I do not really care if 99% of the claims are bogus. The EU and US have laid out pretty clear and convincing cases and levied tariffs based on those facts which they have to correlate with international treaties. No one is claiming that their punishment of or correction of the Chinese solar is in violation of international treaties which otherwise forbid those tariffs.
A simple google search will show you the error of your ways.
Good. Absentee owners are a problem we would be better off without. If you can't be bothered to read a newsletter every 2 years and understand the issues, you should probably abstain from voting anyway.
Poppycock. The entire concept of a corporation is to separate investment from the operations of the business. But the silliness of your statement is full of ill places conception. The exact same can be said about people who do not even know who the current vice president are but were convinced to register and vote. No one things they should abstain from voting- at least no one who is taken seriously.
Really though, there are only two likely states. In one, you already agree with what teh corporation wants and so you vote accordingly. In the other you believe differently and it is best if the corporation you own part of doesn't act against you.
Wrong. The state of convincing you otherwise exists and should exist. It is best if the corporation can make a case and you can act accordingly to your own convictions. This idea that corporates can spend money on speech and you all the sudden have no leg to stand on or somehow magically lose all your objections is nothing but a myth.
You chose to refer to the authority of the founding fathers, and claim they appointed corporations to run the states. I pointed out that it was bollocks.
I did no such thing. I even spelled it out in the last post in which I said those founders were subjected to those corporations and those same founders made laws and did not take steps to limit corporations for those purposes. Please stop arguing what was never said and pay attention.
The states did grant charters, but they included revocation clauses with real teeth and mandated that the corporation operate only within it's charter AND for the public good (or have it revoked). This was quite different from the crown charters.
Of course. But what they did not do was limit their rights of speech, their ability to enter into contracts separate from their owners or achieve levels of debt and default separate from their owners who took no part in operating the corporation. In short, the states, who many were created as colonies subject to the corporations, create a system that clearly generates autonomy of the corporations giving them a status as a separate entity with the ability to act as people from the start. You are essentially saying "ahh,, but they dotted their I's differently so the otherwise identical system is completely different" which isn't the case at all.
Quick question- and maybe you cannot answer it but I would like to ask since you appear to be a fan of it.
Preface- one of the problems with solar PV is that it doesn't store energy and has a limited operating cycle through a day where a sodium thermal plant could store energy for later use. Has anyone looked into storing solar PV energy by heating a medium and bringing it online outside of peak times for use? I'm imagining a scenario where a city has primary roof top solar and instead of selling the energy back to the utility company, a coop collects the excess and generates it's own energy to power the homes outside of the normal solar PV operating cycles.
While that seems convoluted, I think it gets around problems with base loads and peaks by being capable of both accounting for the shortfalls of limited light (cloudy days or broken panels via hail storm whatever) and storing energy for use outside of peak times which would make the over all management of solar PV more economical for both the end user and the utility who may be forced to or trying to use it.
How do you "flood the market" without economy of scale?
It is a process called dumping and China has been hit with tarrifs because of it by the EU. The US is investigating also.
In case you didn't know, dumping is where you sell a product in a particular market below costs usually with the intent of harming the players already in that market.
This is just protectionist propaganda from American companies interested in government enforced rent-seeking rather than competition.
Even the Chinese panels are way too expensive to make solar viable without subsidies, so they are hardly going to "kill solar" with low prices. Solar panels need to be much cheaper.
The problem is their prices to not cover their costs. If a normal company did that, they would become bankrupt and fail into historical reference. When the Chinese companies do this, they are being supported by the Chinese government and as long as their government is willing to funnel money into them, they can sell cheaper than anyone can acquire the raw materials for- let alone produce and sell something from it.
The corporation would in no way be impared from fulfilling it's fidiciary duties. In the same way that making theft and fraud illegal doesn't prevent a corporation from fulfilling it's fidiciary duties.
