No, that would be a good analogy if the FCC were going to require Amazon and Newegg to sell their stuff at the same prices. Which they are not going to do, as far as I know.
Well, his chart is a good clarifying bit. But aside from that, he seems to be in complete agreement with John Oliver and all the other stories I've read on the topic: the problem is, truly, not with fast lanes, but with slow lanes. If they were not dicking with Level 3 by giving them a more congested link than they give Google, we would have nothing to complain about. The point about the last mile is also true, and going back to Common Carrier-based regulation would address that point, because it would re-open the ability of the FCC to require carriers to sell last-mile bandwidth to their own internal business units for the same price that they sell it to competitors. This is not something new to the discussion, although I will admit that not every article about Net Neutrality covers it.
So I guess this article is worth reading, because I think it does hit on all the major points, but the characterization that it's the first to do so, and that everybody else has gotten it wrong, is essentially clickbait. Forgivable, since in this case the article is worth reading.
RIght, and we should definitely support this plan of yours by relaxing the laws on emission controls... Because after all your desire not to have to repair the computer totally trumps any desire we have to breathe clean air and not see forests destroyed by acid rain.
Yes, well, we also do a lot to make sure that they don't actually have the opportunity to have a safe environment, and I suspect that feels worse. Talk about arrogance!
It's not—if they can use the TV, they will want to. The problem is that most likely they can't. Even if it's in working order, it has to be able to display the signals that are available to receive, and you have to be able to get power for it. And CRTs draw a lot of power.
In principle, reuse is a really good thing. And in some cases it's a good thing in practice too. There are definitely things we can export to Nigeria for which Nigerians will benefit from that export. But there is also a very dirty recycling industry in the third world. For stuff they can't use, we ought to keep it and recycle it expensively, rather than shipping it there and have them die young of heavy metal exposure recycling it cheaply.
The way quite a bit of e-waste gets out of countries with strong regulations is by being shipped in "working" or "repairable" units, which are in principle allowed by law, even though they are actually waste. So this may be a bad thing, or may be a good thing, depending on the details. The mere fact that the devices are working or repairable does not mean that they aren't waste--if someone gave you a working 20-year-old TV, would you want it?
No, I didn't know that, because it's not true. Actually, the numbers are just about even.
If your helmet is making so much noise, consider (a) wearing earplugs and (b) tweaking your fairing setup. I had the same problem on my R100RS, and I'm pretty sure it's because of the way the wind was breaking off the fairing. It might seem like wearing earplugs would make it worse, but it cuts down on the white noise and seems to allow more signal to get through. Anyway, if you can't hear an siren blaring right behind you, you have a problem.
That said, your basic point, that _you_ have to be the one to see potential accidents and avoid them, is completely true. Straight pipes are a way to try to get more people to be aware of you, but you are still relying on their competence and good will, one of which you are wrecking, and the other of which you are compromising when you use pipes so loud they cause a stress reaction.
Bikers appreciate all kinds of different things. I like something that handles nicely in the turns and has lots of torque. Quiet is a bonus for me, not a drawback.
Oh, are you one of those people who thinks a glass muffler gets you noticed and keeps you safe? More likely startles some poor minivan driver into swerving into your path. If you want to stay safe, the way to do it is to pay attention. Keeping the bike quiet means you'll hear Mr. Minivan coming. See and avoid, man. See and avoid.
Trademarks deliberately put the hand on the scales, creating a monopoly to the benefit of the entity that receives the trademark. Revoking the trademark takes the hand off the scales. That is pretty much the definition of a level playing field. Do you think that there's going to be another sports team called the Redskins that's going to come in and take business away from the current team? Get real. We're talking about T-shirt sales here. The unfairness that you propose is nonsense, because the other teams get no benefit from it.
You're probably too young to remember, but back when I was a kid you could get really awesome T-shirts sold by vendors who weren't licensed. And then at some point the teams and the bands realized that they could monetize their brands, and started selling these crappy-ass T-shirts that were nowhere near as good as the stuff the independent vendors sold. _That_ was when the thumb came down on the scales. That was when the playing field became no longer level. If the Redskins permanently lose their trademark, Redskins fans will once again be able to get awesome schwag, just like in the good old days. As far as I'm concerned, this is a win whether they continue using the name or stop using it.
