I'd be totally fine with that, except it isn't feasible without some central clearing house for prices. I've always said I'm prepared to pay taxes (or prices) proportionate to the money I make. It wouldn't be fair to the rest of the country to do otherwise.
Except that is entirely your choice. If you choose not to do so, what then?
Phones are manufactured all over; famously to avoid tariffs Xiaomi manufacture 95% of their phones in India...Apple only have 1% and complain about tariffs there.
Please tell me how your one example means that Samsung, LG, HTC, Huawei, and others do not manufacturer their phones in China.
Why is it on Apple to try to fix a political situation that they didn't cause? Also what are the Chinese manufacturers suppose to do other than blanket lower their prices unilaterally as Apple is not the only company affected. The companies that make Apple stuff makes stuff for many American and international companies.
This tariff doesn't only affect Apple so how is this "putting all my eggs in Apple's basket"? Or is the fact that most if not all smart phones from all manufacturers are made in China have no impact on other manufacturers?
Only if you don't understand that most smart phones are made in China and this basically raises the prices on all of them. So the only people really being punished is the average consumer.
You do understand that most smart phones are manufactured in China right? A tariff on China will affect your Samsung, HTC, Huawei, or LG phone the same if it is manufactured in China.
No what I'm saying is you were willing to twist what the poster said instead of actually complying and your list is essentially useless. As for those models many of them can't be updated to the newest Android so you are not being honest in that regard either.
Your "long, long list" includes many phones which do not match the poster's criteria of "these days". The Samsung Galaxy S4 and S5 models, for example, from many years do not count.
We disagree over emphasis and analogy, so I doubt we'll get any further arguing back and forth. In addition, you misread part of my analogy as something you thought I claimed I was. You really should check your reading comprehension before opining further.
You introduced criminality into the analogy above thereby changing the whole analogy. You've also changed Perens' actual claims of his expertise. Specifically you failed to mention this part of Peren's blog: "I am an intellectual property and technology specialist who advises attorneys, not an attorney. This is my opinion and is offered as advice to your attorney. Please show this to him or her. Under the law of most states, your attorney who is contracted to you is the only party who can provide you with legal advice." You changed what was said and ask me to check my reading level?
That would be the restaurant equivalent of saying "the place was knowingly serving up endangered species, and now that I've told you that you should consult a lawyer as you could be held as an accessory.
No it's not remotely similar. Your statement presents a fact which can proved as false or true. Your statement also alleges that the restaurant has done something illegal. Perens clearly stated his opinion on not what the plaintiff did or did not do (which plaintiff doesn't deny) but rather on his clear opinion on what he thinks it means.
This is my personal opinion, but I am a world renowned expert witness on endangered species law." I know that's a bit strained, but I hope you understand what I see as being the difference there. I did question Bruce over how exposed his comments made him at the time, but then I am obviously neither a lawyer nor have the faintest idea about the US legal system.
Again you are not using the same analogy. You've extended the analogy. A better analogy would have been if Perens said he thinks Nixon should have gone to jail for the Watergate scandal. If Nixon were alive, should Nixon sue Perens for clear opinion? Nixon could always sue but the judge in that case would have ruled a summary judgment too. As a "I am a world renowned expert witness on endangered species law", you should know what summary judgment means.
If by "invisible hand" and "zero government intervention", you mean a government group complained loudly to the press and other government groups began investigations, then yes there was no government intervention. Just like these Verizon phone plans were "unlimited".
It's not strictly a net neutrality issue. It is however an argument against those like Pai who say that net neutrality isn't needed to regulate ISPs because they will magically regulate themselves.
Look at it from their perspective: from what I can see, it was the only remaining avenue open to them to protect their business after Bruce *very* publically broadcast that people stay away from them. This isn't the normal reaction to GPL violations that I can remember. Usually we hear of the softly softly approach, with companies being handled with kid gloves over many years to achieve compliance. A full on publicity stunt with an iron fist - yeah, there were serious politics at play there I think.
Even if everything you said is right, that means that any restaurant reviewer can be sued for telling their listeners to stay away from a restaurant. Any movie reviewer on YouTube can be sued by telling people to avoid the movie. Also that presumes that any company looking to do business with them was turned away only by Perens' opinion and that they didn't consult with their own experts.
