A scam is a scam when it's a scam. One of the wonders of the internet is that there are a veritable legion of sources you could use to find out that scam clearly doesn't cover this situation.
As someone has already said a system with various requirements, even just those 4 isn't de-regulated. Taxi's shouldn't be de-regulated imo however the requirement to post prices and have a functioning meter are clearly outdated and stop a useful service model. An Uber user can easily see the rates and uses shared GPS tracking for metering, so those regulations stop wannabe Uber users from getting a service while doing nothing to benefit anyone else. if the rules were amended to say that drivers must be aware of pricing before entering the vehicle (allowing web booking) then it makes everyone happy.
The right to strike is one of those rights you silly americans don't have. or had in the past and have forgotten about it. To strike is absolutely legal in europe.
That silly American seems smart enough to know the difference between striking, and blocking a public highway; the fact you don't doesn't bode well for assessments of your intelligence...
If you make it so that there are too few taxis in a city it doesn't work, the same if you give a licence to anybody. Too many taxis and you end up with each taxi not making enough for a living. There has to be an equilibrium somewhere. And no sometimes the market does not self regulate, hence laws and regulations. Uber is a taxi system without calling it explicitely a taxi system. It evades the rules and regulations put by the legislator to enforce a viable taxi system. Hence why taxis are demonstrating in london, madrid, paris, berlin, rome etc... It's not a small issue and no I'm not a taxi driver.
It's nonsense to think that taxi services need a state mandated 'correct number' to operate. They don't across the vast majority of the earth's surface and yet taxi services still exist pretty much everywhere. If there are too many taxi drivers and costs go down then less drivers will enter the market and more will leave, when prices go up it will draw in more supply. Of all occupations this is likely one of the best examples of one where the free market can quickly come to an equilibrium. It's extremely naive to assume that regulation is automatically proof that the market can't self regulate. Just look at the price of taxi medallions in New York which is a system created in the 1930s to see how badly wrong regulation can go if allowed to continue because "regulation must be needed if regulation already exists".
Taxi drivers aren't demonstrating in the UK because Uber avoids regulations. They're demonstrating because their market is being taken from them.
>That privileged access is a requirement from the government itself.
And they are lobbying their governments to keep that privileged access. Being undercut by a cheaper competitor is certainly competition.
Party A plays by the rules and therefor has higher costs. Party B does not play by the rules and has lower costs. Party A is angry at the unfairness of this situation. I agree that the rules are dumb, but unfairness rankles me more. Either Uber buys taxi licenses for its drivers or we abolish taxi licenses. Until then, the should both play by the rules.
Uber is playing by the rules (at least in the UK). In London you need a license to drive a cab and that license comes with various rules but also various benefits. Cabs are allowed to stop for passengers who flag them in the street, which Uber drivers and other services aren't. In the past this was fine with cabbies because it wasn't easy to get a non-cab quickly. Now with services like Uber it is often cheaper to do so.
In London cab licenses are for 12 months. If Cab drivers think that they would be better off driving for Uber then they are free to stop paying for a license and to do so.
The biggest single issue with 'banning' glass is that if/when it ever becomes remotely mainstream there will be a proportion of users (likely significant) who wear prescription glasses and who have no intention of carrying a spare 'non-glass' pair everywhere. As someone who wears glasses I know that if glass was near universally banned then I wouldn't buy it, but I would happily chose a different movie theatre or bar if some bars ban it and others don't.
There's no risk of people recording films on it (it neither has the battery or camera quality) and anyone using it and distracting others can be dealt with the same as cellphone users. I know I, and expect the vast majority of users, would want it turned off to avoid having it interrupt our enjoyment of the film anyway.
The main issue is that the public has had hundreds of years to learn that Champagne is a particular type of bubbly alcohol, and now that specific public awareness gets thrown under a train in order to co-opt a couple centuries of goodwill into money into the pockets of local special interests. This is exactly the opposite of what trademarks are meant to be: this explicitly deludes the public as to the nature of the goods that they are buying so that they are tricked into not purchasing the item that they actually wanted which may have been bubbly from California but they can't have this anymore because they're searching for Champagne which no longer means what they thought it meant.
Ask anyone in Europe what Champagne is and they'll know it's a type of fizzy wine from champagne in France. They might not realise that there is a particular process that must be used for it to be called champagne as well, or that Cava uses the same method. There is nothing deluding anyone about this. I know that a wine produced using the champenoise method in California will, assuming similar quality, be like Champagne.
