The problem is that the contract prohibits private lawsuits. So, if AT&T "forces" you to go the individual route, they are then entitled to have the case thrown out as a contract violation. The supreme court only ruled that AT&T could force individual arbitration, it said nothing about AT&T then having to allow said arbitration to proceed.
Actually, AT&T could not use your suing them as a means to cancel the court proceedings you brought. They could, however, use it to hold you in breach of contract, which at most would be the cost of the remainder of the contract fee. The question is would AT&T spend thousands on attorney fees to take you to court over breach of contract when the remedy would be a couple of thousand dollars? Plus, if you won in your suit, then you would have further grounds to show that you did not breach the contract, but instead, it was unenforceable.
All this decision means is that those people in the class action suit against AT&T won't get their $3 coupon while the attorneys get millions.
The definition being used in the current healthcare debate rests entirely on the precedent of Raich. Where the court found that non-commerce (not buying or selling) a substance that is not legal to buy or sell across state lines (pot) falls under the heading of "interstate commerce".
In his dissent in the Gonzales v. Raich case, Justice Thomas warned that this precedent would allow the federal government unlimited powers of regulation. So yeah, FFF was right in his analysis.
Even without Raich, healthcare falls under interstate commerce, unless you are paying your bills out of pocket without insurance or subsidy. Since nobody does that, they either use insurance, for which the underwriters cross state lines or government subsidy, which being a government service falls under the commerce clause.
Of course a simple solution to all of this would be to go to a single payer plan. That's what the Obama Administration wanted originally, before they adopted the Bush Administration's proposal as a compromise. So, maybe the right will get their way and get the mandatory insurance thrown out and it will be replaced with exactly what the left wanted in the first place. How ironic would that be.
That's not the broadest definition that could be unreasonably imagined, we have a regime in the White House who thinks having some limited powers to regulate interstate commerce means they can force everyone to buy health insurance, as a cost of being alive.
Yeah, shame on Obama for including the Bush proposal in his health care plan. In the US, anybody at any time can go to the hospital, whether they can pay or not. Not every place in the world allows that and many people die in the streets. However, somebody has to pay for all of those provided services and they are passed on to those who already have insurance.
I find it odd that people don't complain about the government saying you must have auto insurance if you want to drive a car, but they do complain if the government says you must have health insurance if you want medical treatment. In either case, if you are uninsured, your actions have an impact on the rest of those who are insured.
Note that arbitrators are notorious for overwhelmingly favoring the party which hires them. In this case, that'd be the company. This is part of a much larger and utterly foolish trend: the systematic dismantling of each available "working through the system" method of either getting justice or effecting change.
That's strange, since the arbitrators have to be agreed to by both parties and very often are appointed by the court system (or approved by them). They, the arbitrators, get paid the same regardless of which side wins. Of course, the point of arbitration is to finds a solution that is palatable for both sides.
This can actually be a big benefit for the small guy. Many claims never get filed, because there isn't enough money involved to get an attorney interested. However, through arbitration, the small guy gets heard without having to go through the expense of long drawn out and expensive court proceedings.
I think that was the whole point over fighting such a silly case all the way up to the Supreme Court--to virtually guarantee that you can never be subject to a class action case again. Let's not kid ourselves, who here thinks that any company will ever again sell any service again without a clause in it forcing arbitration and disallowing class action lawsuits?
That's not true at all. The Federal Arbitration Act was in place long before this suit was ever filed. All the Supreme Court said was that corporations are protected by that act. It has nothing to do with whether they include a clause like AT&T had or not. The federal law already allows what they had put in their contract.
You really deserve to live in the (business friendly) USofA!
Does anybody still buy into the big lie (land of the free) free what? for who? Next election day just stand outside the polling place and laugh!
I'm even more disgusted than usual
Actually, the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act, that the Supreme Court based it's decision on is not necessarily business friendly. Binding arbitration does not always go in favor of big business. Hower the Federal Arbitration Act is definitely not lawyer friendly. They loose out on the big fees from the big frivolous class action suits.
All the the Federal Arbitration Act says is that businesses have the right to try and settle disputes through arbitration instead of having to go through the court system. Btw, so do individuals.
WRONG. This "judicial activism" stuff is crap. The courts are not suppose to blindly obey the laws congress passes. Haven't you heard of "checks and balances"? They, along with the president, are suppose to keep congress in check. Congress giving the courts "latitude" is irrelevant. The courts are suppose to strike down unjust laws (you know, things that violate the constitution).
There is no judicial activism here. According to the article, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) took precedent. In that act, corporations have the right to seek binding arbitration in disputes to avoid lengthy, costly court battles. This isn't a break for AT&T or corporations, this is a slam against those lawyers who drum up all of these class action suits with the intention of getting corporations to settle without going to court. The FAA also allows states to set restrictions, too, however, California, the state in question did not.
