That's because the statistics are a load. The actual median home price in Cupertino is somewhere around or above $1 million. Yahoo Real Estate says $924k, MLS listings are around $1.2M, Nextag says about $1.05M. The California median might be $649k, but that's because it includes all the sparse, cheap areas in the middle of the state and the high number of flats, condos, and townhouses in urban areas that sell at a lower rate.
A fairly pedestrian one-bedroom condo in Cupertino is $300,000. This house down the street from a friend is currently on the market for about a million. It's ~1400 square feet, 3 bedrooms and probably a typical Cupertino home in all respects.
Cite your sources. The median price of a single-family, detached home in Cupertino is nowhere near $649,000. That may well be the entry price, but the median price is well over $1 million.
Further, the number of engineers buying any home at all as a single wage-earner is infinitesimally small. They're renters unless they previously owned property that they sold at a large profit. No engineer at Apple, Yahoo, or Google is buying a mid-priced home in Cupertino on their own salary. Condos, townhouses, and some entry-level bungalows, maybe.
No salary meets the material needs of homeowners in California. That's why there were so many subprime mortgages here, and why the real estate market has been a difficult prospect for almost two decades now for new buyers.
No, if you actually paid attention, the site in question is a pure reposting of AP content headlines, ledes, and bodies. This is what AP is objecting to. Not the comments or discussion that it sparks, and not actual commentary provided by authors on the site in question. In fact, had you truly read the article, you'd see this:
"AP wants to fill in some facts and perspective on its recent actions with the Drudge Retort, and also reassure those in the blogosphere about AP's view of these situations. Yes, indeed, we are trying to protect our intellectual property online, as most news and content creators are around the world. But our interests in that regard extend only to instances that go beyond brief references and direct links to our coverage.
The Associated Press encourages the engagement of bloggers -- large and small -- in the news conversation of the day. Some of the largest blogs are licensed to display AP stories in full on a regular basis. We genuinely value and encourage referring links to our coverage, and even offer RSS feeds from www.ap.org, as do many of our licensed customers.
We get concerned, however, when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when others are encouraged to cut and paste. That's not good for original content creators; nor is it consistent with the link-based culture of the Internet that bloggers have cultivated so well.
In this particular case, we have had direct and helpful communication with the site in question, focusing only on these issues.
So, let's be clear: Bloggers are an indispensable part of the new ecosystem, but Jeff Jarvis' call for widespread reproduction of wholesale stories is out of synch with the environment he himself helped develop. There are many ways to inspire conversation about the news without misappropriating the content of original creators, whether they are the AP or fellow bloggers.
That's exactly the problem. People "excerpt" the body of the article (change the headline and omit the byline) without reference or attribution in their "blogs" all the time.
Searching for a news story produces hundreds of results on blogs that are just copies of one article, and it becomes frustrating when you want to find more information rather than just repeats of the same exact article text. A blog isn't an AP newswire feed (where it makes sense for a local newspaper).
Just link to the original at a persistent source. Blogs that are regurgitation and not reference are basically just Internet cholesterol, and if you step past your vein-popping at the mere mention of a DMCA takedown notice for a moment, people should be able to appreciate the effort of a news organization clearing the clutter. This is material that is available for free from any number of outlets. It's not about free speech or fair use in the slightest. It's about controlling distribution to improve quality of online news--not censorship, or commentary, or any other conspiracy.
They're not taking down commentaries that quote or reference.
No. If they want to enforce a conditional gift, all they need to do is change the way they send them out to having the DJs and station owners request them.
it can be seen as supporting the first-sale doctrine. No, it can't. There's only a tangential relationship to DFS here, which itself is fairly uncontroversial. The only issue is the unsolicited mailing-out of discs and then expecting someone to honor a restriction you placed on a note attached to it.
This has nothing to do with something a consumer initiates by an intentional purchase, nor does it have any bearing on "not for resale" labeling in solicited purchases or acquisitions. It really is just a case reminding people that conditional gifts have to be arranged up by two intentional actors if you want to enforce the condition.
It's not a hugely significant case or a real shock to anyone who works with any of this. It's not something on the "battle lines", so to speak. It's just parroted here because it's an EFF victory. That's the real significance.
Some also see it as a step towards the eventual invalidation of shrink-wrap licenses Some people might hope for that, but none of them are legal experts. I've got news for you: shrinkwrap licenses will never completely go away.