I never said the corporation would in no way be impared from fulfilling it's fiduciary duties. I said it makes no sense to force the hands off benefit of a corporation aside in order to maintain it.
Or in other words, you could no longer purchase stock X and have it in your retirement only knowing you have stock X as an investment. You could no longer purchase a mutual fund for the same without knowing all the ins and outs of each and every company and listening to their pitch on what might harm them and adjust your speech accordingly. It simply makes no sense at all to deny corporations the ability to advocate for themselves via speech. The vast majority of people would either be flying blind because they have occupations and obligations other than watching stock and laws/politics or only invest in a small number of companies.
As for the rest, you are referring to crown charters that were granted by the king of England when the states were still colonies and so subject to English law and the king. I cannot imagine why you might think that would have any bearing on U.S. law. Further, I can't imagine why you would think the founding fathers were on-board with that given the Revolutionary War.
It sounds like you like to run around the track twice quibbling about all the trees and flowers in some attempt to complain that the stadium seats are not comfortable. I completely understand why you cannot understand. It's importance is because the same people who revolted from the king, who were subject to those crown charters and their independent actions, are also the same people who made the US law. If they felt the same as you, they would have specifically prohibited it. But guess what, they didn't believe the same as you and they didn't prohibit it- even after revolting against England and setting up their own country twice.
Once the Constitution was signed (marking the beginning of the U.S. government as we know it), the federal government granted a very few charters to great controversy. After that, the whole mess was left to the states.
I do not understand why you would even point this out. Of course the federal government made very few charters and left the rest to the states, it is by design of the US constitution. But lets not pretend that the states knew nothing about the crown charters or the companies operating under them so they were clueless in their law too. The fact of the matter is that they knew this full well and likely were created as colonies who grew to nation states under them. Like I said, the founders knew and didn't care about what you do. They made corporations so they had the ability to operate independent of a single owners or groups of owners and they did this knowingly of all the ills of corporations too.
I'm the dumbass when *(you) was clueless about steeling copper.
And yes, when something is worth around one third to half.of the average anual income and laying out in the open, security and theft should be a concern. Poor is relevant here insomuch that it increases the percentage of value on the UAV compared to income. It makes it more attractive to thieves in the area. It is the same reason liquor stores and gas stations get robbed more in poor areas than the people living next to them. The businessws have larger amounts if valuables making them more attractive.
It does not make any sense at all to set up something where investors and owners can be hands off and then require them to be hands on in order for the corp to fulfill its fidiciary duties/responsability.
Maybe you are not aware, but nost of the colonies that became states were set up by companies. They were chartered and run by them. The founders knew exactly what they were and capable of in ways that make today's companies look like kids selling cookies. And yet they purposely gave them autonomy and a responsability to act in the interest of the company. You seem to be the outlier here.
Not at all. The entire concept of a corporation is that you can invest without operating. The corporation acts on its own and independent of it's owners if they chose not to directly participate. This is important if you ever wanted to make something happen but didn't have the skills or just wanted to invest finds for other purposes.
Now corporate person hood, which is not the same as corporations are people, has been upheld by the supreme court since 1819 with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. But it is not a double vote. If anything, it is having speech and the freedom to say things that contradict itself but not vote more than once. No corporation has the ability to vote in government elections that I know of.
The still need a reason to reverse the case. The SCOTUS or any court for that matter does not just go because we said so. They have reasons. Now, I agree that they may or may not overturn a law based on how much they agree with each other, but they still need a reason to invalidate a lower courts judgement.
It will be evidence. Lets put this in another analogy.
Ok here is something that I know happened in real life. Person was pissed at another person for sleeping with his girlfriend. He drops a syringe that had been used to shoot heroin into his pack and then set up a time to meet at a park. Person got another person who didn't like him to call the law giving his description and saying he and someone else looked like they were shooting drugs. Cops show up, hassle them, find the syringe, they are booked for possession of drug tools or paraphernalia and trace amounts of narcotics even though they were drug free. He loses his job, loses his apartment, has to pay for a lawyer, and almost went to jail before person got drunk at a party and started bragging about what he did.