The case that brought this up, again according to the article, was that AT&T charged sales tax on a supposedly free phone. Somebody sued and turned it into a class action suit. Of course, AT&T doesn't get to keep the sales tax charged. The real beef should have been with the state of California which was requiring AT&T to charge and remit the tax. Oh, but wait, you can't sue the State for that. So, the attorneys go after the corporation, which is where all the money is supposedly.
There is no activism here, the system worked like it should. Congress had passed a law that to help mitigate all of these frivolous class action suits. AT&T tried to go to arbitration under that law. The lower court said they couldn't. They Supreme Court said, yes they can. The mistake that the lower court made was that it did not take into consideration the FAA, only the user contract, which it ruled against. The Supreme Court never ruled on the user contract, because the federal law took precedent.
As for courts striking down unjust laws, that's not their purpose. Congress can pass any law it wants. It doesn't have to be just. However, if it violates the constitution, then the courts will strike it down. Most laws are unjust to some group or another, but that doesn't make them unconstitutional.
Wow you mean a centrally planned economy isn't working? No kidding. Who would have thought. When China collapses it will be just as shocking to the talking heads as when the Soviet Union collapsed or when we do. Central Planning cannot work. It is an impossibility.
If you mean to imply that central planning will fail because of cost overruns and cutting corners, then when will the US fail and what will the talking heads say then? Asian countries have been known to take the "best" technology that the West develops and to do it develop it quicker than the US. Now, it sounds like, they've also picked up some of the "worst" habits, too.
"The Washington Post reports that China's expanding network of ultramodern high-speed trains is coming under growing scrutiny over costs and because of concerns that builders ignored safety standards in the quest to build faster trains in record time
China is sounding more and more like the US everyday (well other than at least China has high speed rail).
Apple better be careful. As long as Apple doesn't allow anybody to use their iOS on their phones, it seems hard to say how Apple is being harmed. What would happen to Apple's suit if Samsung states that they had to go Android because Apple refused to license iOS to them? That puts Apple on the spot of either shutting up or licensing iOS, which will kill the iphone money cow.
Samsung phone looks exactly like an iPhone. iPhone is the phone with the best reputation anywhere. Samsung copied the iPhone so that people would be misled to buy a Samsung phone when what they really wanted is an iPhone. As a consequence, every Samsung phone sold means one less iPhone sold which means the gross profit from one iPhone sale is gone. So damages are number of Samsung phones sold times gross profit for each iPhone sale times factor 3 for intentional infringement.
Yeah, they look exactly alike except for the big "Samsung" written across the front, a square button at the bottom instead of a round one. The extra two buttons/touch areas at the bottom and the dimensions. Any phone sold that isn't an iPhone is one less sale for Apple.
Apple is only available on AT&T and now Verizon. If Sprint sells a Samsung Galaxy, how does that hurt Apple? You can't buy an Apple phone for the Sprint network. If AT&T or Verizon are selling a phone that Apple thinks is too close to their iPhone, then why doesn't Apple go after the carriers?
Android is totally irrelevant in this suite. Apple isn't suing Samsung for using Android, they are suing for building a phone that looks like an iPhone.
Why should Apple need to license iOS to any third party? They manufacture both hardware and software and are free to do as they please with both of those. I mean, do you expect Sony to license the PS3 OS to other manufacturers looking to make a console?
Samsung took Android (which natively does not look like iOS) and slapped their own custom UI on top of it to make it look like iOS. Samsung did not have to do that, because other Android handset makers have managed to avoid doing that.
Except that the Samsung interface looks more like WebOS from Palm and now HP than it does iOS. Just sticking icons across the bottom of the screen does not mean one is copying iOS any more than having a drop down menu in an application and copying Windows.
Apple's whole case revolves around Samsung using a Google subsidised interface on their tablet causing an unfair advantage (it is not about look and feel as the article implies). When there are only two interfaces available (iOS and Android) and you control one of them and refuse to license it, makes it hard to see how Samsung's choice has detrimentally impacted your company.
Apple owns iOS, there is no question about that. However, suing somebody because they chose a different OS, the only one available to them at the time, seems hardly to be something the courts should be wasting their time on. If I were the judge and asked to set a remedy, I would choose to tell Apple to either license their OS to other vendors or pay Samsung's legal fees for such a nuisance suit.
As for Sony licensing the PS3, no, I do not expect them to license the PS3 OS to other manufactures looking to make a console. Neither do I expect them to sue other console manufactures for actually making such a console.
Saying that Apple makes its money of hardware is disingenuous. Nobody (you 3 don't count) buys macs to run linux or windows - though both run fine. And there are plenty of folks who will tell you that apple phones and tablets are nothing special, hardware-wise.
Apple sells systems. Well integrated, easy to use systems.
I happen to like 'em because they also run *nix. (I don't care that you 3 don't like the flavor)
While it's true nobody buys macs to run linux or windows, that misses the point. Apple only sells it's software to run on Apple products. Apple specifically prohibits using their operating systems on non-Apple hardware. Therefore, the software is there to drive the hardware business, not the otherway around. The fact that the iphone an ipad are overpriced for what you get, just reinforces that it is the hardware sales that add to Apple's bottom line, not the software.
