts. Just like ASCII is not. FT8 is a method of modulating digital content onto an analog radio signal. If the digital content is encrypted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning, then that FT8 transmission is illegal (unless it meets the standing exceptions to that rule.)
Encryption, on amateur radio, is completely forbidden except for a few times where it's completely mandatory.
There is no time when it is mandatory. It is permitted for obfuscation of meaning under a limited set of circumstances, but mandatory nowhere.
Controlling remote hardware, for one
No, there is no exception for this, with the TWO exceptions for model aircraft and space stations. Simple remote control of other hardware is not exempted. For example, I may not control my repeater remotely using an encrypted signal.
There's also some compelling arguments to be made about control of remote radios, such as repeaters.
You might make such arguments, but the rules don't permit it.
Participating in a search-and-rescue operation, or any other time you have cause to transmit someone's medical records or other PII.
Please cite the relevant FCC Part 97 regulation that permits encryption for the obfuscation of meaning of "medical records" via ham radio.
Even statute and regulation says they have to stop being enforced, when violating rules is necessary to protect life, limb, or property.
If by "statute and regulation" you are referring to the boilerplate emergency exemption rules found in almost every part of the communications regulations, then you need to be very careful that what you are sending actually DOES have a direct impact on the safety of life or property required before those rules take effect, and that there is no other means of communications available. A lot of people get tripped up by that last requirement there. "When no other means of communications is available".
Exactly what is different about sending bitcoin via a digital radio link compared to sending it by the normal digital internet link?
Amateurs do "internet" via radio every day. They do long-distance digital communications every day. What, precisely, is different about this that makes it "an experiment" of any kind?
Also illegal per 97.113 as technically blockchain messages are encrypted; which for amateur radio is illegal even if the rule is not exactly well-enforced.
The actual rule includes a bit about "obfuscation of meaning".
The HSMM (High Speed Multi-Media, or mesh-net) people argue that they are not encrypting for obfuscation of meaning, they're doing it for access control. These are the folks who take COTS 2.4GHz wireless hardware and use it under amateur rules. It would be illegal to allow non-licensed folks to access that, so the "encryption" via the WEP or WPA keys is for access control. They "publish" the WEP or WPA keys on a website somewhere so in theory anyone can listen in, so it's legal. Thus they argue. I don't know that this has been tested under fire from the FCC.
Not sure I agree actually - for instance its perfectly legal to order a pizza over ham radio (say via a phone patch) because the pecuniary interest isn't a ham.
The pizza place isn't using ham radio. They're using the phone. Using the phone to order a pizza isn't illegal.
The HAM involved doesn't have a pecuniary interest, perhaps.
However, a bitcoin transaction is a monetary exchange -- pure pecuniary interest. You can't get around the law by saying bitcoin isn't money and thus isn't "pecuniary".
Pecuniary interest is basically being paid to operate the radio or radio service
No, it is not just being paid. It is monetary benefit. If you operate a business, say, and you use ham radio to discuss a business operations issue with someone, you're getting a monetary advantage because of the benefit to the business.
there's a single exception for this - school teachers.
You should re-read the rules sometime. There are other exceptions. Fascinating exceptions.
1. Paraphrasing, if you operate a regularly scheduled transmission for practice of radio operations, you may be paid to do so. This is a very thinly veiled description of the ARRL CW code practice transmissions. Apparently it is not possible to find any volunteers who would spends hours every day running computer-generated code practice transmissions, so ARRL got FCC to put in an exemption so they can pay the employee who does it.
2. If you are participating in a disaster exercise, you may be paid while operating an amateur radio. This exemption came about a few years ago because FEMA realized how much value ham radio had in a disaster area, and disaster agencies started asking how they could get their employees (people they control) using ham radio instead of depending on volunteer hams (people they cannot). Under emergency rules, during an actual emergency, their employees can use ham radio while being paid. But how do you practice for this? Well, now, non-governmental agencies can hold two exercises per year paying their people to use ham radio, and government agencies can do it without limit.