Let me quality all that by saying trying to EULA their patches at the end was certainly a big mistake. However, I can understand why they had that reaction. Ostracised by the mainstream kernel, they set up shop (without EULA) only to eventually find a project to reincorporate their code into mainstream minus authorship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that reeks of hypocrisy, and is no less a copyright infringement as anything else in this sordid affair. It's certainly soured my view of Linux and the whole "Open Source" movement.
All of which as nothing to do with Perens being able to express himself. Richard Stallman has some very staunch opinions about how Open Source should be. No one is suing him.
Personally, I would have taken the lawsuit as a win, as what you basically have is a court saying Bruce was offering his opinion as Joe T Shlubb, not as a professional (correct me if I'm wrong?) I guess by then the damage was done, though.
You understand that Perens had to spend money to defend himself against a lawsuit that the court dismissed. Also the latest development is that now Perens has to defend against the appeal so he would have had to keep spending money after he won if he was not represent pro bono.
I suspect it's because that they couldn't win on any copyright claim as Perens (as is anyone) can voice an opinion about copyright just like you just did above. If someone sued you for what you just wrote, that's the equivalent of what happened. Is Perens right about it? That was never the point. It was about trying to silence him.
Again what the hell is it any business of yours what someone does on their own? Especially when some of the owners demonstrated with their employees? Seems like you want to regulate their ability to make any statements when it is none of your business.
Where did Trump claim that football players can't post their opinions on social media when they aren't on the clock?
And why the hell does it matter if there are on the clock? I don't recall that the NFL is in any way a part of any national, state, or local governments. As such there are on private time which means only their employers have any say. In the past some of their employers said it was okay and demonstrated with their employees. What is your argument against that?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be totally fine with that, except it isn't feasible without some central clearing house for prices. I've always said I'm prepared to pay taxes (or prices) proportionate to the money I make. It wouldn't be fair to the rest of the country to do otherwise.
Except that is entirely your choice. If you choose not to do so, what then?
Phones are manufactured all over; famously to avoid tariffs Xiaomi manufacture 95% of their phones in India...Apple only have 1% and complain about tariffs there.
Please tell me how your one example means that Samsung, LG, HTC, Huawei, and others do not manufacturer their phones in China.
Why is it on Apple to try to fix a political situation that they didn't cause? Also what are the Chinese manufacturers suppose to do other than blanket lower their prices unilaterally as Apple is not the only company affected. The companies that make Apple stuff makes stuff for many American and international companies.
Please show Apple which American plant where they could source their manufacturing?
In the same way that I find it ridiculous that if you made money last year so why don't you pay more for everything you buy.
This tariff doesn't only affect Apple so how is this "putting all my eggs in Apple's basket"? Or is the fact that most if not all smart phones from all manufacturers are made in China have no impact on other manufacturers?
Only if you don't understand that most smart phones are made in China and this basically raises the prices on all of them. So the only people really being punished is the average consumer.
You do understand that most smart phones are manufactured in China right? A tariff on China will affect your Samsung, HTC, Huawei, or LG phone the same if it is manufactured in China.
No what I'm saying is you were willing to twist what the poster said instead of actually complying and your list is essentially useless. As for those models many of them can't be updated to the newest Android so you are not being honest in that regard either.
Your "long, long list" includes many phones which do not match the poster's criteria of "these days". The Samsung Galaxy S4 and S5 models, for example, from many years do not count.
Um doesn't the examples of the SE and X kinda destroy your entire argument?
We disagree over emphasis and analogy, so I doubt we'll get any further arguing back and forth. In addition, you misread part of my analogy as something you thought I claimed I was. You really should check your reading comprehension before opining further.
You introduced criminality into the analogy above thereby changing the whole analogy. You've also changed Perens' actual claims of his expertise. Specifically you failed to mention this part of Peren's blog: "I am an intellectual property and technology specialist who advises attorneys, not an attorney. This is my opinion and is offered as advice to your attorney. Please show this to him or her. Under the law of most states, your attorney who is contracted to you is the only party who can provide you with legal advice." You changed what was said and ask me to check my reading level?
Do you always resort to insulting people who respond the way you want them to respond?