So Google access what will become evidence, they notified the people with the tip, those people got a warrant and seize it as evidence from Google who had access to it all along. The point is, he has ample opportunity to claim Google or one of it's employees set him up because they accessed the image, notified whomever, then after the legal stuff was done, actually provided the image while all along he can also show that Google has issues with pedophiles because they actively work with organizations to catch them. Remember, all we need is reasonable doubt and a good attorney.
I don't know but I bet a Google Glass wearer might be the first to find out.
Imagine that, now not only do you have to worry about your pic and video of you at the bar hanging with the guys being posted all over face book by someone you don't even know, but now your conversations about who you would like to bag might make it back to your wife or significant other.
Expect the cops and government to use this. I imagine a drone flying over at 15,000 feet with a telescopic lenses and listening in on a terrorist or even your conversations in your own back yards. And the courts already said that cops video taping you is legit if they can legally see you- no warrant needed.
I was thinking the same.. Or more to the point, about putting hidden messages in video so a plant for instance would play Pantera and a bag of chips could play some canned messages about the government spying or some shit. Perhaps even make a contest to see who can decode the most and have all the different messages combine to be code for something else entirely.
Either way, I'm wondering what can be picked up on some of those Youtube vids where they dubbed a narration and blanked out the camera's sound. For some things, people might want to be careful that they don't end up giving away their identities or information they do not want known like politicians who forget to turn their microphones off before having side bar conversations.
OTOH, perhaps this could find out what the politicians are really saying by analyzing their immediate surroundings in recordings of before and after their speeches when there is no audio.
In most cases notifying authorities of potential violations of the law will not cary any liability with it. Where it might have liability includes when you know it is legal behavior but construe the reporting to make it appear illegal in order to harrass someone.
Google messing up the evidence chain doesn't have to be about the 4th amendment and the police.
It could go to the legitimacy of the ebidrmce altogether. What assurances can be offered thst the photos were not planted by an employee of google who has a beef with pedophilles. After all, google did happen to look in this man's private email that people think is as private as snsil mail even though they gave google access knowingly or unknowingly, find a pictue, and alert the proper people to make sure something comes of it. Even if it was discovered automatically by software, the question of how it got there still comes about.
Ah. Now we are ignoring everything that happened before to narrow down a very narrow narrative? Wow.
There is no wow about it. Specific things were said about specific incidents or events. Just because other things have happened does not preclude anyone from talking about a specific set of things.
Oh look. Just.....right now... Hamas did not attack Israel. Hey they must be the good guys. Wow.
Like I said, stop being a retarded idiot.
And you have the guts to tell me I am the retarded troll???? You must be insane.
No, I called you a retarded idiot and told you to troll somewhere else. You see, words have meanings and they are used to communicate things called thoughts. You would do yourself a favor and learn the meaning of the words you are reading so people wouldn't think you are a retarded idiot trying to troll a discussion.
While there was always some politics, you cannot deny the explosion of it with the politics section being added. It was nothing like today until then.
Today it seems to be orchestrated today by organized factions employing sockpuppet accounts and mass moderating with convienient twists on facts that follow election cycles more than anything. It is far worse than it ever has been.
They are better methods than gas. We have explosives in powder form that can be disbursed and then detonated with huge amounts of force.
My guess to why these aren't being used has to do with both the locations of the tunnels as they go under houses on both sides and possible inteligence left behind pointing to other tunnels or future uses of them
It would suck finding heat activated poisionous gas mixtures or having houses colapse with people in them or all sorts of unknowns happening because you didn't know what you were getting into. They would be better off with RC cars with cameras and claymore mines attached to them and exploring the tunnels first.
Four teens werr kidnapped and murdered in two separate instances. First was three israeli teens then a palistimian teen. It was after the pslistimian teen was murdered that Hamas started lobbing rockets at Israel.