What's misleading is that grapes from god knows where, mixed with god knows what, turned into wine by any process can be labelled as "champagne" in America. This is a trick. Requiring that products actually contain what they claim to isn't.
Americans don't have secret courts. Secret evidence sometimes, secret charges rarely, but never anything like this. UK is the vanguard of the Orwellian State.
It does annoy me when I hear my fellow Brits talk about some of the things America has done in recent history as though they are somehow worse than what we ourselves are doing (Gitmo aside). We ultimately have the same problem that the US has: Politically there's very few votes to gain by being reasonable to "terrorists", and plenty to lose by being see to be tolerant of anyone Islamic. The rules that set this up were put in place 2 prime ministers ago, under Labour and are now being applied by the Conservatives/Liberals. Things are only getting worse, because the new force in British politics is an anti-immigration, party which is even less tolerant of Islam and wants to vastly increase our military spending. Thus the moderate voices get drowned out in the voting process.
Champagne is a retroactive trademark. I don't blame anyone for saying "fuck you" to a trademark that suddenly exists after 200 years of generic use.
I wouldn't mourn them going but they aren't generic trademarks. Where is the harm in saying that Kölsch has to be made in the designated area around Köln. Nothing stops anyone else from making the same beer and calling it anything else that they want, even "Kölsch Style" I believe. That way when I buy Kölsch I know I'm getting it from that locality and produced to the specifications agreed upon.
I rarely buy parmesan because other italian hard cheeses do the job just as well and tend to cost less; I'm not being denied choice, nor is anyone being stopped from producing goods, because the EU means that the cheese has to be from the parma region to be called parmesan. The fact that in America a cheese can be named after a place, and neither be from that place or be anything like cheese from that place so consumers can't trust a word manufacturers say isn't a selling point;)
It's not what's wrong with agile, it's what's wrong with many implementations. Lots of none agile IT teams spend forever in a never ending development loop, vastly miss deadlines and produce unusable crap; that doesn't mean that traditional methodologies are inherently flawed.
Scrum actually forced us to improve documentation (from woeful to meh admittedly) because we've stuck to the principle that any member of a team should be able to pick up a PBI and do it. I don't want to suggest scrum is the perfect model, I'm borderline on whether scrum is the right model for a development team in our organisation, but the actual scrum principles aren't the cause of most failed implementations.
You're uninformed and have a vastly over-sized opinion of your own knowledge. Plenty of very credible economists support the idea of a minimum wage, in fact many support a minimum wage nearly 50% higher than the current US minimum wage source here
You know when you see 'stupid' people saying they don't see why doctors, lawyers, scientists, programmers etc get paid so much because they don't understand what they do and thus think it must be easy? That's like you commenting on what 'serious' economists think when you clearly haven't got a fucking clue.
You'd also better be very clear that the internet use included in the rent isn't actually full internet access, and sites that the users are likely to want may be blocked. If I rented a property that advertised internet and then blocked things I wanted because the service wouldn't accept the extortion you can bet I'd be finding a lawyer and discussing with as many other students as possible going for a class action for misselling.
You likely do considerably better by doing a deal with providers to advertise to students for them (leaflets, posters, special deals etc) rather than doing this.
The issue here is that we're expecting companies to put vast resources into validating and controlling trademark issues like this, while we choose where to shop based on price which motivates them to spend as little on it as possible.
The issue is with both 1) possibly the government for allowing such a generic trademark, but primarily 2) with the fact that he hasn't/can't been sued out of existence for making clearly baseless claims.
If more trademark/copyright trolls paid very severe penalties for what they are doing then there would be less trolls. Expecting companies to act as arbiters on legality is never going to have a good result. Now what Zazzle could do to get some good will is help the aggrieved producers organise a lawsuit against this twat, which would be in their own interest anyway.
You think he agreed to bullshit terms that limited his right to have thoughts and opinions and to reveal them in PRIVATE CONVERSATION never intended for publication?
Yes; it's not a hard question because he did, whether you're butthurt that people might be held to account for being racists or not. If you're a racist you won't get my money, support or help and that's regardless of how I find out that you're a racist; that's my freedom right there:P
Rather than Sun, Yahoo and dozens of tech companies that have imploded during that window. The fact you try and pin the decline of "PCs" on MS just emphasises that your position is based on your dislike of MS rather than anything rational.