Apple wants a license fee for each tablet Samsung sells. Samsung manufactures the chips for the LCD display in the iPad. Samsung just needs to raise the cost of those chips to cover their legal fees and the new license fees (if they lose the case).
Apple better be careful. As long as Apple doesn't allow anybody to use their iOS on their phones, it seems hard to say how Apple is being harmed. What would happen to Apple's suit if Samsung states that they had to go Android because Apple refused to license iOS to them? That puts Apple on the spot of either shutting up or licensing iOS, which will kill the iphone money cow.
The only purpose of the spark plug is just that to create a spark to ignite the fuel. Whether created with a spark or using a laser, if the unburnt fuel will foul one, it will foul the other. The iridium, platinum, or whatever coating don't make the plug more efficient. They are just coatings over the copper. They do allow the plug to run hotter, which keeps deposits down, so indirectly, the plugs last longer. Like anything, though, eventually the gap will increase. This was a problem in older cars where the plugs needed to be regapped periodically. With modern cars, the on-board computers adjust the spark, the timing, the fuel mixture, etc., so even though the plug is wearing down, performance remaines constant. If you are replacing plugs every 15,000 miles in a modern car you are just waisting money.
I would predict that today's spark plug will have a longer useful life in an engine than any reasonably priced laser. The laser needs to be high powered, it needs to be able to fire and regenerate to fire again anywhere from 1500 to 2500 times per minute (3000-5000rpms). It needs to withstand temperatures as low as 40 below zero and as high as 300+ degrees all within minutes of each other. And then there is the whole keeping the glass clean for the laser to fire through (those pesky deposits, you know) not to mention the vibrations from a running engine.
As for push starting, if it's an automatic, then no. As manual transmission, should work just like now.
The thing that will make the laser plug more fuel efficient are a higher compression ratio. That will help fuel economy, but does not require lasers. Higher compression with a standard plug will also allow for burning e85 (the leaner fuel they are talking about) at much better mpg. NASCAR burns 100% ethanol with very high compression ratios to squeeze every ounce of energy from the fuel. That translate to high speed for them, but would be better mpg for regular drivers. They do all of this with spark plugs, not lasers.
However, the real issue with low mpg is that vehicles weigh significantly more than they used to. If you cut the weight, mpg will increase. If you cut the weight and reduce horsepower (since a lighter car doesn't need the extra HP), mpg will go up dramatically. The question is whether people will go back to a Honda Civic or Toyota Camry the size they were in the 80s, when they were getting 30mpg city and 40mpg highway?
Heck, my 72 VW Beetle, with it's 1.6L carburated engine gets 26mpg city and 34mpg highway and it is 40 year old technology (actually closer to 80 year old technology). I do admit, though, most people would not want to drive a beetle today, but my point is lighter and smaller give better mileage.
And... that $20 DVD burner from Newegg contains a lot more than just a laser... produced in automotive fleet quantities, most solid state lasers would get pretty cheap - I'd think it's the optically clear window capable of withstanding the combustion chamber that's a trick, but it's pretty small, and again should be cheap in quantity.
I'm pretty sure that the lasers required would be quite a bit more than what a dvd player/burner has. First there is the power requirement. These lasers need to heat up immediately to ignite the fuel. At 3000 RPM they will fire 1500 times per minute. They also have to perform this function at a distance much further away than a typical dvd laser. They need to be able to perform consistently in a temperature range from less than -20 to greater than 280. They need to be able to burn through any buildup that is going to occur from the combustion. They need to be able to withstand very high vibrations. And finally, they need to be able to do it more economically than a $3 spark plug.
According to the article, one of the main reasons spark plugs get gummed up is the electrical sparks they are putting out. Electric arcs tend to corrode their endpoints. With a laser, this isn't a problem. Also, the lasers aren't going to try to ignite combustion right in front of them: It's more efficient to ignite it away from them, in the center of the cylinder. Spark plugs can't do that at all.
Plus, of course, any laser capable of igniting a fuel-air mixture reliably in a few nanoseconds can burn through a bit of soot on the way.
If the air fuel mixture is correct, the plugs on a healthy engine won't get gummed at all. If it is too rich or burning oil, it won't matter where the plug or spark originates as the build up occurs everywhere in the combustion chamber (although the rings scrape the wall clean). One only has to pull the heads off an engine to look at the carbon buildup that is no where near the spark gap.
But the article talks about it being cheaper (okay, more economical). Sparkplugs cost around $3 to $6 each. It seems that a laser strong enough to get through the carbon build up is going to cost more than that. Since plugs now last well over 36,000 miles in new vehicles, it seems trying to improve on an inexpensive technology with a high tech solution is anything but economical.
that's like saying driving is a human right because it is so prevalent in modern society.