So either you are ignoring the facts or you are some how construing the second murder as the official state responce from Israel. In either case, you got your facts wrong.
Really? I suppose someone should tell all the history books and teachers of that so they can rewrite Russian history starting with the Bolsheviks which later became the communist party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and was the only political party allowed in Russia until somewhere in the 1990s.
Russia is a pure example of my comment. From Lenin to Gorbachev, Russia followed an attempt at Marxism but adjusting to keep the people in line. Even Stalin's great purge was in pursuit of this.
Like I said, this no true Scotsman argument is getting old and pathetic.
He didn't say the phones off a contract was tied to a contract, he said they can be unlocked once they are off the contract.
In other words, he is suggesting that the law makes a distinction between phones never under a contract (which must be unlocked free) and phones that have been under a contract (that a small fee can apply once they are off contract). I don't know where he is from or care to look his law up. But it appears that the contract notion should read "carriers are obligated by law to unlock any phone tied to a contract for a minimal fee as soon as the contract is up". Whether other carriers can unlock the phone or not is outside the statement but it may not have the backing of the law. That was his purpose of the statement, to describe the law- not necessarily every possible way to unlock a phone. This is why it is not contradictory and maybe redundant at best.
Count on school to turn highly interesting, mentally-stimulating subjects (like math) into boring rote memorization exercises
A lot of schools already do this. They (some schools) were doing it since the 80's that I know of. If your school is/was different, count yourself lucky because you had a couple of good teachers who are/were allowed to teach. And from what I understand, that will end when common core kicks completely in and they have to follow a lesson plan dictated to them while teaching to the test.
The GP was correct when he said "Part of the problem is that they never see how it could possibly be applied to anything, ever." I had that same problem. Things like Pi was explained to me as "it is just because" not that "it is the ration between a circle's circumference and diameter". "Just because it is" was good enough reason when asking why do we need Pi and any explanation of why I needed all that math boiled down to somehow saving money at the supermarket or something inane. Of course my teachers probably weren't qualified as math teachers and taught from a book rather than their knowledge but that was what our small town passed off as an education. I was lucky too, the other math teacher in high school was the football coach and I'm pretty sure he was teaching only because the school didn't want to justify the expense of a dedicated coach.
Of course now that I have been out of high school for almost 30 years, I have had plenty of opportunities to use what was or should have been leaned in math and for the most part, had to use the internet in order to look up the formulas, how to do some of them, and in some cases the answers. But that goes to the age old saying, if I knew then what I know now, things would be different.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not really care if 99% of the claims are bogus. The EU and US have laid out pretty clear and convincing cases and levied tariffs based on those facts which they have to correlate with international treaties. No one is claiming that their punishment of or correction of the Chinese solar is in violation of international treaties which otherwise forbid those tariffs.
A simple google search will show you the error of your ways.
Poppycock. The entire concept of a corporation is to separate investment from the operations of the business. But the silliness of your statement is full of ill places conception. The exact same can be said about people who do not even know who the current vice president are but were convinced to register and vote. No one things they should abstain from voting- at least no one who is taken seriously.
Wrong. The state of convincing you otherwise exists and should exist. It is best if the corporation can make a case and you can act accordingly to your own convictions. This idea that corporates can spend money on speech and you all the sudden have no leg to stand on or somehow magically lose all your objections is nothing but a myth.
I did no such thing. I even spelled it out in the last post in which I said those founders were subjected to those corporations and those same founders made laws and did not take steps to limit corporations for those purposes. Please stop arguing what was never said and pay attention.
Of course. But what they did not do was limit their rights of speech, their ability to enter into contracts separate from their owners or achieve levels of debt and default separate from their owners who took no part in operating the corporation. In short, the states, who many were created as colonies subject to the corporations, create a system that clearly generates autonomy of the corporations giving them a status as a separate entity with the ability to act as people from the start. You are essentially saying "ahh,, but they dotted their I's differently so the otherwise identical system is completely different" which isn't the case at all.