I don't really buy into the "owning stock means controlling company" philosophy that our laws currently support. And I don't buy into the "stock market is a money machine" philosophy that our investors currently support. It has produced far more problems than benefits.
Owning a (voting) share of a company means you should take some responsibility for the operation of that company. The abuses and excesses of the modern "corporate" system all trace back to the domination of stock markets with profiteers and the propagation of non-voting shares sold in arms-length transactions. Yes, they always existed, but in the "good old days" they stood as the exception, not the rule.
If people were less concerned with squeezing money out of companies, products and services would be better, corporations would engage in more responsible practices with regard to labor and the environment, and accountability would improve. The functions of the shareholder should not be profit-motivated (instead, it should be viewed as an asset). The investor should not have any power over the corporation's day to day operations.
Fines and court-ordered judgments should be even distributed on the shareholder-owners, incentivizing good "corporate citizenship", while the PR fallout acts independently on investors through the market.
South Dakota, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Tennessee, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire.
All heavily white, all Clinton, and a list as long as your meaningless "white state" retort.
Is it really so hard to grasp the idea that not everything is mutually exclusive? The candidates split the white vote. Obama carried the black vote, and Clinton carried the Hispanic and Asian vote. It was a wash, demographically. Your response, however, does nothing to disprove the original sentiment.
The fact that you and at least one clueless moderator don't see that is a testament to failures of logic. It has nothing to do with the candidates themselves, or who supports whom, but simply the applicability of your post.
It's as relevant as A: "I have the most flowers." B: "Look at the wheelbarrow."
Hillary Clinton supporters were some of the most rude, arrogant, obnoxious asshats I've ever seen. Second only to Obama supporters, who were worse because they pretend they were less rude, arrogant, and obnoxious.
The truth of the matter is that both sides' supporters are full of morons and asshats. However, there seems to be this faulty "above the fray" attitude from holier-than-thou Obama supporters, taking advantage of all the tools of disingenuity, misdirection, and false superiority. The implication that Clinton supporters were poor and stupid was grounds for a virtual high-five from those tools, and still is.
This despicable high and mighty finger-pointing is what turns people off from Obama. It's also the biggest disappointment of the campaign--not the candidate, but the ignorant segment of his supporters and their hypocrisy.
To wit: "Most of those Clinton supporters I saw were new to politics or they had not been around very long..." In fact, it's young voters and the less involved upon which Obama draws a lot of strength. You can't use experience in whatever manner suits you while denying the other side the benefit. Both sides have a lot of people who are "new to politics".
Without agreeing with GP's statements, taking the quoted section you used alone is not incorrect. Obama and Clinton did split the white vote. Rattling off a stream of "white" states that Obama won doesn't change the sentiment, because anyone could come back with an equally long list of states Clinton won. "Winning every state with a large black vote" does not exclude winning states without them.
Still, the decisive factor in this race wasn't black voters, because that advantage was largely offset by Clinton's Hispanic and Asian leads.
Ultimately, it was the caucus vote that led Obama to victory, along with proportional allocation. He could not win on popular vote alone, nor on delegates awarded by primary. What should give pause to Democrats is that recalculating the results without these advantages both lead to decisive Clinton wins and reflects a system more in line with the general election. It remains to be seen whether that support will hold out. Obama may well have a stronger showing than most Democrats could, but that's not necessarily a victory. Getting 40% of the vote in state that was 25% blue last time is a great accomplishment--but not enough to gain the electoral votes. Strong independent support, which helped Obama during the primaries, doesn't help in the general except in swing states with good-sized independent populations. On the other hand, his weakness among large groups of moderate Democrats can weaken standing both in swing states and in midwestern and western blue states.
Obama has a lot of work to do and it will be a hard-fought election by November--much more so than the deluded "yes we can" army (note: this does not refer to all Obama supporters) and their blowout/50-state fantasies would lead them to believe. Sadly, us usual, it's the Democrats' election to lose. No one snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like us.
Athens was not a democracy, at least by modern standards, because only some people from some families could vote. Nonsense. Suffrage is limited in all societies through a number of potential restrictions: children can't vote, nor can certain kinds of criminals, non-citizens and in some places, the severely mentally ill. Universal suffrage is separate from participation of "the people".
What your argue about Switzerland not being a direct democracy is that it doesn't match your own definition of "direct democracy". No. It does not meet the political science standard of direct democracy. Switzerland is a partial implementation. It is impure.