Driving should be a right in modern society. Not because it is prevalent in modern society but because it has become practically necessary to survive in modern society. People are compelled to pay for and support the infrastructure that is required for people to drive, the same infrastructure that restricts/outlaws other viable means of transportation (i.e. horses), and as result should have the right to use it. The whole 'driving is a privilege' is complete BS. It used to be true, it no longer is. Don't buy it, try to survive in a suburban/rural area without the ability to drive and see how far you get and how difficult it is.
This is not to say all people should be provided gas and vehicles. Just that they cannot be denied the right to drive if they have the ability and the means to do so. Also, keep in mind, in the days of horses, depriving a man of his was considered a capital offense as it deprived him of his livelihood.
And yet the majority of people living in New York City do not even own a car. Makes it hard to state that it is a necessity. In some parts of the United States, it definitely is a necessity. However, basic human rights apply regardless of where you live. One would be hard press to say that driving is a necessity in every place in the world. On the other hand, food is a basic right, because it truly is a necessity for life.
In prison, you can be put into solitary confinement, which restricts your ability to communicate and move. They cannot, however deprive you of food and shelter, at least not in the United States.
That's like saying driving is a human right because it is so prevalent in modern society. The problem is that every time you dilute what truly are basic human rights by adding human "wants" you minimize the rights that truly are basic human rights (life, food, shelter, etc.).
1) If Facebook is becomes the biggest bank, does that mean they will be considered too big to fail and have to be bailed out when they do fail? 2) Will Facebook have to comply with all banking regulations both in the States and abroad? 3) If not #2, then won't this allow Facebook to be the new money laundering scheme of the this decade?
[quote}The Catholic Church maintained power for centuries because Bibles were written in Latin, a language only the priests and scholars could read. The lay congregation depended on someone else translating for them in order to hear the word of God. This opened the door to incredible amounts of corruption, until the invention of the printing press. Now the people could read and decide for themselves. This democratization of knowledge has benefited us all, in almost every field.[/quote]
Actually, there were numerous bibles available in native languages, they weren't the official approved copy by the Catholic Church, which at the time was also the equivalent of a governmental entity. Problem was that even these native language bibles were hand scribed and only the very wealthy could afford them (which is also why the Catholic Church had control of the Vulgate, it was simply too costly for most people to have their own copy). The printing press changed this, not by allowing native language Bibles, they already existed. Instead, it allowed affordable native language Bibles. Those did not exist prior to the press's invention.
Otherwise, your thoughts on too few controlling too much information is spot on.
When IP can be reproduced and distributed at zero cost, ownership and property rights have little to no meaning. People who use the term "imaginary property" have been saying this for at least 10 years, especially on Slashdot.
Well, this is now content creators agreeing with them. "Imaginary property" advocates have been saying for years that IP rights holders are free to exercise their exclusive rights to that IP by not selling it to anyone, thus maintaining their exclusive copy of the IP. (Implied there is that no one will get to actually experience the IP, making it useless as a source of income). Well, this is them doing half of that. Because copyright (i.e. exclusive distribution rights) is impossible to enforce, they are simply going to stop distributing the IP in "here's a copy of it, please don't copy it again and give it away" form, which basically stopped working over 10 years ago. They are instead providing access to their IP behind these cloud-based services which, in addition to providing the content itself, provide added value in ways such as organizing the content and allowing access from many devices/places/times. For most people, the content plus the additional value offered by these services is enough to get them to subscribe (i.e. pay). This allows the IP creators to continue making money from their IP. By the way, this goes for software too: think Steam.
This is in opposition to the "imaginary property" advocates that maintain that all content should be free-as-in-beer because it doesn't cost any money to duplicate, damned be the (sometimes significant) creation costs. Most of them use free-as-in-freedom arguments like "I own this, I should be able to do what I want with it", or arguments such as "I hate the RIAA/MPAA so I'm screwing them." Personally, I hate the RIAA/MPAA as much as the next guy, but what I hate even more is justifying pirated content by saying "well I'm just screwing the RIAA/MPAA". Guess what? You're also screwing the content creator, whose work you apparently want enough to pirate.
I agree with the majority of what you posted except for the very last statement. Time and time again, it has been shown that the content creator receives very little for their efforts. The publishers, though, whether in the music industry, print industry or film industry, receive most of the reward. It's very similar to the plight of a farmer. Even when a bushel of wheat goes up in value, it is the middleman who receives most of the benefit, not the actual producers/farmer.
All that said, I do not condone pirating stuff. I just wanted to point out that your final argument does not actually support your position.
The problem with everything being in the cloud is that the government can make the cloud go away. Didn't slashdot just have a discussion on how the internet helped with the changes in Egypt? Once everything is in the cloud, what is to stop some government from cutting off its people from the cloud?