That said, I think they ought to stop using it, because it's in insanely poor taste. If they just pick a new name, they will be able to trademark it immediately, and sell T-shirts with the same monopoly they had up until this recent PTO decision. They might see a temporary 10% blip downward in sales if they choose poorly, or they might see a sudden surge in sales if they choose well. But no matter how this comes out, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. This is just not a big deal.
The government is required to decide whether the trademark is offensive. The law says it has to do so. It's not a "political" assessment, any more than it would be "political" for the government to refuse or revoke a trademark on a team that called itself the Kikes or the Beaners. You have a very weird idea of what "politics" means. It is not politics when a disparaged minority demands an end to the disparagement. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. It's the same thing. You are allowed to speak ethnic slurs, but you are not allowed to have government protection in support of that speech.
It's definitely a problem for the business. But it is not a free speech problem. It is a problem that a lucrative government monopoly has been withdrawn. This will definitely cost them money, but they can still use the logo and the name if they want to. They'll just have to compete on a level playing field, the same way their team does.:)
Huh? What speech of the owner's is silenced? The only way your argument works is if you are claiming that the speech was being paid for out of the proceeds that came from the monopoly granted to the trademark owner. That doesn't make much sense, since it is the mark itself that is speech. But even if it did make sense, you would have an even worse problem, because now the government is privileging the speech of trademark owners over that of non-trademark owners. So according to your theory, trademarks are a violation of the freedom of speech, and are unconstitutional: the problem is not that this trademark is being revoked, but that all trademarks are not being revoked.
The equal protection clause might apply here, but if it did it would apply in the sense of removing the trademark, not in the sense of allowing it. Trademarks are by definition favoring the registrant over all others. Doesn't get much more unequal than that.
You could turn it around and say that everybody is entitled to a trademark and that denying anyone a trademark violates the equal protection clause, but again if that's so, trademarks already do this: you can't trademark just anything, and the government decides what's trademarkable and what isn't.
So the bottom line is that if the equal protection clause applies, the way it applies is that it eliminates all trademarks, including the Redskins trademark.
How is the government refusing to enforce a restriction on free speech rights (which is what a trademark is) an infringement on free speech rights? 'splain, please.
All rights you have are always subject to the will of the government. That's why it's so important to have a constitution where those rights are specifically laid out, and why it's so important for citizens to participate in civic discourse and not just expect the thing to run itself.
Trademarks are a constitutionally permitted infringement on free speech. Refusing to alllow a trademark can't possibly infringe on free speech: it does the exact opposite.
Oh, you mean WiFi. That's okay--the power is quite low. I thought you meant telco-style microwave, which is much more powerful and can hurt you if pointed the wrong way. I agree about exclusive franchises. They should be illegal. Right now they are unregulated, which is why I was reacting negatively to your proposal to regulate _less_.
Have you ever been to Philadelphia? Check out these sweet digs. Corporations do not just put cash in the bank. They invest it in stuff they can sell later, and depreciate and deduct now, so they pay less tax. So sure, they'll cry you a river about how their profit margin is so low, but booking profit and paying the taxes on it is the last thing they want to do.
Right. How do you do that? There are a couple of ways. One is the common carrier way: regulate the last mile, requiring that whoever has a connection from their distribution point to your home rent access to that connection (the whole connection, exclusively, or else just access to the IP layer) at the same price their internal ISP business unit pays for it.
Alternatively, you can have the municipality or even the development own the last mile, and rent it out to whichever ISP the end-user chooses. "But there's only one ISP!" That's because the last mile is so expensive. Dropping fiber to the distribution point is a lot cheaper. So suddenly you open up to more competition.
These are the only ways I know of to fix the monopoly problem. If you've got another way, I'd love to hear it, but don't just handwave it.
The difference is that provisioning the last mile is what's expensive. Running fiber to the point of presence is easy. So if you regulate telcos as common carriers, suddenly you have competition between ISPs again, and so they can't pull that crap.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that would be a good analogy if the FCC were going to require Amazon and Newegg to sell their stuff at the same prices. Which they are not going to do, as far as I know.