For most of us a direct democracy is one where the people are the actual rulers, instead of their representatives. That holds true there. No it doesn't. There is a body of people with veto power over the people. They are not the ultimate authority; they are the authority when the superior power chooses not to intervene. There's a difference.
You'd have to return the phone in the first 30 days.
Afterward, you'd have to pay the early termination penalty, which in this case would essentially nullify the subsidy. So, in effect, you can still get a new iPhone to unlock by paying $199 + activation + one month of service + $175 cancellation fee.
This adds up to about $500, so it's doable for those who really want it.
Because if a corporation is a person, nobody is accountable for that person's actions. That's not at all true. The corporate officers are held accountable for the actions of the corporation, just as the captain of a ship is responsible for the actions of his men.
If you create a corporation, you get some things, such as protection ensuring that the things you personally own won't be taken away from you if the corporation goes belly-up. This is true regardless of whether your corporation is one person or a thousand.
I'm not sure why you think that everything that puts a burden on the expansion of a business is automatically a bad thing. I don't see how you can make that astronomical leap from my comment. In this case, however, restricting the behavior of a corporation in a business transaction makes absolutely no sense. No one is served by doing so.
Not true. Courts can throw out laws if they are against the constitution, and - in some cases - even prevent laws from being voted on if they are against the constitution. Not in a direct democracy, they can't, because in such a system, the people are the ultimate authority. There is no "constitutional authority" in an actual direct democracy.
Even in a republic, the courts only have the power the people and the government grant it. If the government declines to obey the court, there is nothing a court can magically do to enforce its mandate.
Switzerland seems to be doing just fine.
Really, I think it's obvious that you are severely misinformed. Switzerland is not a true direct democracy. Once again, it's a constitutional (i.e. LIMITED) democracy. You're the one seeming to have difficulty grasping that concept.
Switzerland is referred to as a direct democracy in the same inaccurate sense that the United States is referred to as a democracy.
Switzerland is the very definition of a direct democracy. No. Athens is the very definition of a direct democracy. If a constitution is in place or if there is an overriding power to popular action, it is not a true direct democracy. Direct democracy in its pure form simply does not work, hence the use of a constitution and double-majority rules in Switzerland. This is necessary to prevent mob rule.
You have not named any actual reasons for why you think Switzerland isn't a direct democracy. Actually, there were three provided that you failed to suss out: (1) a constitution, (2) a multi-step passage requirement, and (3) a federal system.
If there is a triggering event to override popular decision or prevent its immediate enactment, it is not a direct democracy. It may be the closest functional modern analogue, but the reference is a misnomer.
No, a station wagon is a sedan with an extended cabin past the C-pillar.
A crossover is a wholly different body and interior, often riding higher and with a greater towing capacity. It's the evolution of the minivan, from an engineering standpoint, not the station wagon.
This is pretty misguided.
First, despite of what you might have heard, a corporation is not a person. Sure, corporations are made of people, but a corporation should not have the same basic rights as a person. Why not? If you start a business as an individual, and you expect to have the freedom to do x thing (for example, to sell a product at a reduced price reflective of an ongoing service agreement; or possibly to sell a widget at a reduced price because it is slightly defective [while disclosing that minor deviation to the consumer]), or any of the other scenarios you might come up with under the fundamental freedom to contract for whatever you like, absent illegality, why should it be different when your one-man shop grows into a local chain? An interstate brand? A multinational conglomerate?
As far as transactions are concerned, there's no reason to deny a company those rights simply because it has successfully grown beyond a single person. To do so would burden the expansion of business, something we would frown upon as a society. Corporations don't have the same individual rights with respect to liberty and privacy, but treating them as a "person" as business transactions is the only approach that makes sense.
Mob rule implies that there is no law, that the majority decides on a whim and punishes those which don't adhere with their decision. That is not how democracy works. That's exactly how a democracy works. That's also why we don't have one.
Your "mob rule" remark implies that you think the voting people replace courts. Not the case. Well it's not my comment, and risking putting words in someone else's mouth, legislative power overrides courts. If the "voting people" (to borrow your term) get angry and pass a law using mob rule, the courts are obliged to obey it. In a direct democracy, the courts cannot exercise power against the will of the people. That's why it's a fundamentally flawed system for anything larger than a small town.