3. You can sell and trade ham equipment via radio. These are called "swap nets", and people will get on the air and describe what they want to sell and how much they want for it. The limit is that this must not be as part of a regular business and it must deal with amateur-related stuff. I can sell a radio via a swap-net as me. I cannot sell wine, e.g., nor can I do it as the owner of Bob's Radio Store.
4. The "school teacher" exemption is limited to use of ham radio ancillary to instruction in other topics. The typical example is a geography teacher who includes an attempt at talking to people in Russia as part of a lesson on Russia.
I don't have any examples of ruling the FCC has made on "pecuniary interest" handy, but I know the FAA's stance on this for private pilots, who are prohibited from being compensated for flying. If you fly someone somewhere and they offer to pay the entire cost (but not a salary for you) you are still in violation of the law, since the hours you get to log have value.
I would say this violates rules against using ciphers over ham radio frequencies to obscure messages though: 97.309.
I would say this is obvious, but some might argue. The solution, of course, is to put up an AMSAT and use bitcoin to control it. (Control of space stations is an exemption to the "no codes or ciphers to obfuscate content..." rule.)
Congress just needs to pass a national law prohibiting state and local governments from granting monopoly contracts for services going to people's homes.
You mean like the Cable Act of 1992 which outlawed exclusive franchises for cable communications companies?
Maybe you never lived through the divestiture time for Ma Bell and all the ensuing nonsense. I did so much love getting to call the local telco to report a service issue just to have them claim it was a long distance issue and I needed to call the LD company. The LD company, of course, claimed it was a local issue and I needed to call my local provider. It was tons of fun, and a very productive way to spend my day. Sure, you betcha.
Trump will almost certainly run a different campaign against his next challenger.
That's the insightful point in your comment. Politicians ALWAYS campaign based on the current election rules. Changing the rules means the campaign methods will change.
This is what makes all the whining about "but Hillary won the (fictional) popular vote" so glaringly silly. If there were a popular vote for president, then all the candidates would campaign based on those rules and the outcome is unlikely to be different.
It's like changing a rule in hockey and thinking that it will be beneficial to your favorite team. When you change the rule, ALL the teams will change how they play, and the good players will still be good. Your team full of suck-ass wannabes will still be suck-ass wannabes, not new league MVPs.
The app stores may be "walled gardens", but at least for Android anyone can write an app and anyone can distribute the APK. Yes, you have to enable third-party installations, but it's there and it works.
where Apple/Google have more control over what is on your phone or who you do business with than you do.
Really? Wow. I did not know that Google was keeping me from doing business with someone.
Are you confused by that fact that every grocery store or brick and mortar is a "walled garden" that has more control over who you do business with than you do? You do realize that each store selects what it will sell, and they won't sell you things they don't have.
I will on the Librem 5 so fast it will make your head spin when it reaches market.
Ok. It won't make my head spin, but if it makes yours do that, that's ok, too. Do you somehow think that EW breaking Google and/or Apple up will make your head spin faster, or what?
Of course the Amazon site would communicate using computers with the Amazon warehouse. In fact, they already do.
Yeah, that's what EW wants to break up, don't you know? It's not so some fictional, unrelated company can start dumping fake orders through an open API into the Amazon the warehouse logistics system.
and if it offered a better shopping experience could compete with Amazon.com.
It already can. There are absolutely TONS of websites selling things today, even when you can't quantify "better shopping experience".
As you point out (right after you ask) this is straightforward regulation of interstate commerce from a constitutional point of view.
The ICC doesn't say we have to, or get to, break up companies because they are too successful.
Amazon may not be a monopoly
IS not a monopoly. If you are incapable of finding another retailer, that's not Amazon's fault.
If Warren gets nomination, which I find about as unlikely a happening as anything I can think of, then it becomes worthy of discussing. Until then it's just a stunt.
Even if she is the nominee, it is still a stunt. There is zero chance of this happening. You think there's a backlog in the courts now with the states suing the feds for things that are clearly federal jurisdiction? Imagine when EW tries to destroy a company that has tons of lawyers on staff just because she doesn't like them. And even if she can create some trumped-up reason...