This proposal is a lot more than being able to stream Avatar to any device you want. It is really about who controls your access to information (your own or licensed).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the contract prohibits private lawsuits. So, if AT&T "forces" you to go the individual route, they are then entitled to have the case thrown out as a contract violation. The supreme court only ruled that AT&T could force individual arbitration, it said nothing about AT&T then having to allow said arbitration to proceed.
Actually, AT&T could not use your suing them as a means to cancel the court proceedings you brought. They could, however, use it to hold you in breach of contract, which at most would be the cost of the remainder of the contract fee. The question is would AT&T spend thousands on attorney fees to take you to court over breach of contract when the remedy would be a couple of thousand dollars? Plus, if you won in your suit, then you would have further grounds to show that you did not breach the contract, but instead, it was unenforceable.
All this decision means is that those people in the class action suit against AT&T won't get their $3 coupon while the attorneys get millions.
The definition being used in the current healthcare debate rests entirely on the precedent of Raich. Where the court found that non-commerce (not buying or selling) a substance that is not legal to buy or sell across state lines (pot) falls under the heading of "interstate commerce".
In his dissent in the Gonzales v. Raich case, Justice Thomas warned that this precedent would allow the federal government unlimited powers of regulation. So yeah, FFF was right in his analysis.
Even without Raich, healthcare falls under interstate commerce, unless you are paying your bills out of pocket without insurance or subsidy. Since nobody does that, they either use insurance, for which the underwriters cross state lines or government subsidy, which being a government service falls under the commerce clause.
Of course a simple solution to all of this would be to go to a single payer plan. That's what the Obama Administration wanted originally, before they adopted the Bush Administration's proposal as a compromise. So, maybe the right will get their way and get the mandatory insurance thrown out and it will be replaced with exactly what the left wanted in the first place. How ironic would that be.
That's not the broadest definition that could be unreasonably imagined, we have a regime in the White House who thinks having some limited powers to regulate interstate commerce means they can force everyone to buy health insurance, as a cost of being alive.
Yeah, shame on Obama for including the Bush proposal in his health care plan. In the US, anybody at any time can go to the hospital, whether they can pay or not. Not every place in the world allows that and many people die in the streets. However, somebody has to pay for all of those provided services and they are passed on to those who already have insurance.
I find it odd that people don't complain about the government saying you must have auto insurance if you want to drive a car, but they do complain if the government says you must have health insurance if you want medical treatment. In either case, if you are uninsured, your actions have an impact on the rest of those who are insured.
Note that arbitrators are notorious for overwhelmingly favoring the party which hires them. In this case, that'd be the company. This is part of a much larger and utterly foolish trend: the systematic dismantling of each available "working through the system" method of either getting justice or effecting change.
That's strange, since the arbitrators have to be agreed to by both parties and very often are appointed by the court system (or approved by them). They, the arbitrators, get paid the same regardless of which side wins. Of course, the point of arbitration is to finds a solution that is palatable for both sides.
This can actually be a big benefit for the small guy. Many claims never get filed, because there isn't enough money involved to get an attorney interested. However, through arbitration, the small guy gets heard without having to go through the expense of long drawn out and expensive court proceedings.
Absolutely nothing, pretty much guaranteed.
...If you're a corporation.
I think that was the whole point over fighting such a silly case all the way up to the Supreme Court--to virtually guarantee that you can never be subject to a class action case again. Let's not kid ourselves, who here thinks that any company will ever again sell any service again without a clause in it forcing arbitration and disallowing class action lawsuits?
That's not true at all. The Federal Arbitration Act was in place long before this suit was ever filed. All the Supreme Court said was that corporations are protected by that act. It has nothing to do with whether they include a clause like AT&T had or not. The federal law already allows what they had put in their contract.
You really deserve to live in the (business friendly) USofA!
Does anybody still buy into the big lie (land of the free) free what? for who?
Next election day just stand outside the polling place and laugh!
I'm even more disgusted than usual
Actually, the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act, that the Supreme Court based it's decision on is not necessarily business friendly. Binding arbitration does not always go in favor of big business. Hower the Federal Arbitration Act is definitely not lawyer friendly. They loose out on the big fees from the big frivolous class action suits.
All the the Federal Arbitration Act says is that businesses have the right to try and settle disputes through arbitration instead of having to go through the court system. Btw, so do individuals.
WRONG. This "judicial activism" stuff is crap. The courts are not suppose to blindly obey the laws congress passes. Haven't you heard of "checks and balances"? They, along with the president, are suppose to keep congress in check. Congress giving the courts "latitude" is irrelevant. The courts are suppose to strike down unjust laws (you know, things that violate the constitution).
There is no judicial activism here. According to the article, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) took precedent. In that act, corporations have the right to seek binding arbitration in disputes to avoid lengthy, costly court battles. This isn't a break for AT&T or corporations, this is a slam against those lawyers who drum up all of these class action suits with the intention of getting corporations to settle without going to court. The FAA also allows states to set restrictions, too, however, California, the state in question did not.