Quick question- and maybe you cannot answer it but I would like to ask since you appear to be a fan of it.
Preface- one of the problems with solar PV is that it doesn't store energy and has a limited operating cycle through a day where a sodium thermal plant could store energy for later use. Has anyone looked into storing solar PV energy by heating a medium and bringing it online outside of peak times for use? I'm imagining a scenario where a city has primary roof top solar and instead of selling the energy back to the utility company, a coop collects the excess and generates it's own energy to power the homes outside of the normal solar PV operating cycles.
While that seems convoluted, I think it gets around problems with base loads and peaks by being capable of both accounting for the shortfalls of limited light (cloudy days or broken panels via hail storm whatever) and storing energy for use outside of peak times which would make the over all management of solar PV more economical for both the end user and the utility who may be forced to or trying to use it.
It is a process called dumping and China has been hit with tarrifs because of it by the EU. The US is investigating also.
In case you didn't know, dumping is where you sell a product in a particular market below costs usually with the intent of harming the players already in that market.
No, it is a claim that has been made, investigated, and punished in some areas in Europe over a year ago and recently in the US.
The problem is their prices to not cover their costs. If a normal company did that, they would become bankrupt and fail into historical reference. When the Chinese companies do this, they are being supported by the Chinese government and as long as their government is willing to funnel money into them, they can sell cheaper than anyone can acquire the raw materials for- let alone produce and sell something from it.
I never said the corporation would in no way be impared from fulfilling it's fiduciary duties. I said it makes no sense to force the hands off benefit of a corporation aside in order to maintain it.
Or in other words, you could no longer purchase stock X and have it in your retirement only knowing you have stock X as an investment. You could no longer purchase a mutual fund for the same without knowing all the ins and outs of each and every company and listening to their pitch on what might harm them and adjust your speech accordingly. It simply makes no sense at all to deny corporations the ability to advocate for themselves via speech. The vast majority of people would either be flying blind because they have occupations and obligations other than watching stock and laws/politics or only invest in a small number of companies.
It sounds like you like to run around the track twice quibbling about all the trees and flowers in some attempt to complain that the stadium seats are not comfortable. I completely understand why you cannot understand. It's importance is because the same people who revolted from the king, who were subject to those crown charters and their independent actions, are also the same people who made the US law. If they felt the same as you, they would have specifically prohibited it. But guess what, they didn't believe the same as you and they didn't prohibit it- even after revolting against England and setting up their own country twice.
I do not understand why you would even point this out. Of course the federal government made very few charters and left the rest to the states, it is by design of the US constitution. But lets not pretend that the states knew nothing about the crown charters or the companies operating under them so they were clueless in their law too. The fact of the matter is that they knew this full well and likely were created as colonies who grew to nation states under them. Like I said, the founders knew and didn't care about what you do. They made corporations so they had the ability to operate independent of a single owners or groups of owners and they did this knowingly of all the ills of corporations too.
I'm the dumbass when *(you) was clueless about steeling copper.
And yes, when something is worth around one third to half.of the average anual income and laying out in the open, security and theft should be a concern. Poor is relevant here insomuch that it increases the percentage of value on the UAV compared to income. It makes it more attractive to thieves in the area. It is the same reason liquor stores and gas stations get robbed more in poor areas than the people living next to them. The businessws have larger amounts if valuables making them more attractive.
It does not make any sense at all to set up something where investors and owners can be hands off and then require them to be hands on in order for the corp to fulfill its fidiciary duties/responsability.
Maybe you are not aware, but nost of the colonies that became states were set up by companies. They were chartered and run by them. The founders knew exactly what they were and capable of in ways that make today's companies look like kids selling cookies. And yet they purposely gave them autonomy and a responsability to act in the interest of the company. You seem to be the outlier here.
Usually it is clad around the copper (like with pots and pans) but in some cases, the steel can be laminated.