No, if there is no way to prosecute these hypothetical legal violations today, then tomorrow won't bring a Brave New World of Amazon-less competition.
It is a violation of antitrust laws to run your competition out of business by operating at a loss.
What, exactly, do you think the reason for "loss leaders" in local stores is, then? Should there be a law that no business can sell anything at a price below cost? What would you say the legislated profit margin should be? 5%? 10%?
"A monopoly" isn't the standard by which we judge anti-trust legislation. For the last few decades, the standard has been "harm to the consumer" rather than "harm to the market."
And Amazon, as a retailer, offers me good prices, good delivery times, and a good selection. A better selection than local brick and mortar can, faster delivery than they can, and better prices than they can. Breaking up Amazon would be harm to the consumer.
Now, yes, they are large and they can compete well. But then, EVERY company is competing, and they ALL do what they can to bring sales to them and away from the competitor. Even the local Mom and Pop grocery store runs ads for loss leaders, hoping I'll come by to shop there even when the prices they have for 90% of the things I want are higher. That's anti-competitive, isn't it?
So you take the time and effort to line up manufacturing and sink your savings into some inventory and sell them on amazon. For some reason they are go viral and and the sales go through the roof. Amazon, as the seller, knows this, and decides to put out an amazon basics version of your product.
Your designs, although not patentable, are copyrighted, and if Amazon duplicates your product they can be sued.
Now, explain why Amazon should be prevented from doing exactly what every other company on the planet can do: become a dog sweater manufacturer, reaping the benefit of the niche market that you've taken advantage of.
Like it or not, the amazon marketplace is pretty much the default portal for online shopping these days,
Depends on what you are shopping for. Funny how there are so many other websites where you can buy stuff, and other places to go search for those things to buy. And why shouldn't Amazon promote their own products? If you don't want to buy Amazon products, don't go there. Certainly don't pretend that "Amazon Choice" means "only choice".
and there is a conflict of interest for them in listing other people's goods vs the ones they produce.
Is there a "conflict of interest" if they simply stop carrying your fancy dog sweaters? I would guess not -- they aren't prioritizing theirs over yours then. You simply lose access to a market. Is that better than being carried by Amazon? Well, then, you can solve that.
You are forgetting about AWS, which should be spun off into its own company.
Why? Do you imagine in some fictional world that this would create competitors? Anyone who wants to can already compete, so what exactly do you think would be different? Do you really imagine that there are, today, people who say "we cannot compete against AWS because Amazon also has online shopping?" Really?
Or is it just because is has Amazon in the name you hate it?
They're saying Amazon website and Amazon warehouse logistics are separate.
Which is so absolutely ridiculous that it should alert any attentive reader to the nonsense Warren is pulling. Yes, you can order from Amazon the website, but we can't tell you if what you want is in stock, how much it will cost, when it will ship, or any of the back end logistics bits. Maybe it would be good if Amazon the website prints out each order it gets and then faxes it to Amazon the warehouse, hmmm?
Let's punish every success by splitting it into pieces too small to succeed. That will be Very Good For The Internet, sure, you betcha.
Under which part of the constitution do we justify this, again? When Ma Bell was split up into the 7 RBOCs there could be a tiny bit of interstate commerce justification, but Ma Bell was a true monopoly, not just a successful competitor.
A gate to close off a public street. One assumes that there would already be a law that would prohibit "unauthorized public people" from just opening the gate when it is trying to shut them out. While it would not technically be asking for "a law", it is asking for an existing law that currently doesn't apply to their street to now apply to their private little bit of the public Paris landscape.
Maybe you should have expected that I'd despatch two shotgun shells worth of rock salt into your buttocks
Maybe you should rethink making threats of physical violence against people who are standing on a public street taking a picture. In most civilized places, discharging a firearm at someone who is no threat to you and is in a public place is a CRIME.
DST isn't your problem, living unnaturally far North is.
He'll remember you said that when you need to move north because his climate is warm and livable and your house is either three feet under water or surrounded by boiling lakes. Shoe on the other foot then, huh?
skin color DOES NOT MATTER ONE BIT for that task, especially as the cameras are probably very IR sensitive.