The case that brought this up, again according to the article, was that AT&T charged sales tax on a supposedly free phone. Somebody sued and turned it into a class action suit. Of course, AT&T doesn't get to keep the sales tax charged. The real beef should have been with the state of California which was requiring AT&T to charge and remit the tax. Oh, but wait, you can't sue the State for that. So, the attorneys go after the corporation, which is where all the money is supposedly.
There is no activism here, the system worked like it should. Congress had passed a law that to help mitigate all of these frivolous class action suits. AT&T tried to go to arbitration under that law. The lower court said they couldn't. They Supreme Court said, yes they can. The mistake that the lower court made was that it did not take into consideration the FAA, only the user contract, which it ruled against. The Supreme Court never ruled on the user contract, because the federal law took precedent.
As for courts striking down unjust laws, that's not their purpose. Congress can pass any law it wants. It doesn't have to be just. However, if it violates the constitution, then the courts will strike it down. Most laws are unjust to some group or another, but that doesn't make them unconstitutional.
There is nothing new here, so just move on.
Wow you mean a centrally planned economy isn't working? No kidding. Who would have thought. When China collapses it will be just as shocking to the talking heads as when the Soviet Union collapsed or when we do. Central Planning cannot work. It is an impossibility.
If you mean to imply that central planning will fail because of cost overruns and cutting corners, then when will the US fail and what will the talking heads say then? Asian countries have been known to take the "best" technology that the West develops and to do it develop it quicker than the US. Now, it sounds like, they've also picked up some of the "worst" habits, too.
"The Washington Post reports that China's expanding network of ultramodern high-speed trains is coming under growing scrutiny over costs and because of concerns that builders ignored safety standards in the quest to build faster trains in record time
China is sounding more and more like the US everyday (well other than at least China has high speed rail).
Apple better be careful. As long as Apple doesn't allow anybody to use their iOS on their phones, it seems hard to say how Apple is being harmed. What would happen to Apple's suit if Samsung states that they had to go Android because Apple refused to license iOS to them? That puts Apple on the spot of either shutting up or licensing iOS, which will kill the iphone money cow.
Samsung phone looks exactly like an iPhone. iPhone is the phone with the best reputation anywhere. Samsung copied the iPhone so that people would be misled to buy a Samsung phone when what they really wanted is an iPhone. As a consequence, every Samsung phone sold means one less iPhone sold which means the gross profit from one iPhone sale is gone. So damages are number of Samsung phones sold times gross profit for each iPhone sale times factor 3 for intentional infringement.
Yeah, they look exactly alike except for the big "Samsung" written across the front, a square button at the bottom instead of a round one. The extra two buttons/touch areas at the bottom and the dimensions. Any phone sold that isn't an iPhone is one less sale for Apple.
Apple is only available on AT&T and now Verizon. If Sprint sells a Samsung Galaxy, how does that hurt Apple? You can't buy an Apple phone for the Sprint network. If AT&T or Verizon are selling a phone that Apple thinks is too close to their iPhone, then why doesn't Apple go after the carriers?
Android is totally irrelevant in this suite. Apple isn't suing Samsung for using Android, they are suing for building a phone that looks like an iPhone.
Why should Apple need to license iOS to any third party? They manufacture both hardware and software and are free to do as they please with both of those. I mean, do you expect Sony to license the PS3 OS to other manufacturers looking to make a console?
Samsung took Android (which natively does not look like iOS) and slapped their own custom UI on top of it to make it look like iOS. Samsung did not have to do that, because other Android handset makers have managed to avoid doing that.
Except that the Samsung interface looks more like WebOS from Palm and now HP than it does iOS. Just sticking icons across the bottom of the screen does not mean one is copying iOS any more than having a drop down menu in an application and copying Windows.
Apple's whole case revolves around Samsung using a Google subsidised interface on their tablet causing an unfair advantage (it is not about look and feel as the article implies). When there are only two interfaces available (iOS and Android) and you control one of them and refuse to license it, makes it hard to see how Samsung's choice has detrimentally impacted your company.
Apple owns iOS, there is no question about that. However, suing somebody because they chose a different OS, the only one available to them at the time, seems hardly to be something the courts should be wasting their time on. If I were the judge and asked to set a remedy, I would choose to tell Apple to either license their OS to other vendors or pay Samsung's legal fees for such a nuisance suit.
As for Sony licensing the PS3, no, I do not expect them to license the PS3 OS to other manufactures looking to make a console. Neither do I expect them to sue other console manufactures for actually making such a console.
Saying that Apple makes its money of hardware is disingenuous. Nobody (you 3 don't count) buys macs to run linux or windows - though both run fine. And there are plenty of folks who will tell you that apple phones and tablets are nothing special, hardware-wise.
Apple sells systems. Well integrated, easy to use systems.
I happen to like 'em because they also run *nix. (I don't care that you 3 don't like the flavor)
While it's true nobody buys macs to run linux or windows, that misses the point. Apple only sells it's software to run on Apple products.