Switzerland is a constitutional state, a state under the rule of law, despite of the fact that it is a direct democracy. That's a bit of a sleight of hand. Switzerland is not a true direct democracy. It's a constitutional democracy. The people are not free to act directly, and many decisions require a multiple-pass arrangement. That is, they are given limited powers by their political system. It is at best a first-degree indirect democracy. This is a good thing, because otherwise a 51% majority could best a strongly vocal 49% minority, which is not an optimal application of governing power.
Referenda are mob rule scenarios in their pure forms, which is why rules are usually put in place to contain them (minimum turnout requirements, clear majorities (e.g. 60%)).
The Honda Pilot/Ridgeline/Odyssey and Acura MDX are built off the Honda Accord Platform...are they considered crossovers? Yes. They were only marketed as SUVs because they needed to compete with them, and crossovers, being car-based, were not popular in the US until recently. People bought in to the strength and power and "masculinity" of the SUV, even if they didn't need it. A car-based SUV already had a name: minivan, and it was unpopular just as 'SUV' is now becoming unpopular. The term "crossover" didn't really exist in the public consciousness, because there wasn't a market segment for them yet. If you were Honda, would you call it a minivan or an SUV?
Many people criticized the Pilot when it first came out because it wasn't truck-based. Then when its solid performance, coupled with all the advantages of the sedan heritage, came through, it was embraced. That was 5 years ago or so. Today, the true SUVs are dying.
no difference in weight, size, appearance, That's exactly the point. They're large vehicles, so they're going to weigh a lot. Still, at 4300 pounds, a Ford Edge is less than 1000 pounds heavier than my much smaller Audi A4, so weight isn't everything.
Notable differences in ride, handling, and stability are observed because the truck chassis is abandoned. They are built like cars, with unibody construction instead of body-on-frame.
So yes, it is for all purposes a marketing gimmick that "It's not a SUV, SUV's get bad mpg, this is a Crossover!" Again, no.
Compare. Ford Explorer: 14/18mpg. Ford Edge: 16/24mpg. This is a distinct improvement, especially considering that their mid-size sedan does 18/28 with the same engine and less weight to haul around.
Fuel economy as a whole is not that great for cars today, but crossovers do a decent job of splitting the difference between mediocre and terrible. A positive step is a positive step. People want and sometimes need vehicles in the configuration of an SUV. If a car company can give them that with a minimal fuel efficiency penalty, then that's a good thing. It's a good effort of giving people what they want in a more responsible way.
The definition of lighter is pretty clear: lighter than an SUV.
I've yet to see any distinction between a "crossover" and an SUV, other than the fact that SUV's are typically based off a truck frame (though not always) and "crossovers" are based on a car frame. Um...you got it.
What's the difference between a hatchback and a sedan? The rear lift gate. What's the difference between a cabriolet and a targa? Hard top vs. soft.
It's not like you're asking to redefine a segment. A crossover is just the name for the modern minivan, styled to be palatable to a generation of people who think a minivan is tacky (even many of the remaining "minivans" are being styled more aggressively and slowly becoming crossovers).
A crossover is not, in fact, an SUV, hence the name change. It's not just marketing.
A crossover is build on a sedan chassis and is based on a passenger car. It is lighter, and by virtue of the car engines, more fuel efficient. SUVs are built on a light truck frame, frequently using ridiculous engines far beyond what would be necessary for that weekly grocery run.
Crossovers are the answer to people who like the style or configuration, or who might need to carry large loads from Home Depot or the local garden center, but who want better ride, handling, and fuel efficiency.
Those little Honda deals and compact SUVs were never really SUVs to begin with--that was marketing. If the market has moved on to crossovers rather than SUVs, then yes, they are dead, and a crossover is not nearly as obnoxious. It's the trendy replacement for the minivan.
This is, yet again, an overbroad reading of the state of the art. The sale of goods is a component and applies to the transaction, but it does not preclude a license to the software as well. In fact, the opinion in the very case you cite reflects that. The EULA does not apply to the distributor because the package was never opened--the distributor has every right to move the box as it likes consistent with DFS.