Yes, CCD and CMOS cameras are sensitive in the IR -- near IR, not far. In fact, most color cameras have an IR cut filter in front of the sensor just to prevent false color renditions, and many B/W cameras have them, too. Near IR is close to visible, and is not generated in any significant amount by something that isn't also radiating visible light, except for those deliberate near IR radiators. People aren't.
Far IR is what comes from thermal emitters, like warm bodies, and unless you have a camera specifically designed for far IR detection, you don't see it.
Gun control does not equal gun confiscation or elimination.
It does, however, equal "infringement", which the 2nd amendment is pretty clear is a "shall not".
The words "well regulated" are adjectives that apply to the militia, not to the right to keep and bear arms. It also appears in a clause that is descriptive and not proscriptive. I.e., it gives one reason for an inalienable right, which being inalienable, actually requires no reason at all. Would you accept a requirement that you provide some reason why police cannot come search your house at any time they wish (4th amendment)? Or do you need to give the reason why you don't want to answer questions that might incriminate you (5th)?
We already have gun control. For example, any time I want to buy a gun my name goes to the FBI for a background check and (I am assured) does not go onto a list of gun owners. "I am assured" by the people who would be keeping the list, of course.
It would be honest to call for "more gun control", but everyone who calls for more controls tries to pretend we have none at all now.
Entirely depends on your jurisdiction, and in many places the local police do not get the income from cameras, so those jurisdictions tend to use them as they should be used.
Since the number of tickets written can be used as a metric for police productivity sans any monetary reward, your assumption is unwarranted. It buys the police points with non-violators since the police are "doing something" about a safety problem. It buys points with the local jurisdiction that does get the money. And it buys points with their supervisors who see documented proof that they are "doing something".
It is interesting to note the obvious lie: "With Google Maps, he noted, all drivers approaching the fixed camera intersection get the warning." No, only those drivers who are currently distracted by a mobile electronic device talking to them through Google Maps will be notified. Everyone else will not. When the percentage of drivers using Google Maps reaches 100%, you can claim that "all drivers" will get a warning.
While it is possible to use Maps hands-free, what percentage of people will start using Maps without concern for that? We just tightened up the distracted driving laws here in Oregon so that it is now a primary offense to be using your cell phone while driving, and I see the same number of people chatting away holding a phone to their ear while tooling about town. "Primary offense" means the cops can stop and ticket you for no other reason than seeing you using your phone. Put a positive monetary incentive on driving while distracted and you'll entice more people to do it -- making the roads less safe.
No, I can pretty much know ahead of time that getting a helicopter to come pick someone up will take a lot longer than five minutes. You see, that's because I know the situation here, which is obviously different than other people's.
I can also know that it will take less time to drive the half mile to the ER myself instead of waiting for the ambulance to "fire up" and drive a mile or more to my house and THEN drive the half mile to the ER. It's simple maths. As for waiting for a doctor to show up at my house, I would spend more time on the phone trying to convince one to come than it would take to drive to where one is. After convincing one to come, I'd still have to wait for him to drive here, which, since it would likely be the hospital he'd be coming from, means it would still be faster to drive myself than wait for him to come pick her up.
The parent just wanted to drive ahead and complained a car reduced to a speed of maximum 122 might get his mother die.
I'll point out this again, and maybe the troll will listen. I wasn't replying to "the parent". I was replying to the fellow who tried comparing a helicopter transport to driving. I really don't give a shit what your "parent" was arguing, and that should be obvious because I didn't reply to him.
Slashdot Mirror
and aside from APRS (Primarily a position-reporting protocol that runs over packet as a L2 transport) there's practically no use of packet radio at all any more.
Winlink is in use in a lot of places.
high-speed operation still means 1200bps.
Actually, high-speed packet is 9600, but it cannot be used below 220. Standard packet is 1200.
and each station in the contact must identify themselves at the start and end of the "conversation" and periodically usually every 10-15 minutes.
97.119: "... at the end of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication, ..." There is no "start of communications" requirement for identification, and no mention of "conversation".