That would be the restaurant equivalent of saying "the place was knowingly serving up endangered species, and now that I've told you that you should consult a lawyer as you could be held as an accessory.
No it's not remotely similar. Your statement presents a fact which can proved as false or true. Your statement also alleges that the restaurant has done something illegal. Perens clearly stated his opinion on not what the plaintiff did or did not do (which plaintiff doesn't deny) but rather on his clear opinion on what he thinks it means.
This is my personal opinion, but I am a world renowned expert witness on endangered species law." I know that's a bit strained, but I hope you understand what I see as being the difference there. I did question Bruce over how exposed his comments made him at the time, but then I am obviously neither a lawyer nor have the faintest idea about the US legal system.
Again you are not using the same analogy. You've extended the analogy. A better analogy would have been if Perens said he thinks Nixon should have gone to jail for the Watergate scandal. If Nixon were alive, should Nixon sue Perens for clear opinion? Nixon could always sue but the judge in that case would have ruled a summary judgment too. As a "I am a world renowned expert witness on endangered species law", you should know what summary judgment means.
Again, your analogy changed the situation.
If by "invisible hand" and "zero government intervention", you mean a government group complained loudly to the press and other government groups began investigations, then yes there was no government intervention. Just like these Verizon phone plans were "unlimited".
It's not strictly a net neutrality issue. It is however an argument against those like Pai who say that net neutrality isn't needed to regulate ISPs because they will magically regulate themselves.
Look at it from their perspective: from what I can see, it was the only remaining avenue open to them to protect their business after Bruce *very* publically broadcast that people stay away from them. This isn't the normal reaction to GPL violations that I can remember. Usually we hear of the softly softly approach, with companies being handled with kid gloves over many years to achieve compliance. A full on publicity stunt with an iron fist - yeah, there were serious politics at play there I think.
Even if everything you said is right, that means that any restaurant reviewer can be sued for telling their listeners to stay away from a restaurant. Any movie reviewer on YouTube can be sued by telling people to avoid the movie. Also that presumes that any company looking to do business with them was turned away only by Perens' opinion and that they didn't consult with their own experts.
Let me quality all that by saying trying to EULA their patches at the end was certainly a big mistake. However, I can understand why they had that reaction. Ostracised by the mainstream kernel, they set up shop (without EULA) only to eventually find a project to reincorporate their code into mainstream minus authorship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that reeks of hypocrisy, and is no less a copyright infringement as anything else in this sordid affair. It's certainly soured my view of Linux and the whole "Open Source" movement.
All of which as nothing to do with Perens being able to express himself. Richard Stallman has some very staunch opinions about how Open Source should be. No one is suing him.
Personally, I would have taken the lawsuit as a win, as what you basically have is a court saying Bruce was offering his opinion as Joe T Shlubb, not as a professional (correct me if I'm wrong?) I guess by then the damage was done, though.
You understand that Perens had to spend money to defend himself against a lawsuit that the court dismissed. Also the latest development is that now Perens has to defend against the appeal so he would have had to keep spending money after he won if he was not represent pro bono.
Not the point. Suing him for stating an opinion even it's wrong is like me suing you for what you just posted.
So by your argument I can sue you for voicing an opinion about whether Perens should be sued.
I suspect it's because that they couldn't win on any copyright claim as Perens (as is anyone) can voice an opinion about copyright just like you just did above. If someone sued you for what you just wrote, that's the equivalent of what happened. Is Perens right about it? That was never the point. It was about trying to silence him.
Also they can counter sue for costs which happened in this case.
Citation needed and how does that in any way negate that the fact that the NFL is not a public institution?
Again what the hell is it any business of yours what someone does on their own? Especially when some of the owners demonstrated with their employees? Seems like you want to regulate their ability to make any statements when it is none of your business.
How is the NFL not private? I don't seem to recall the NFL being a public institution.
Where did Trump claim that football players can't post their opinions on social media when they aren't on the clock?
And why the hell does it matter if there are on the clock? I don't recall that the NFL is in any way a part of any national, state, or local governments. As such there are on private time which means only their employers have any say. In the past some of their employers said it was okay and demonstrated with their employees. What is your argument against that?