This has exactly zero bearing on whether the software is licensed to users (it is, and this too is established law). Of note: "Adobe frames the issue as a dispute about the ownership of intellectual property. In fact, it is a dispute about the ownership of individual pieces of Adobe software. Section 202 of the Copyright Act recognizes a distinction between tangible *1085 property rights in copies of the work and intangible property rights in the creation itself.FN11 In this case, no claim is made that transfer of the copy involves transfer of the ownership of the intellectual property within." 171 F. Supp. at 1084. This means that transfer of the medium is not governed by a copyright license. This fundamental error in Adobe's argument is the nexus of the case, not the false dichotomy of "sale or license" (where in fact, most transactions are both as respecting different element). This may seem a complicated legal construct, but it is actually one designed to preserve broad rights for non-rightsholders.
The distributor buys a box. They sell the box. It is a transaction in goods. Whether or not the goods contain a license in effect with a third party is immaterial. The ruling does not suggest anything with regard to software being "sold" to end users to the exclusion of license terms, nor does it speak in the least to the enforceability of EULAs (again, an issue specifically not addressed in Softman. In fact, the EULA itself is used to support the sale of goods determination with regard to the distributor: "However, the existence of this notice on the box cannot bind SoftMan. Reading a notice on a box is not equivalent to the degree of assent that occurs when the software is loaded onto the computer and the consumer is asked to agree to the terms of the license." Pages would not be dedicated to something viewed to have no weight.
Sure it does. It protects the copyright holder's exclusive right to copy. It's worded for the party it benefits. It protects the software from being copied.
In theory, it also would not interfere with any user's limited right to copy (into memory in order to use it, for byte-complete backups). In practice, it doesn't always work that way--but it's not required to. They can't punish you for certain types of copying as expressly excepted, but they don't have to facilitate your copying in this manner.
The bottom line is that getting rid of copyblockers requires abating the fears of the producer. If they continue to have strong reason to suspect abuse and flagrant disregard, the customer is the enemy. You can't blame the problem on either side; it rests with both.
Slashdot Mirror
Fitting an expresso machine on your stove top might prove a bit difficult.
An espresso maker, on the other hand, is an option.
That's because the statistics are a load. The actual median home price in Cupertino is somewhere around or above $1 million. Yahoo Real Estate says $924k, MLS listings are around $1.2M, Nextag says about $1.05M. The California median might be $649k, but that's because it includes all the sparse, cheap areas in the middle of the state and the high number of flats, condos, and townhouses in urban areas that sell at a lower rate.
A fairly pedestrian one-bedroom condo in Cupertino is $300,000. This house down the street from a friend is currently on the market for about a million. It's ~1400 square feet, 3 bedrooms and probably a typical Cupertino home in all respects.
Cite your sources. The median price of a single-family, detached home in Cupertino is nowhere near $649,000. That may well be the entry price, but the median price is well over $1 million.
Further, the number of engineers buying any home at all as a single wage-earner is infinitesimally small. They're renters unless they previously owned property that they sold at a large profit. No engineer at Apple, Yahoo, or Google is buying a mid-priced home in Cupertino on their own salary. Condos, townhouses, and some entry-level bungalows, maybe.
No salary meets the material needs of homeowners in California. That's why there were so many subprime mortgages here, and why the real estate market has been a difficult prospect for almost two decades now for new buyers.
No, if you actually paid attention, the site in question is a pure reposting of AP content headlines, ledes, and bodies. This is what AP is objecting to. Not the comments or discussion that it sparks, and not actual commentary provided by authors on the site in question. In fact, had you truly read the article, you'd see this:
"AP wants to fill in some facts and perspective on its recent actions with the Drudge Retort, and also reassure those in the blogosphere about AP's view of these situations. Yes, indeed, we are trying to protect our intellectual property online, as most news and content creators are around the world. But our interests in that regard extend only to instances that go beyond brief references and direct links to our coverage.
The Associated Press encourages the engagement of bloggers -- large and small -- in the news conversation of the day. Some of the largest blogs are licensed to display AP stories in full on a regular basis. We genuinely value and encourage referring links to our coverage, and even offer RSS feeds from www.ap.org, as do many of our licensed customers.
We get concerned, however, when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when others are encouraged to cut and paste. That's not good for original content creators; nor is it consistent with the link-based culture of the Internet that bloggers have cultivated so well.
In this particular case, we have had direct and helpful communication with the site in question, focusing only on these issues.
So, let's be clear: Bloggers are an indispensable part of the new ecosystem, but Jeff Jarvis' call for widespread reproduction of wholesale stories is out of synch with the environment he himself helped develop. There are many ways to inspire conversation about the news without misappropriating the content of original creators, whether they are the AP or fellow bloggers.