FT8 is not an encryption with the intention of obfuscating the meaning of the transmission, numb nuts. Just like ASCII is not. FT8 is a method of modulating digital content onto an analog radio signal. If the digital content is encrypted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning, then that FT8 transmission is illegal (unless it meets the standing exceptions to that rule.)
Any transmission on the amateur bands that is obscured is NOT permissible. Period. Full stop.
Not quite what the rules are, but sending money via ham radio is so clearly outside the permitted exceptions that it's a close enough approximation.
Encryption, on amateur radio, is completely forbidden except for a few times where it's completely mandatory.
There is no time when it is mandatory. It is permitted for obfuscation of meaning under a limited set of circumstances, but mandatory nowhere.
Controlling remote hardware, for one
No, there is no exception for this, with the TWO exceptions for model aircraft and space stations. Simple remote control of other hardware is not exempted. For example, I may not control my repeater remotely using an encrypted signal.
There's also some compelling arguments to be made about control of remote radios, such as repeaters.
You might make such arguments, but the rules don't permit it.
Participating in a search-and-rescue operation, or any other time you have cause to transmit someone's medical records or other PII.
Please cite the relevant FCC Part 97 regulation that permits encryption for the obfuscation of meaning of "medical records" via ham radio.
Even statute and regulation says they have to stop being enforced, when violating rules is necessary to protect life, limb, or property.
If by "statute and regulation" you are referring to the boilerplate emergency exemption rules found in almost every part of the communications regulations, then you need to be very careful that what you are sending actually DOES have a direct impact on the safety of life or property required before those rules take effect, and that there is no other means of communications available. A lot of people get tripped up by that last requirement there. "When no other means of communications is available".
Anyway I think it's a worthwhile experiment,
Exactly what is different about sending bitcoin via a digital radio link compared to sending it by the normal digital internet link?
Amateurs do "internet" via radio every day. They do long-distance digital communications every day. What, precisely, is different about this that makes it "an experiment" of any kind?
Also illegal per 97.113 as technically blockchain messages are encrypted; which for amateur radio is illegal even if the rule is not exactly well-enforced.
The actual rule includes a bit about "obfuscation of meaning".
The HSMM (High Speed Multi-Media, or mesh-net) people argue that they are not encrypting for obfuscation of meaning, they're doing it for access control. These are the folks who take COTS 2.4GHz wireless hardware and use it under amateur rules. It would be illegal to allow non-licensed folks to access that, so the "encryption" via the WEP or WPA keys is for access control. They "publish" the WEP or WPA keys on a website somewhere so in theory anyone can listen in, so it's legal. Thus they argue. I don't know that this has been tested under fire from the FCC.
Not sure I agree actually - for instance its perfectly legal to order a pizza over ham radio (say via a phone patch) because the pecuniary interest isn't a ham.
The pizza place isn't using ham radio. They're using the phone. Using the phone to order a pizza isn't illegal. The HAM involved doesn't have a pecuniary interest, perhaps.
However, a bitcoin transaction is a monetary exchange -- pure pecuniary interest. You can't get around the law by saying bitcoin isn't money and thus isn't "pecuniary".
Pecuniary interest is basically being paid to operate the radio or radio service
No, it is not just being paid. It is monetary benefit. If you operate a business, say, and you use ham radio to discuss a business operations issue with someone, you're getting a monetary advantage because of the benefit to the business.
there's a single exception for this - school teachers.
You should re-read the rules sometime. There are other exceptions. Fascinating exceptions.
1. Paraphrasing, if you operate a regularly scheduled transmission for practice of radio operations, you may be paid to do so. This is a very thinly veiled description of the ARRL CW code practice transmissions. Apparently it is not possible to find any volunteers who would spends hours every day running computer-generated code practice transmissions, so ARRL got FCC to put in an exemption so they can pay the employee who does it.
2. If you are participating in a disaster exercise, you may be paid while operating an amateur radio. This exemption came about a few years ago because FEMA realized how much value ham radio had in a disaster area, and disaster agencies started asking how they could get their employees (people they control) using ham radio instead of depending on volunteer hams (people they cannot). Under emergency rules, during an actual emergency, their employees can use ham radio while being paid. But how do you practice for this? Well, now, non-governmental agencies can hold two exercises per year paying their people to use ham radio, and government agencies can do it without limit.