However, I assume he meant steal as in take without permission. In the US, all sorts of metal of value is regularly stolen and sold for scrap.
Not at all. The entire concept of a corporation is that you can invest without operating. The corporation acts on its own and independent of it's owners if they chose not to directly participate. This is important if you ever wanted to make something happen but didn't have the skills or just wanted to invest finds for other purposes.
Now corporate person hood, which is not the same as corporations are people, has been upheld by the supreme court since 1819 with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. But it is not a double vote. If anything, it is having speech and the freedom to say things that contradict itself but not vote more than once. No corporation has the ability to vote in government elections that I know of.
The still need a reason to reverse the case. The SCOTUS or any court for that matter does not just go because we said so. They have reasons. Now, I agree that they may or may not overturn a law based on how much they agree with each other, but they still need a reason to invalidate a lower courts judgement.
I think you are missing the context.
It will be evidence. Lets put this in another analogy.
Ok here is something that I know happened in real life. Person was pissed at another person for sleeping with his girlfriend. He drops a syringe that had been used to shoot heroin into his pack and then set up a time to meet at a park. Person got another person who didn't like him to call the law giving his description and saying he and someone else looked like they were shooting drugs. Cops show up, hassle them, find the syringe, they are booked for possession of drug tools or paraphernalia and trace amounts of narcotics even though they were drug free. He loses his job, loses his apartment, has to pay for a lawyer, and almost went to jail before person got drunk at a party and started bragging about what he did.
So Google access what will become evidence, they notified the people with the tip, those people got a warrant and seize it as evidence from Google who had access to it all along. The point is, he has ample opportunity to claim Google or one of it's employees set him up because they accessed the image, notified whomever, then after the legal stuff was done, actually provided the image while all along he can also show that Google has issues with pedophiles because they actively work with organizations to catch them. Remember, all we need is reasonable doubt and a good attorney.
I don't know but I bet a Google Glass wearer might be the first to find out.
Imagine that, now not only do you have to worry about your pic and video of you at the bar hanging with the guys being posted all over face book by someone you don't even know, but now your conversations about who you would like to bag might make it back to your wife or significant other.
Expect the cops and government to use this. I imagine a drone flying over at 15,000 feet with a telescopic lenses and listening in on a terrorist or even your conversations in your own back yards. And the courts already said that cops video taping you is legit if they can legally see you- no warrant needed.
I was thinking the same.. Or more to the point, about putting hidden messages in video so a plant for instance would play Pantera and a bag of chips could play some canned messages about the government spying or some shit. Perhaps even make a contest to see who can decode the most and have all the different messages combine to be code for something else entirely.
Either way, I'm wondering what can be picked up on some of those Youtube vids where they dubbed a narration and blanked out the camera's sound. For some things, people might want to be careful that they don't end up giving away their identities or information they do not want known like politicians who forget to turn their microphones off before having side bar conversations.
OTOH, perhaps this could find out what the politicians are really saying by analyzing their immediate surroundings in recordings of before and after their speeches when there is no audio.
Probably not.
In most cases notifying authorities of potential violations of the law will not cary any liability with it. Where it might have liability includes when you know it is legal behavior but construe the reporting to make it appear illegal in order to harrass someone.
Not only that, but this is pretty much hacking 101 covering your tracks.
Or in other words, done quite often by people who do not even have legitimate access to the server.
Google messing up the evidence chain doesn't have to be about the 4th amendment and the police.
It could go to the legitimacy of the ebidrmce altogether. What assurances can be offered thst the photos were not planted by an employee of google who has a beef with pedophilles. After all, google did happen to look in this man's private email that people think is as private as snsil mail even though they gave google access knowingly or unknowingly, find a pictue, and alert the proper people to make sure something comes of it. Even if it was discovered automatically by software, the question of how it got there still comes about.
There is no wow about it. Specific things were said about specific incidents or events. Just because other things have happened does not preclude anyone from talking about a specific set of things.