Jim Kennedy
VP and Director of Strategy for AP"
That's exactly the problem. People "excerpt" the body of the article (change the headline and omit the byline) without reference or attribution in their "blogs" all the time.
Searching for a news story produces hundreds of results on blogs that are just copies of one article, and it becomes frustrating when you want to find more information rather than just repeats of the same exact article text. A blog isn't an AP newswire feed (where it makes sense for a local newspaper).
Just link to the original at a persistent source. Blogs that are regurgitation and not reference are basically just Internet cholesterol, and if you step past your vein-popping at the mere mention of a DMCA takedown notice for a moment, people should be able to appreciate the effort of a news organization clearing the clutter. This is material that is available for free from any number of outlets. It's not about free speech or fair use in the slightest. It's about controlling distribution to improve quality of online news--not censorship, or commentary, or any other conspiracy.
They're not taking down commentaries that quote or reference.
No. If they want to enforce a conditional gift, all they need to do is change the way they send them out to having the DJs and station owners request them.
This has nothing to do with something a consumer initiates by an intentional purchase, nor does it have any bearing on "not for resale" labeling in solicited purchases or acquisitions. It really is just a case reminding people that conditional gifts have to be arranged up by two intentional actors if you want to enforce the condition.
It's not a hugely significant case or a real shock to anyone who works with any of this. It's not something on the "battle lines", so to speak. It's just parroted here because it's an EFF victory. That's the real significance. Some also see it as a step towards the eventual invalidation of shrink-wrap licenses Some people might hope for that, but none of them are legal experts. I've got news for you: shrinkwrap licenses will never completely go away.
Owning a (voting) share of a company means you should take some responsibility for the operation of that company. The abuses and excesses of the modern "corporate" system all trace back to the domination of stock markets with profiteers and the propagation of non-voting shares sold in arms-length transactions. Yes, they always existed, but in the "good old days" they stood as the exception, not the rule.
If people were less concerned with squeezing money out of companies, products and services would be better, corporations would engage in more responsible practices with regard to labor and the environment, and accountability would improve. The functions of the shareholder should not be profit-motivated (instead, it should be viewed as an asset). The investor should not have any power over the corporation's day to day operations.
Fines and court-ordered judgments should be even distributed on the shareholder-owners, incentivizing good "corporate citizenship", while the PR fallout acts independently on investors through the market.
Uh huh...and through some metaphysical transconfiguration, when those exact words are repeated by someone else, it becomes "hurling insults".
Right.
South Dakota, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Tennessee, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire.
All heavily white, all Clinton, and a list as long as your meaningless "white state" retort.
Is it really so hard to grasp the idea that not everything is mutually exclusive? The candidates split the white vote. Obama carried the black vote, and Clinton carried the Hispanic and Asian vote. It was a wash, demographically. Your response, however, does nothing to disprove the original sentiment.
The fact that you and at least one clueless moderator don't see that is a testament to failures of logic. It has nothing to do with the candidates themselves, or who supports whom, but simply the applicability of your post.
It's as relevant as A: "I have the most flowers." B: "Look at the wheelbarrow."
You are going to complain about throwing insults?
QED.
The truth of the matter is that both sides' supporters are full of morons and asshats. However, there seems to be this faulty "above the fray" attitude from holier-than-thou Obama supporters, taking advantage of all the tools of disingenuity, misdirection, and false superiority. The implication that Clinton supporters were poor and stupid was grounds for a virtual high-five from those tools, and still is.
This despicable high and mighty finger-pointing is what turns people off from Obama. It's also the biggest disappointment of the campaign--not the candidate, but the ignorant segment of his supporters and their hypocrisy.
To wit: "Most of those Clinton supporters I saw were new to politics or they had not been around very long..." In fact, it's young voters and the less involved upon which Obama draws a lot of strength. You can't use experience in whatever manner suits you while denying the other side the benefit. Both sides have a lot of people who are "new to politics".
I think you replied to the wrong comment, there, buddy.
Why is this insightful?
Without agreeing with GP's statements, taking the quoted section you used alone is not incorrect. Obama and Clinton did split the white vote. Rattling off a stream of "white" states that Obama won doesn't change the sentiment, because anyone could come back with an equally long list of states Clinton won. "Winning every state with a large black vote" does not exclude winning states without them.