Well, his chart is a good clarifying bit. But aside from that, he seems to be in complete agreement with John Oliver and all the other stories I've read on the topic: the problem is, truly, not with fast lanes, but with slow lanes. If they were not dicking with Level 3 by giving them a more congested link than they give Google, we would have nothing to complain about. The point about the last mile is also true, and going back to Common Carrier-based regulation would address that point, because it would re-open the ability of the FCC to require carriers to sell last-mile bandwidth to their own internal business units for the same price that they sell it to competitors. This is not something new to the discussion, although I will admit that not every article about Net Neutrality covers it.
So I guess this article is worth reading, because I think it does hit on all the major points, but the characterization that it's the first to do so, and that everybody else has gotten it wrong, is essentially clickbait. Forgivable, since in this case the article is worth reading.
RIght, and we should definitely support this plan of yours by relaxing the laws on emission controls... Because after all your desire not to have to repair the computer totally trumps any desire we have to breathe clean air and not see forests destroyed by acid rain.
Yes, well, we also do a lot to make sure that they don't actually have the opportunity to have a safe environment, and I suspect that feels worse. Talk about arrogance!
It's not—if they can use the TV, they will want to. The problem is that most likely they can't. Even if it's in working order, it has to be able to display the signals that are available to receive, and you have to be able to get power for it. And CRTs draw a lot of power.
In principle, reuse is a really good thing. And in some cases it's a good thing in practice too. There are definitely things we can export to Nigeria for which Nigerians will benefit from that export. But there is also a very dirty recycling industry in the third world. For stuff they can't use, we ought to keep it and recycle it expensively, rather than shipping it there and have them die young of heavy metal exposure recycling it cheaply.
What would you watch on it? Where would you get the power to run it?
The way quite a bit of e-waste gets out of countries with strong regulations is by being shipped in "working" or "repairable" units, which are in principle allowed by law, even though they are actually waste. So this may be a bad thing, or may be a good thing, depending on the details. The mere fact that the devices are working or repairable does not mean that they aren't waste--if someone gave you a working 20-year-old TV, would you want it?
No, I didn't know that, because it's not true. Actually, the numbers are just about even.
If your helmet is making so much noise, consider (a) wearing earplugs and (b) tweaking your fairing setup. I had the same problem on my R100RS, and I'm pretty sure it's because of the way the wind was breaking off the fairing. It might seem like wearing earplugs would make it worse, but it cuts down on the white noise and seems to allow more signal to get through. Anyway, if you can't hear an siren blaring right behind you, you have a problem.
That said, your basic point, that _you_ have to be the one to see potential accidents and avoid them, is completely true. Straight pipes are a way to try to get more people to be aware of you, but you are still relying on their competence and good will, one of which you are wrecking, and the other of which you are compromising when you use pipes so loud they cause a stress reaction.
Bikers appreciate all kinds of different things. I like something that handles nicely in the turns and has lots of torque. Quiet is a bonus for me, not a drawback.
Oh, are you one of those people who thinks a glass muffler gets you noticed and keeps you safe? More likely startles some poor minivan driver into swerving into your path. If you want to stay safe, the way to do it is to pay attention. Keeping the bike quiet means you'll hear Mr. Minivan coming. See and avoid, man. See and avoid.
I'd look badass on one of these.
And man, did you see the hair on those guys? Do they actually ride motorcycles?
Trademarks deliberately put the hand on the scales, creating a monopoly to the benefit of the entity that receives the trademark. Revoking the trademark takes the hand off the scales. That is pretty much the definition of a level playing field. Do you think that there's going to be another sports team called the Redskins that's going to come in and take business away from the current team? Get real. We're talking about T-shirt sales here. The unfairness that you propose is nonsense, because the other teams get no benefit from it.
You're probably too young to remember, but back when I was a kid you could get really awesome T-shirts sold by vendors who weren't licensed. And then at some point the teams and the bands realized that they could monetize their brands, and started selling these crappy-ass T-shirts that were nowhere near as good as the stuff the independent vendors sold. _That_ was when the thumb came down on the scales. That was when the playing field became no longer level. If the Redskins permanently lose their trademark, Redskins fans will once again be able to get awesome schwag, just like in the good old days. As far as I'm concerned, this is a win whether they continue using the name or stop using it.