3. You can sell and trade ham equipment via radio. These are called "swap nets", and people will get on the air and describe what they want to sell and how much they want for it. The limit is that this must not be as part of a regular business and it must deal with amateur-related stuff. I can sell a radio via a swap-net as me. I cannot sell wine, e.g., nor can I do it as the owner of Bob's Radio Store.
4. The "school teacher" exemption is limited to use of ham radio ancillary to instruction in other topics. The typical example is a geography teacher who includes an attempt at talking to people in Russia as part of a lesson on Russia.
I don't have any examples of ruling the FCC has made on "pecuniary interest" handy, but I know the FAA's stance on this for private pilots, who are prohibited from being compensated for flying. If you fly someone somewhere and they offer to pay the entire cost (but not a salary for you) you are still in violation of the law, since the hours you get to log have value.
I would say this violates rules against using ciphers over ham radio frequencies to obscure messages though: 97.309.
I would say this is obvious, but some might argue. The solution, of course, is to put up an AMSAT and use bitcoin to control it. (Control of space stations is an exemption to the "no codes or ciphers to obfuscate content..." rule.)
Congress just needs to pass a national law prohibiting state and local governments from granting monopoly contracts for services going to people's homes.
You mean like the Cable Act of 1992 which outlawed exclusive franchises for cable communications companies?
Maybe you never lived through the divestiture time for Ma Bell and all the ensuing nonsense. I did so much love getting to call the local telco to report a service issue just to have them claim it was a long distance issue and I needed to call the LD company. The LD company, of course, claimed it was a local issue and I needed to call my local provider. It was tons of fun, and a very productive way to spend my day. Sure, you betcha.
Trump will almost certainly run a different campaign against his next challenger.
That's the insightful point in your comment. Politicians ALWAYS campaign based on the current election rules. Changing the rules means the campaign methods will change.
This is what makes all the whining about "but Hillary won the (fictional) popular vote" so glaringly silly. If there were a popular vote for president, then all the candidates would campaign based on those rules and the outcome is unlikely to be different.
It's like changing a rule in hockey and thinking that it will be beneficial to your favorite team. When you change the rule, ALL the teams will change how they play, and the good players will still be good. Your team full of suck-ass wannabes will still be suck-ass wannabes, not new league MVPs.
Both are walled gardens
The app stores may be "walled gardens", but at least for Android anyone can write an app and anyone can distribute the APK. Yes, you have to enable third-party installations, but it's there and it works.
where Apple/Google have more control over what is on your phone or who you do business with than you do.
Really? Wow. I did not know that Google was keeping me from doing business with someone.
Are you confused by that fact that every grocery store or brick and mortar is a "walled garden" that has more control over who you do business with than you do? You do realize that each store selects what it will sell, and they won't sell you things they don't have.
I will on the Librem 5 so fast it will make your head spin when it reaches market.
Ok. It won't make my head spin, but if it makes yours do that, that's ok, too. Do you somehow think that EW breaking Google and/or Apple up will make your head spin faster, or what?
Of course the Amazon site would communicate using computers with the Amazon warehouse. In fact, they already do.
Yeah, that's what EW wants to break up, don't you know? It's not so some fictional, unrelated company can start dumping fake orders through an open API into the Amazon the warehouse logistics system.
and if it offered a better shopping experience could compete with Amazon.com.
It already can. There are absolutely TONS of websites selling things today, even when you can't quantify "better shopping experience".
As you point out (right after you ask) this is straightforward regulation of interstate commerce from a constitutional point of view.
The ICC doesn't say we have to, or get to, break up companies because they are too successful.
Amazon may not be a monopoly
IS not a monopoly. If you are incapable of finding another retailer, that's not Amazon's fault.
If Warren gets nomination, which I find about as unlikely a happening as anything I can think of, then it becomes worthy of discussing. Until then it's just a stunt.