Apple specifically prohibits using their operating systems on non-Apple hardware. Therefore, the software is there to drive the hardware business, not the otherway around. The fact that the iphone an ipad are overpriced for what you get, just reinforces that it is the hardware sales that add to Apple's bottom line, not the software.
Apple wants a license fee for each tablet Samsung sells. Samsung manufactures the chips for the LCD display in the iPad. Samsung just needs to raise the cost of those chips to cover their legal fees and the new license fees (if they lose the case).
Apple better be careful. As long as Apple doesn't allow anybody to use their iOS on their phones, it seems hard to say how Apple is being harmed. What would happen to Apple's suit if Samsung states that they had to go Android because Apple refused to license iOS to them? That puts Apple on the spot of either shutting up or licensing iOS, which will kill the iphone money cow.
The only purpose of the spark plug is just that to create a spark to ignite the fuel. Whether created with a spark or using a laser, if the unburnt fuel will foul one, it will foul the other. The iridium, platinum, or whatever coating don't make the plug more efficient. They are just coatings over the copper. They do allow the plug to run hotter, which keeps deposits down, so indirectly, the plugs last longer. Like anything, though, eventually the gap will increase. This was a problem in older cars where the plugs needed to be regapped periodically. With modern cars, the on-board computers adjust the spark, the timing, the fuel mixture, etc., so even though the plug is wearing down, performance remaines constant. If you are replacing plugs every 15,000 miles in a modern car you are just waisting money.
I would predict that today's spark plug will have a longer useful life in an engine than any reasonably priced laser. The laser needs to be high powered, it needs to be able to fire and regenerate to fire again anywhere from 1500 to 2500 times per minute (3000-5000rpms). It needs to withstand temperatures as low as 40 below zero and as high as 300+ degrees all within minutes of each other. And then there is the whole keeping the glass clean for the laser to fire through (those pesky deposits, you know) not to mention the vibrations from a running engine.
As for push starting, if it's an automatic, then no. As manual transmission, should work just like now.
The thing that will make the laser plug more fuel efficient are a higher compression ratio. That will help fuel economy, but does not require lasers. Higher compression with a standard plug will also allow for burning e85 (the leaner fuel they are talking about) at much better mpg. NASCAR burns 100% ethanol with very high compression ratios to squeeze every ounce of energy from the fuel. That translate to high speed for them, but would be better mpg for regular drivers. They do all of this with spark plugs, not lasers.
However, the real issue with low mpg is that vehicles weigh significantly more than they used to. If you cut the weight, mpg will increase. If you cut the weight and reduce horsepower (since a lighter car doesn't need the extra HP), mpg will go up dramatically. The question is whether people will go back to a Honda Civic or Toyota Camry the size they were in the 80s, when they were getting 30mpg city and 40mpg highway?
Heck, my 72 VW Beetle, with it's 1.6L carburated engine gets 26mpg city and 34mpg highway and it is 40 year old technology (actually closer to 80 year old technology). I do admit, though, most people would not want to drive a beetle today, but my point is lighter and smaller give better mileage.
And... that $20 DVD burner from Newegg contains a lot more than just a laser... produced in automotive fleet quantities, most solid state lasers would get pretty cheap - I'd think it's the optically clear window capable of withstanding the combustion chamber that's a trick, but it's pretty small, and again should be cheap in quantity.
I'm pretty sure that the lasers required would be quite a bit more than what a dvd player/burner has. First there is the power requirement. These lasers need to heat up immediately to ignite the fuel. At 3000 RPM they will fire 1500 times per minute. They also have to perform this function at a distance much further away than a typical dvd laser. They need to be able to perform consistently in a temperature range from less than -20 to greater than 280. They need to be able to burn through any buildup that is going to occur from the combustion. They need to be able to withstand very high vibrations. And finally, they need to be able to do it more economically than a $3 spark plug.
According to the article, one of the main reasons spark plugs get gummed up is the electrical sparks they are putting out. Electric arcs tend to corrode their endpoints. With a laser, this isn't a problem. Also, the lasers aren't going to try to ignite combustion right in front of them: It's more efficient to ignite it away from them, in the center of the cylinder. Spark plugs can't do that at all.
Plus, of course, any laser capable of igniting a fuel-air mixture reliably in a few nanoseconds can burn through a bit of soot on the way.
If the air fuel mixture is correct, the plugs on a healthy engine won't get gummed at all. If it is too rich or burning oil, it won't matter where the plug or spark originates as the build up occurs everywhere in the combustion chamber (although the rings scrape the wall clean). One only has to pull the heads off an engine to look at the carbon buildup that is no where near the spark gap.
But the article talks about it being cheaper (okay, more economical). Sparkplugs cost around $3 to $6 each. It seems that a laser strong enough to get through the carbon build up is going to cost more than that. Since plugs now last well over 36,000 miles in new vehicles, it seems trying to improve on an inexpensive technology with a high tech solution is anything but economical.
that's like saying driving is a human right because it is so prevalent in modern society.