Still, the decisive factor in this race wasn't black voters, because that advantage was largely offset by Clinton's Hispanic and Asian leads.
Ultimately, it was the caucus vote that led Obama to victory, along with proportional allocation. He could not win on popular vote alone, nor on delegates awarded by primary. What should give pause to Democrats is that recalculating the results without these advantages both lead to decisive Clinton wins and reflects a system more in line with the general election. It remains to be seen whether that support will hold out. Obama may well have a stronger showing than most Democrats could, but that's not necessarily a victory. Getting 40% of the vote in state that was 25% blue last time is a great accomplishment--but not enough to gain the electoral votes. Strong independent support, which helped Obama during the primaries, doesn't help in the general except in swing states with good-sized independent populations. On the other hand, his weakness among large groups of moderate Democrats can weaken standing both in swing states and in midwestern and western blue states.
Obama has a lot of work to do and it will be a hard-fought election by November--much more so than the deluded "yes we can" army (note: this does not refer to all Obama supporters) and their blowout/50-state fantasies would lead them to believe. Sadly, us usual, it's the Democrats' election to lose. No one snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like us.
You'd have to return the phone in the first 30 days.
Afterward, you'd have to pay the early termination penalty, which in this case would essentially nullify the subsidy. So, in effect, you can still get a new iPhone to unlock by paying $199 + activation + one month of service + $175 cancellation fee.
This adds up to about $500, so it's doable for those who really want it.
Even in a republic, the courts only have the power the people and the government grant it. If the government declines to obey the court, there is nothing a court can magically do to enforce its mandate. Switzerland seems to be doing just fine.
Really, I think it's obvious that you are severely misinformed. Switzerland is not a true direct democracy. Once again, it's a constitutional (i.e. LIMITED) democracy. You're the one seeming to have difficulty grasping that concept.
Switzerland is referred to as a direct democracy in the same inaccurate sense that the United States is referred to as a democracy. Switzerland is the very definition of a direct democracy. No. Athens is the very definition of a direct democracy. If a constitution is in place or if there is an overriding power to popular action, it is not a true direct democracy. Direct democracy in its pure form simply does not work, hence the use of a constitution and double-majority rules in Switzerland. This is necessary to prevent mob rule. You have not named any actual reasons for why you think Switzerland isn't a direct democracy. Actually, there were three provided that you failed to suss out: (1) a constitution, (2) a multi-step passage requirement, and (3) a federal system.
If there is a triggering event to override popular decision or prevent its immediate enactment, it is not a direct democracy. It may be the closest functional modern analogue, but the reference is a misnomer.
No, a station wagon is a sedan with an extended cabin past the C-pillar.
A crossover is a wholly different body and interior, often riding higher and with a greater towing capacity. It's the evolution of the minivan, from an engineering standpoint, not the station wagon.
As far as transactions are concerned, there's no reason to deny a company those rights simply because it has successfully grown beyond a single person. To do so would burden the expansion of business, something we would frown upon as a society. Corporations don't have the same individual rights with respect to liberty and privacy, but treating them as a "person" as business transactions is the only approach that makes sense. Mob rule implies that there is no law, that the majority decides on a whim and punishes those which don't adhere with their decision. That is not how democracy works. That's exactly how a democracy works. That's also why we don't have one. Your "mob rule" remark implies that you think the voting people replace courts. Not the case. Well it's not my comment, and risking putting words in someone else's mouth, legislative power overrides courts. If the "voting people" (to borrow your term) get angry and pass a law using mob rule, the courts are obliged to obey it. In a direct democracy, the courts cannot exercise power against the will of the people. That's why it's a fundamentally flawed system for anything larger than a small town. Switzerland is a constitutional state, a state under the rule of law, despite of the fact that it is a direct democracy. That's a bit of a sleight of hand. Switzerland is not a true direct democracy. It's a constitutional democracy. The people are not free to act directly, and many decisions require a multiple-pass arrangement. That is, they are given limited powers by their political system. It is at best a first-degree indirect democracy. This is a good thing, because otherwise a 51% majority could best a strongly vocal 49% minority, which is not an optimal application of governing power.
Referenda are mob rule scenarios in their pure forms, which is why rules are usually put in place to contain them (minimum turnout requirements, clear majorities (e.g. 60%)).