Those who try to fashion a world where no one is free to THINK whatever they want can preferable go STRAIGHT TO HELL.
If you've got a point then I suggest getting to it. Sterling isn't being prosecuted for what he said. A private organisation has asked is using powers he has agreed to it having to remove him because that is what the majority of its members want. That in itself is freedom; stopping the NBA and its members from kicking him out for being a racist would be restricting their freedom.
Just because there are plenty of good old titles doesn't mean one shouldn't read new titles.
What's particularily naive about his logic is that the chances are all those old books that he thinks mean there is no need for new ones almost certainly were written hundreds, or potentially thousands, of years after books in the same genre that were considered to be excellent at the time. Stories about Gilgamesh come from 4,500 years ago and exist to this day, which means they were clearly quite notable. Does that mean that all stories of heroism written in the last 4 millenia were pointless? There's debate about whether The Lord of the Ringswas heavily influenced by a Wagner opera or the same talesthat the opera was based on. Perhaps we should still be reading those rather than Tolkien knocking up pointless repeats;)?
There's always someone who can't see the point in something new. The good news is they're generally wrong and invariably don't influence the creation of more work!
Do you produce stuff that you think you should completely regardless of whether the person who pays you wants you to or not? If not, you're just as much of a sell out as he is; you just have the dubious distinction of being a hypocrite as well.
other subscription streaming services aren't profitable precisely because of those fees.
So it's ok for Google to force people into signing worse terms by threatening to de-list them from YouTube? If Microsoft started charging ad providers for showing ads in IE there would be uproar on here, and I doubt MS saying that browsers aren't profitable enough would persuade many people it's ok;)
So at the very best, whoever came up with that slogan was naive and unthoughtful.
People who think that are narrow-minded. The moment you start trying to define 'evil' you invariably miss out things that you would want to discourage. A company that says "do no evil", and accounts for that when hiring, should be able to answer the question "Is threatening to de-list musicians from YouTube if they don't accept our streaming terms a little evil" without needing a 20 point list of 'what evil means'. Like any big organisation though you need the senior management to hire, train and live those values because no matter how well defined a value is it means nothing if the organisation doesn't believe it in.
What's your point? That's like dismissing complaints about companies putting DRM on products because ways around the DRM exist if you go and look for them.
you can say google is evil,but spotify doesn't let anyone upload videos for free for the whole world to see
Given the advertising revenue Google makes off YouTube I don't think they, or you, will get very far trying to pretend it's some kind of charitable service that somehow justifies them being dicks (if they in fact are) about something else.
If Google did threaten to screw musicians on YouTube that didn't sign up for their streaming service then Google ARE the bad guys here. I like Google and I think they do a lot of good, but let's not pretend that using your dominance of one market to force musicians to accept your terms in another isn't a jackass move.
Slashdot Mirror
A scam is a scam when it's a scam. One of the wonders of the internet is that there are a veritable legion of sources you could use to find out that scam clearly doesn't cover this situation.
As someone has already said a system with various requirements, even just those 4 isn't de-regulated. Taxi's shouldn't be de-regulated imo however the requirement to post prices and have a functioning meter are clearly outdated and stop a useful service model. An Uber user can easily see the rates and uses shared GPS tracking for metering, so those regulations stop wannabe Uber users from getting a service while doing nothing to benefit anyone else. if the rules were amended to say that drivers must be aware of pricing before entering the vehicle (allowing web booking) then it makes everyone happy.
The right to strike is one of those rights you silly americans don't have. or had in the past and have forgotten about it.
To strike is absolutely legal in europe.
That silly American seems smart enough to know the difference between striking, and blocking a public highway; the fact you don't doesn't bode well for assessments of your intelligence...
If you make it so that there are too few taxis in a city it doesn't work, the same if you give a licence to anybody. Too many taxis and you end up with each taxi not making enough for a living.
There has to be an equilibrium somewhere. And no sometimes the market does not self regulate, hence laws and regulations. Uber is a taxi system without calling it explicitely a taxi system. It evades the rules and regulations put by the legislator to enforce a viable taxi system. Hence why taxis are demonstrating in london, madrid, paris, berlin, rome etc... It's not a small issue and no I'm not a taxi driver.