Like I said, stop being a retarded idiot.
No, I called you a retarded idiot and told you to troll somewhere else. You see, words have meanings and they are used to communicate things called thoughts. You would do yourself a favor and learn the meaning of the words you are reading so people wouldn't think you are a retarded idiot trying to troll a discussion.
Stop being a retarded idiot. We are talking specifically about this latest incident.
Go troll somewhere else
While there was always some politics, you cannot deny the explosion of it with the politics section being added. It was nothing like today until then.
Today it seems to be orchestrated today by organized factions employing sockpuppet accounts and mass moderating with convienient twists on facts that follow election cycles more than anything. It is far worse than it ever has been.
They are better methods than gas. We have explosives in powder form that can be disbursed and then detonated with huge amounts of force.
My guess to why these aren't being used has to do with both the locations of the tunnels as they go under houses on both sides and possible inteligence left behind pointing to other tunnels or future uses of them
It would suck finding heat activated poisionous gas mixtures or having houses colapse with people in them or all sorts of unknowns happening because you didn't know what you were getting into. They would be better off with RC cars with cameras and claymore mines attached to them and exploring the tunnels first.
Seems to me that you are a little lopsided there.
Four teens werr kidnapped and murdered in two separate instances. First was three israeli teens then a palistimian teen. It was after the pslistimian teen was murdered that Hamas started lobbing rockets at Israel.
So either you are ignoring the facts or you are some how construing the second murder as the official state responce from Israel. In either case, you got your facts wrong.
I have never seen an insurance plan that covers communications from the ill or aged with someone else . Please elaborate if you have.
Really? I suppose someone should tell all the history books and teachers of that so they can rewrite Russian history starting with the Bolsheviks which later became the communist party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and was the only political party allowed in Russia until somewhere in the 1990s.
Russia is a pure example of my comment. From Lenin to Gorbachev, Russia followed an attempt at Marxism but adjusting to keep the people in line. Even Stalin's great purge was in pursuit of this.
Like I said, this no true Scotsman argument is getting old and pathetic.
He didn't say the phones off a contract was tied to a contract, he said they can be unlocked once they are off the contract.
In other words, he is suggesting that the law makes a distinction between phones never under a contract (which must be unlocked free) and phones that have been under a contract (that a small fee can apply once they are off contract). I don't know where he is from or care to look his law up. But it appears that the contract notion should read "carriers are obligated by law to unlock any phone tied to a contract for a minimal fee as soon as the contract is up". Whether other carriers can unlock the phone or not is outside the statement but it may not have the backing of the law. That was his purpose of the statement, to describe the law- not necessarily every possible way to unlock a phone. This is why it is not contradictory and maybe redundant at best.
A lot of schools already do this. They (some schools) were doing it since the 80's that I know of. If your school is/was different, count yourself lucky because you had a couple of good teachers who are/were allowed to teach. And from what I understand, that will end when common core kicks completely in and they have to follow a lesson plan dictated to them while teaching to the test.
The GP was correct when he said "Part of the problem is that they never see how it could possibly be applied to anything, ever." I had that same problem. Things like Pi was explained to me as "it is just because" not that "it is the ration between a circle's circumference and diameter". "Just because it is" was good enough reason when asking why do we need Pi and any explanation of why I needed all that math boiled down to somehow saving money at the supermarket or something inane. Of course my teachers probably weren't qualified as math teachers and taught from a book rather than their knowledge but that was what our small town passed off as an education. I was lucky too, the other math teacher in high school was the football coach and I'm pretty sure he was teaching only because the school didn't want to justify the expense of a dedicated coach.
Of course now that I have been out of high school for almost 30 years, I have had plenty of opportunities to use what was or should have been leaned in math and for the most part, had to use the internet in order to look up the formulas, how to do some of them, and in some cases the answers. But that goes to the age old saying, if I knew then what I know now, things would be different.