Even if she is the nominee, it is still a stunt. There is zero chance of this happening. You think there's a backlog in the courts now with the states suing the feds for things that are clearly federal jurisdiction? Imagine when EW tries to destroy a company that has tons of lawyers on staff just because she doesn't like them. And even if she can create some trumped-up reason ...
No, if there is no way to prosecute these hypothetical legal violations today, then tomorrow won't bring a Brave New World of Amazon-less competition.
It is a violation of antitrust laws to run your competition out of business by operating at a loss.
What, exactly, do you think the reason for "loss leaders" in local stores is, then? Should there be a law that no business can sell anything at a price below cost? What would you say the legislated profit margin should be? 5%? 10%?
"A monopoly" isn't the standard by which we judge anti-trust legislation. For the last few decades, the standard has been "harm to the consumer" rather than "harm to the market."
And Amazon, as a retailer, offers me good prices, good delivery times, and a good selection. A better selection than local brick and mortar can, faster delivery than they can, and better prices than they can. Breaking up Amazon would be harm to the consumer.
Now, yes, they are large and they can compete well. But then, EVERY company is competing, and they ALL do what they can to bring sales to them and away from the competitor. Even the local Mom and Pop grocery store runs ads for loss leaders, hoping I'll come by to shop there even when the prices they have for 90% of the things I want are higher. That's anti-competitive, isn't it?
So you take the time and effort to line up manufacturing and sink your savings into some inventory and sell them on amazon. For some reason they are go viral and and the sales go through the roof. Amazon, as the seller, knows this, and decides to put out an amazon basics version of your product.
Your designs, although not patentable, are copyrighted, and if Amazon duplicates your product they can be sued.
Now, explain why Amazon should be prevented from doing exactly what every other company on the planet can do: become a dog sweater manufacturer, reaping the benefit of the niche market that you've taken advantage of.
Like it or not, the amazon marketplace is pretty much the default portal for online shopping these days,
Depends on what you are shopping for. Funny how there are so many other websites where you can buy stuff, and other places to go search for those things to buy. And why shouldn't Amazon promote their own products? If you don't want to buy Amazon products, don't go there. Certainly don't pretend that "Amazon Choice" means "only choice".
and there is a conflict of interest for them in listing other people's goods vs the ones they produce.
Is there a "conflict of interest" if they simply stop carrying your fancy dog sweaters? I would guess not -- they aren't prioritizing theirs over yours then. You simply lose access to a market. Is that better than being carried by Amazon? Well, then, you can solve that.
You are forgetting about AWS, which should be spun off into its own company.
Why? Do you imagine in some fictional world that this would create competitors? Anyone who wants to can already compete, so what exactly do you think would be different? Do you really imagine that there are, today, people who say "we cannot compete against AWS because Amazon also has online shopping?" Really?
Or is it just because is has Amazon in the name you hate it?
They're saying Amazon website and Amazon warehouse logistics are separate.
Which is so absolutely ridiculous that it should alert any attentive reader to the nonsense Warren is pulling. Yes, you can order from Amazon the website, but we can't tell you if what you want is in stock, how much it will cost, when it will ship, or any of the back end logistics bits. Maybe it would be good if Amazon the website prints out each order it gets and then faxes it to Amazon the warehouse, hmmm?
Let's punish every success by splitting it into pieces too small to succeed. That will be Very Good For The Internet, sure, you betcha.
Under which part of the constitution do we justify this, again? When Ma Bell was split up into the 7 RBOCs there could be a tiny bit of interstate commerce justification, but Ma Bell was a true monopoly, not just a successful competitor.
They weren't asking for a law, rather a gate.
A gate to close off a public street. One assumes that there would already be a law that would prohibit "unauthorized public people" from just opening the gate when it is trying to shut them out. While it would not technically be asking for "a law", it is asking for an existing law that currently doesn't apply to their street to now apply to their private little bit of the public Paris landscape.
Maybe you should have expected that I'd despatch two shotgun shells worth of rock salt into your buttocks
Maybe you should rethink making threats of physical violence against people who are standing on a public street taking a picture. In most civilized places, discharging a firearm at someone who is no threat to you and is in a public place is a CRIME.