It's nonsense to think that taxi services need a state mandated 'correct number' to operate. They don't across the vast majority of the earth's surface and yet taxi services still exist pretty much everywhere. If there are too many taxi drivers and costs go down then less drivers will enter the market and more will leave, when prices go up it will draw in more supply. Of all occupations this is likely one of the best examples of one where the free market can quickly come to an equilibrium. It's extremely naive to assume that regulation is automatically proof that the market can't self regulate. Just look at the price of taxi medallions in New York which is a system created in the 1930s to see how badly wrong regulation can go if allowed to continue because "regulation must be needed if regulation already exists". Taxi drivers aren't demonstrating in the UK because Uber avoids regulations. They're demonstrating because their market is being taken from them.
>That privileged access is a requirement from the government itself.
And they are lobbying their governments to keep that privileged access. Being undercut by a cheaper competitor is certainly competition.
Party A plays by the rules and therefor has higher costs. Party B does not play by the rules and has lower costs. Party A is angry at the unfairness of this situation. I agree that the rules are dumb, but unfairness rankles me more. Either Uber buys taxi licenses for its drivers or we abolish taxi licenses. Until then, the should both play by the rules.
Uber is playing by the rules (at least in the UK). In London you need a license to drive a cab and that license comes with various rules but also various benefits. Cabs are allowed to stop for passengers who flag them in the street, which Uber drivers and other services aren't. In the past this was fine with cabbies because it wasn't easy to get a non-cab quickly. Now with services like Uber it is often cheaper to do so. In London cab licenses are for 12 months. If Cab drivers think that they would be better off driving for Uber then they are free to stop paying for a license and to do so.
The biggest single issue with 'banning' glass is that if/when it ever becomes remotely mainstream there will be a proportion of users (likely significant) who wear prescription glasses and who have no intention of carrying a spare 'non-glass' pair everywhere. As someone who wears glasses I know that if glass was near universally banned then I wouldn't buy it, but I would happily chose a different movie theatre or bar if some bars ban it and others don't. There's no risk of people recording films on it (it neither has the battery or camera quality) and anyone using it and distracting others can be dealt with the same as cellphone users. I know I, and expect the vast majority of users, would want it turned off to avoid having it interrupt our enjoyment of the film anyway.
I love it when people respond only to back up my point. You're too poorly informed to even see that you are.
Ask anyone in Europe what Champagne is and they'll know it's a type of fizzy wine from champagne in France. They might not realise that there is a particular process that must be used for it to be called champagne as well, or that Cava uses the same method. There is nothing deluding anyone about this. I know that a wine produced using the champenoise method in California will, assuming similar quality, be like Champagne.
What's misleading is that grapes from god knows where, mixed with god knows what, turned into wine by any process can be labelled as "champagne" in America. This is a trick. Requiring that products actually contain what they claim to isn't.
It does annoy me when I hear my fellow Brits talk about some of the things America has done in recent history as though they are somehow worse than what we ourselves are doing (Gitmo aside). We ultimately have the same problem that the US has: Politically there's very few votes to gain by being reasonable to "terrorists", and plenty to lose by being see to be tolerant of anyone Islamic. The rules that set this up were put in place 2 prime ministers ago, under Labour and are now being applied by the Conservatives/Liberals. Things are only getting worse, because the new force in British politics is an anti-immigration, party which is even less tolerant of Islam and wants to vastly increase our military spending. Thus the moderate voices get drowned out in the voting process.
I wouldn't mourn them going but they aren't generic trademarks. Where is the harm in saying that Kölsch has to be made in the designated area around Köln. Nothing stops anyone else from making the same beer and calling it anything else that they want, even "Kölsch Style" I believe. That way when I buy Kölsch I know I'm getting it from that locality and produced to the specifications agreed upon.
;)
I rarely buy parmesan because other italian hard cheeses do the job just as well and tend to cost less; I'm not being denied choice, nor is anyone being stopped from producing goods, because the EU means that the cheese has to be from the parma region to be called parmesan. The fact that in America a cheese can be named after a place, and neither be from that place or be anything like cheese from that place so consumers can't trust a word manufacturers say isn't a selling point
It's not what's wrong with agile, it's what's wrong with many implementations. Lots of none agile IT teams spend forever in a never ending development loop, vastly miss deadlines and produce unusable crap; that doesn't mean that traditional methodologies are inherently flawed.
Scrum actually forced us to improve documentation (from woeful to meh admittedly) because we've stuck to the principle that any member of a team should be able to pick up a PBI and do it. I don't want to suggest scrum is the perfect model, I'm borderline on whether scrum is the right model for a development team in our organisation, but the actual scrum principles aren't the cause of most failed implementations.