Many people criticized the Pilot when it first came out because it wasn't truck-based. Then when its solid performance, coupled with all the advantages of the sedan heritage, came through, it was embraced. That was 5 years ago or so. Today, the true SUVs are dying.
Notable differences in ride, handling, and stability are observed because the truck chassis is abandoned. They are built like cars, with unibody construction instead of body-on-frame. So yes, it is for all purposes a marketing gimmick that "It's not a SUV, SUV's get bad mpg, this is a Crossover!" Again, no.
Compare. Ford Explorer: 14/18mpg. Ford Edge: 16/24mpg. This is a distinct improvement, especially considering that their mid-size sedan does 18/28 with the same engine and less weight to haul around.
Fuel economy as a whole is not that great for cars today, but crossovers do a decent job of splitting the difference between mediocre and terrible. A positive step is a positive step. People want and sometimes need vehicles in the configuration of an SUV. If a car company can give them that with a minimal fuel efficiency penalty, then that's a good thing. It's a good effort of giving people what they want in a more responsible way.
What's the difference between a hatchback and a sedan? The rear lift gate. What's the difference between a cabriolet and a targa? Hard top vs. soft.
It's not like you're asking to redefine a segment. A crossover is just the name for the modern minivan, styled to be palatable to a generation of people who think a minivan is tacky (even many of the remaining "minivans" are being styled more aggressively and slowly becoming crossovers).
A crossover is not, in fact, an SUV, hence the name change. It's not just marketing.
A crossover is build on a sedan chassis and is based on a passenger car. It is lighter, and by virtue of the car engines, more fuel efficient. SUVs are built on a light truck frame, frequently using ridiculous engines far beyond what would be necessary for that weekly grocery run.
Crossovers are the answer to people who like the style or configuration, or who might need to carry large loads from Home Depot or the local garden center, but who want better ride, handling, and fuel efficiency.
Those little Honda deals and compact SUVs were never really SUVs to begin with--that was marketing. If the market has moved on to crossovers rather than SUVs, then yes, they are dead, and a crossover is not nearly as obnoxious. It's the trendy replacement for the minivan.
This is, yet again, an overbroad reading of the state of the art. The sale of goods is a component and applies to the transaction, but it does not preclude a license to the software as well. In fact, the opinion in the very case you cite reflects that. The EULA does not apply to the distributor because the package was never opened--the distributor has every right to move the box as it likes consistent with DFS.
This has exactly zero bearing on whether the software is licensed to users (it is, and this too is established law). Of note: "Adobe frames the issue as a dispute about the ownership of intellectual property. In fact, it is a dispute about the ownership of individual pieces of Adobe software. Section 202 of the Copyright Act recognizes a distinction between tangible *1085 property rights in copies of the work and intangible property rights in the creation itself.FN11 In this case, no claim is made that transfer of the copy involves transfer of the ownership of the intellectual property within." 171 F. Supp. at 1084. This means that transfer of the medium is not governed by a copyright license. This fundamental error in Adobe's argument is the nexus of the case, not the false dichotomy of "sale or license" (where in fact, most transactions are both as respecting different element). This may seem a complicated legal construct, but it is actually one designed to preserve broad rights for non-rightsholders.
The distributor buys a box. They sell the box. It is a transaction in goods. Whether or not the goods contain a license in effect with a third party is immaterial. The ruling does not suggest anything with regard to software being "sold" to end users to the exclusion of license terms, nor does it speak in the least to the enforceability of EULAs (again, an issue specifically not addressed in Softman. In fact, the EULA itself is used to support the sale of goods determination with regard to the distributor: "However, the existence of this notice on the box cannot bind SoftMan. Reading a notice on a box is not equivalent to the degree of assent that occurs when the software is loaded onto the computer and the consumer is asked to agree to the terms of the license." Pages would not be dedicated to something viewed to have no weight.
Sure it does. It protects the copyright holder's exclusive right to copy. It's worded for the party it benefits. It protects the software from being copied.
In theory, it also would not interfere with any user's limited right to copy (into memory in order to use it, for byte-complete backups). In practice, it doesn't always work that way--but it's not required to. They can't punish you for certain types of copying as expressly excepted, but they don't have to facilitate your copying in this manner.
The bottom line is that getting rid of copyblockers requires abating the fears of the producer. If they continue to have strong reason to suspect abuse and flagrant disregard, the customer is the enemy. You can't blame the problem on either side; it rests with both.