DST isn't your problem, living unnaturally far North is.
He'll remember you said that when you need to move north because his climate is warm and livable and your house is either three feet under water or surrounded by boiling lakes. Shoe on the other foot then, huh?
What about North Carolina politicians doing Michael Jackson impressions?
What about Michael Jackson himself? I mean, before he died but after cosmetic procedures.
skin color DOES NOT MATTER ONE BIT for that task, especially as the cameras are probably very IR sensitive.
Yes, CCD and CMOS cameras are sensitive in the IR -- near IR, not far. In fact, most color cameras have an IR cut filter in front of the sensor just to prevent false color renditions, and many B/W cameras have them, too. Near IR is close to visible, and is not generated in any significant amount by something that isn't also radiating visible light, except for those deliberate near IR radiators. People aren't.
Far IR is what comes from thermal emitters, like warm bodies, and unless you have a camera specifically designed for far IR detection, you don't see it.
Gun control does not equal gun confiscation or elimination.
It does, however, equal "infringement", which the 2nd amendment is pretty clear is a "shall not".
The words "well regulated" are adjectives that apply to the militia, not to the right to keep and bear arms. It also appears in a clause that is descriptive and not proscriptive. I.e., it gives one reason for an inalienable right, which being inalienable, actually requires no reason at all. Would you accept a requirement that you provide some reason why police cannot come search your house at any time they wish (4th amendment)? Or do you need to give the reason why you don't want to answer questions that might incriminate you (5th)?
We already have gun control. For example, any time I want to buy a gun my name goes to the FBI for a background check and (I am assured) does not go onto a list of gun owners. "I am assured" by the people who would be keeping the list, of course.
It would be honest to call for "more gun control", but everyone who calls for more controls tries to pretend we have none at all now.
Entirely depends on your jurisdiction, and in many places the local police do not get the income from cameras, so those jurisdictions tend to use them as they should be used.
Since the number of tickets written can be used as a metric for police productivity sans any monetary reward, your assumption is unwarranted. It buys the police points with non-violators since the police are "doing something" about a safety problem. It buys points with the local jurisdiction that does get the money. And it buys points with their supervisors who see documented proof that they are "doing something".
It is interesting to note the obvious lie: "With Google Maps, he noted, all drivers approaching the fixed camera intersection get the warning." No, only those drivers who are currently distracted by a mobile electronic device talking to them through Google Maps will be notified. Everyone else will not. When the percentage of drivers using Google Maps reaches 100%, you can claim that "all drivers" will get a warning.
While it is possible to use Maps hands-free, what percentage of people will start using Maps without concern for that? We just tightened up the distracted driving laws here in Oregon so that it is now a primary offense to be using your cell phone while driving, and I see the same number of people chatting away holding a phone to their ear while tooling about town. "Primary offense" means the cops can stop and ticket you for no other reason than seeing you using your phone. Put a positive monetary incentive on driving while distracted and you'll entice more people to do it -- making the roads less safe.
You only know that after you called emergency.
No, I can pretty much know ahead of time that getting a helicopter to come pick someone up will take a lot longer than five minutes. You see, that's because I know the situation here, which is obviously different than other people's.
I can also know that it will take less time to drive the half mile to the ER myself instead of waiting for the ambulance to "fire up" and drive a mile or more to my house and THEN drive the half mile to the ER. It's simple maths. As for waiting for a doctor to show up at my house, I would spend more time on the phone trying to convince one to come than it would take to drive to where one is. After convincing one to come, I'd still have to wait for him to drive here, which, since it would likely be the hospital he'd be coming from, means it would still be faster to drive myself than wait for him to come pick her up.
The parent just wanted to drive ahead and complained a car reduced to a speed of maximum 122 might get his mother die.
I'll point out this again, and maybe the troll will listen. I wasn't replying to "the parent". I was replying to the fellow who tried comparing a helicopter transport to driving. I really don't give a shit what your "parent" was arguing, and that should be obvious because I didn't reply to him.