Perhaps you shouldn't post bullshit on public forums in future then? If you don't know what he did, or didn't, do then why type uninformed noise?
You're uninformed and have a vastly over-sized opinion of your own knowledge. Plenty of very credible economists support the idea of a minimum wage, in fact many support a minimum wage nearly 50% higher than the current US minimum wage source here
You know when you see 'stupid' people saying they don't see why doctors, lawyers, scientists, programmers etc get paid so much because they don't understand what they do and thus think it must be easy? That's like you commenting on what 'serious' economists think when you clearly haven't got a fucking clue.
You'd also better be very clear that the internet use included in the rent isn't actually full internet access, and sites that the users are likely to want may be blocked. If I rented a property that advertised internet and then blocked things I wanted because the service wouldn't accept the extortion you can bet I'd be finding a lawyer and discussing with as many other students as possible going for a class action for misselling.
You likely do considerably better by doing a deal with providers to advertise to students for them (leaflets, posters, special deals etc) rather than doing this.
The issue here is that we're expecting companies to put vast resources into validating and controlling trademark issues like this, while we choose where to shop based on price which motivates them to spend as little on it as possible.
The issue is with both 1) possibly the government for allowing such a generic trademark, but primarily 2) with the fact that he hasn't/can't been sued out of existence for making clearly baseless claims.
If more trademark/copyright trolls paid very severe penalties for what they are doing then there would be less trolls. Expecting companies to act as arbiters on legality is never going to have a good result. Now what Zazzle could do to get some good will is help the aggrieved producers organise a lawsuit against this twat, which would be in their own interest anyway.
Yes; it's not a hard question because he did, whether you're butthurt that people might be held to account for being racists or not. If you're a racist you won't get my money, support or help and that's regardless of how I find out that you're a racist; that's my freedom right there :P
Rather than Sun, Yahoo and dozens of tech companies that have imploded during that window. The fact you try and pin the decline of "PCs" on MS just emphasises that your position is based on your dislike of MS rather than anything rational.
If you've got a point then I suggest getting to it. Sterling isn't being prosecuted for what he said. A private organisation has asked is using powers he has agreed to it having to remove him because that is what the majority of its members want. That in itself is freedom; stopping the NBA and its members from kicking him out for being a racist would be restricting their freedom.
What's particularily naive about his logic is that the chances are all those old books that he thinks mean there is no need for new ones almost certainly were written hundreds, or potentially thousands, of years after books in the same genre that were considered to be excellent at the time. Stories about Gilgamesh come from 4,500 years ago and exist to this day, which means they were clearly quite notable. Does that mean that all stories of heroism written in the last 4 millenia were pointless? There's debate about whether The Lord of the Ringswas heavily influenced by a Wagner opera or the same talesthat the opera was based on. Perhaps we should still be reading those rather than Tolkien knocking up pointless repeats ;)?
There's always someone who can't see the point in something new. The good news is they're generally wrong and invariably don't influence the creation of more work!
Do you produce stuff that you think you should completely regardless of whether the person who pays you wants you to or not? If not, you're just as much of a sell out as he is; you just have the dubious distinction of being a hypocrite as well.
So it's ok for Google to force people into signing worse terms by threatening to de-list them from YouTube? If Microsoft started charging ad providers for showing ads in IE there would be uproar on here, and I doubt MS saying that browsers aren't profitable enough would persuade many people it's ok ;)
People who think that are narrow-minded. The moment you start trying to define 'evil' you invariably miss out things that you would want to discourage. A company that says "do no evil", and accounts for that when hiring, should be able to answer the question "Is threatening to de-list musicians from YouTube if they don't accept our streaming terms a little evil" without needing a 20 point list of 'what evil means'. Like any big organisation though you need the senior management to hire, train and live those values because no matter how well defined a value is it means nothing if the organisation doesn't believe it in.
What's your point? That's like dismissing complaints about companies putting DRM on products because ways around the DRM exist if you go and look for them.
Given the advertising revenue Google makes off YouTube I don't think they, or you, will get very far trying to pretend it's some kind of charitable service that somehow justifies them being dicks (if they in fact are) about something else.
If Google did threaten to screw musicians on YouTube that didn't sign up for their streaming service then Google ARE the bad guys here. I like Google and I think they do a lot of good, but let's not pretend that using your dominance of one market to force musicians to accept your terms in another isn't a jackass move.