That said, I think they ought to stop using it, because it's in insanely poor taste. If they just pick a new name, they will be able to trademark it immediately, and sell T-shirts with the same monopoly they had up until this recent PTO decision. They might see a temporary 10% blip downward in sales if they choose poorly, or they might see a sudden surge in sales if they choose well. But no matter how this comes out, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. This is just not a big deal.
The government is required to decide whether the trademark is offensive. The law says it has to do so. It's not a "political" assessment, any more than it would be "political" for the government to refuse or revoke a trademark on a team that called itself the Kikes or the Beaners. You have a very weird idea of what "politics" means. It is not politics when a disparaged minority demands an end to the disparagement. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal. It's the same thing. You are allowed to speak ethnic slurs, but you are not allowed to have government protection in support of that speech.
It's definitely a problem for the business. But it is not a free speech problem. It is a problem that a lucrative government monopoly has been withdrawn. This will definitely cost them money, but they can still use the logo and the name if they want to. They'll just have to compete on a level playing field, the same way their team does. :)
Huh? What speech of the owner's is silenced? The only way your argument works is if you are claiming that the speech was being paid for out of the proceeds that came from the monopoly granted to the trademark owner. That doesn't make much sense, since it is the mark itself that is speech. But even if it did make sense, you would have an even worse problem, because now the government is privileging the speech of trademark owners over that of non-trademark owners. So according to your theory, trademarks are a violation of the freedom of speech, and are unconstitutional: the problem is not that this trademark is being revoked, but that all trademarks are not being revoked.
The equal protection clause might apply here, but if it did it would apply in the sense of removing the trademark, not in the sense of allowing it. Trademarks are by definition favoring the registrant over all others. Doesn't get much more unequal than that.
You could turn it around and say that everybody is entitled to a trademark and that denying anyone a trademark violates the equal protection clause, but again if that's so, trademarks already do this: you can't trademark just anything, and the government decides what's trademarkable and what isn't.
So the bottom line is that if the equal protection clause applies, the way it applies is that it eliminates all trademarks, including the Redskins trademark.
How is the government refusing to enforce a restriction on free speech rights (which is what a trademark is) an infringement on free speech rights? 'splain, please.
All rights you have are always subject to the will of the government. That's why it's so important to have a constitution where those rights are specifically laid out, and why it's so important for citizens to participate in civic discourse and not just expect the thing to run itself.
Trademarks are a constitutionally permitted infringement on free speech. Refusing to alllow a trademark can't possibly infringe on free speech: it does the exact opposite.
Oh, you mean WiFi. That's okay--the power is quite low. I thought you meant telco-style microwave, which is much more powerful and can hurt you if pointed the wrong way. I agree about exclusive franchises. They should be illegal. Right now they are unregulated, which is why I was reacting negatively to your proposal to regulate _less_.
Have you ever been to Philadelphia? Check out these sweet digs. Corporations do not just put cash in the bank. They invest it in stuff they can sell later, and depreciate and deduct now, so they pay less tax. So sure, they'll cry you a river about how their profit margin is so low, but booking profit and paying the taxes on it is the last thing they want to do.
Right. How do you do that? There are a couple of ways. One is the common carrier way: regulate the last mile, requiring that whoever has a connection from their distribution point to your home rent access to that connection (the whole connection, exclusively, or else just access to the IP layer) at the same price their internal ISP business unit pays for it.
Alternatively, you can have the municipality or even the development own the last mile, and rent it out to whichever ISP the end-user chooses. "But there's only one ISP!" That's because the last mile is so expensive. Dropping fiber to the distribution point is a lot cheaper. So suddenly you open up to more competition.
These are the only ways I know of to fix the monopoly problem. If you've got another way, I'd love to hear it, but don't just handwave it.
No, it means they have to rent it for the same price to whomever wants to rent it. They don't have to upgrade it.
The difference is that provisioning the last mile is what's expensive. Running fiber to the point of presence is easy. So if you regulate telcos as common carriers, suddenly you have competition between ISPs again, and so they can't pull that crap.