Driving should be a right in modern society. Not because it is prevalent in modern society but because it has become practically necessary to survive in modern society. People are compelled to pay for and support the infrastructure that is required for people to drive, the same infrastructure that restricts/outlaws other viable means of transportation (i.e. horses), and as result should have the right to use it. The whole 'driving is a privilege' is complete BS. It used to be true, it no longer is. Don't buy it, try to survive in a suburban/rural area without the ability to drive and see how far you get and how difficult it is.
This is not to say all people should be provided gas and vehicles. Just that they cannot be denied the right to drive if they have the ability and the means to do so. Also, keep in mind, in the days of horses, depriving a man of his was considered a capital offense as it deprived him of his livelihood.
And yet the majority of people living in New York City do not even own a car. Makes it hard to state that it is a necessity. In some parts of the United States, it definitely is a necessity. However, basic human rights apply regardless of where you live. One would be hard press to say that driving is a necessity in every place in the world. On the other hand, food is a basic right, because it truly is a necessity for life.
In prison, you can be put into solitary confinement, which restricts your ability to communicate and move. They cannot, however deprive you of food and shelter, at least not in the United States.
That's like saying driving is a human right because it is so prevalent in modern society. The problem is that every time you dilute what truly are basic human rights by adding human "wants" you minimize the rights that truly are basic human rights (life, food, shelter, etc.).
I have a few questions....
1) If Facebook is becomes the biggest bank, does that mean they will be considered too big to fail and have to be bailed out when they do fail?
2) Will Facebook have to comply with all banking regulations both in the States and abroad?
3) If not #2, then won't this allow Facebook to be the new money laundering scheme of the this decade?
[quote}The Catholic Church maintained power for centuries because Bibles were written in Latin, a language only the priests and scholars could read. The lay congregation depended on someone else translating for them in order to hear the word of God. This opened the door to incredible amounts of corruption, until the invention of the printing press. Now the people could read and decide for themselves. This democratization of knowledge has benefited us all, in almost every field.[/quote]
Actually, there were numerous bibles available in native languages, they weren't the official approved copy by the Catholic Church, which at the time was also the equivalent of a governmental entity. Problem was that even these native language bibles were hand scribed and only the very wealthy could afford them (which is also why the Catholic Church had control of the Vulgate, it was simply too costly for most people to have their own copy). The printing press changed this, not by allowing native language Bibles, they already existed. Instead, it allowed affordable native language Bibles. Those did not exist prior to the press's invention.
Otherwise, your thoughts on too few controlling too much information is spot on.
When IP can be reproduced and distributed at zero cost, ownership and property rights have little to no meaning. People who use the term "imaginary property" have been saying this for at least 10 years, especially on Slashdot.
Well, this is now content creators agreeing with them. "Imaginary property" advocates have been saying for years that IP rights holders are free to exercise their exclusive rights to that IP by not selling it to anyone, thus maintaining their exclusive copy of the IP. (Implied there is that no one will get to actually experience the IP, making it useless as a source of income). Well, this is them doing half of that. Because copyright (i.e. exclusive distribution rights) is impossible to enforce, they are simply going to stop distributing the IP in "here's a copy of it, please don't copy it again and give it away" form, which basically stopped working over 10 years ago. They are instead providing access to their IP behind these cloud-based services which, in addition to providing the content itself, provide added value in ways such as organizing the content and allowing access from many devices/places/times. For most people, the content plus the additional value offered by these services is enough to get them to subscribe (i.e. pay). This allows the IP creators to continue making money from their IP. By the way, this goes for software too: think Steam.
This is in opposition to the "imaginary property" advocates that maintain that all content should be free-as-in-beer because it doesn't cost any money to duplicate, damned be the (sometimes significant) creation costs. Most of them use free-as-in-freedom arguments like "I own this, I should be able to do what I want with it", or arguments such as "I hate the RIAA/MPAA so I'm screwing them." Personally, I hate the RIAA/MPAA as much as the next guy, but what I hate even more is justifying pirated content by saying "well I'm just screwing the RIAA/MPAA". Guess what? You're also screwing the content creator, whose work you apparently want enough to pirate.
I agree with the majority of what you posted except for the very last statement. Time and time again, it has been shown that the content creator receives very little for their efforts. The publishers, though, whether in the music industry, print industry or film industry, receive most of the reward. It's very similar to the plight of a farmer. Even when a bushel of wheat goes up in value, it is the middleman who receives most of the benefit, not the actual producers/farmer.
All that said, I do not condone pirating stuff. I just wanted to point out that your final argument does not actually support your position.
The problem with everything being in the cloud is that the government can make the cloud go away. Didn't slashdot just have a discussion on how the internet helped with the changes in Egypt? Once everything is in the cloud, what is to stop some government from cutting off its people from the cloud?
This proposal is a lot more than being able to stream Avatar to any device you want. It is really about who controls your access to information (your own or licensed).