The issue is that the Us election system is broken, so you need a new constitution
The US election system isn't sent entirely (or even mostly) by the Constitution, as many of the key details are set in statute and regulation. So, even if we assume that the problem is that the election system is broken, you need to make a much more specific argument about how it is broken and what structure should replace it to support the contention that it is broken in a manner which requires a Constitutional fix rather than a less-drastic remedy.
But remember also that Google hasn't been doing this in a vacuum -- Amazon had already decided to go down the undercut-prices route with their Kindle tabs, and Google's merely responding to this. Amazon's probably a greater threat to Google than Apple right now; I think Google is fairly sure that Android is going to win (this round of) the OS wars, but they'd very much like to ensure it's a Google-branded rather than an Amazon-branded form of Android that comes out on top. (It's worth noting that the Nexus 7 was released five months ahead of the Nexus 10 -- it was the Kindle Fire that had Google scared, not the ipad.)
Yeah, Amazon is playing a long game (much like Google) and actually getting more of a pass on lack of profits from Wall Street investors than Google, so Amazon is by far the bigger threat, even if in some of the spaces all three companies compete in Apple has more obvious current muscle.
If Google is selling a nice tablet at cost at $199, do you think the OHA members would be selling their 7" tablets at cost, or at cost + profit?
Cost + profit, and including hardware features (and additional non-Google, proprietary software) that the N7 doesn't have. Price isn't the only axis of differentiation, after all.
In that case, why would consumers want to buy something that costs more, when they can buy the Nexus 7 for $199?
Because the thing that costs more has features the N7 doesn't have that consumers want.
Help me understand why anyone would buy a Galaxy Tab 2 when the Nexus 7 cost $150 less?
When the Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 came out, the Nexus 7 wasn't an option. GT2 7.0 has a number of hardware advantages over the Nexus 7 (rear facing camera with higher resolution than the N7s front-facing camera, reportedly better WiFi, a cellular radio (which the original $199 N7 released shortly after the GT2 7.0 didn't have, although I think with the new refresh there is a $199 version with cellular data, but in the tablet marketplace you're not going to be the hottest new thing for very long), etc. Is it worth $150 more? For people for whom the advantages are important, it probably was.
Of course, now, Samsung is making a profit building Nexus 10's -- sure, Google is selling them cheaper than Samsung would, but Google's actually bearing the cost of marketing and selling them.
Actually, your reference says exactly what the OP said: The design put the most common keys away from the middle to reduce jamming.
Except that that's not what the OP said, what OP said was that the design put the common keys away from the middle to reduce jamming by slowing down typists. What the reference says is that QWERTY was designed to move keys commonly used keys farther away from each other to reduce jamming by reducing the probability that a typist at any given speed would hit nearby keys in close enough suggestion for their arms to jam.
ObCarAnalogy: The OP's claim is wrong in the same way that it would be wrong to claim that some race cars include negative lift wings to slow down drivers because driving too fast causes cars to lose traction; it correctly identifies the problem that modification addresses, but incorrectly casts the modification as interfering with the operator's goal to solve the problem rather than addressing the effect which causes pursuit of the operator's goal to trigger the problem.
Has there ever been a trademark infringement lawsuit, where the defendants had both been using the trademark in the market and had originated it before the plaintiffs, and where the plaintiffs won the case?
I seem to recall that in the late 60's some 'popular beat combo' going by the strange name of 'The Beatles' had a music production company called 'Apple'.
True.
They tried to sue an upstart popular IT company of the same name and lost because that IT company was not in the music business...
False, they didn't lose. The case was settled. As you allude to in the next sentence. Settling a case means that no one has "won" or "lost", because it was never decided.
In fact, as part of the settlement they each signed an agreement that they would not use their trademarks in competing businesses.
That's a popular characterization of the agreement, though the actual details were (as is usually the case with legal agreements) considerably more complicated.
If you research the followup on that, where Apple music inc. tried to enforce that agreement years later when iTunes launched, I think you will find your first example of how this can happen.
The Beatles' Music company (Apple Corp., not Apple music inc.) didn't lose (at trial) based on the trademark itself, they lost based on the specific terms of the settlement agreement of the earlier suit, in which Apple Computer (now Apple, Inc.) was granted specific rights to use and control the use of the Apple Computer trademarks in the area of music-as-content on "goods and services... (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content... (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music)."
So its not really an example of the phenomenon at issue.
To be fair, if someone cares enough about time accuracy to understand why that's a dumb idea, they should probably be using a GPS receiver instead of a PC.
In the world I live in, LG and Samsung do continue to make a profit on the devices they make, including those in the Nexus line. Google doesn't make a direct profit reselling the Google-branded LG, Samsung, Acer, etc., products it sells under the Nexus brand, which is what Google selling them at cost means, but Google profits from use of the Google services that are bundled with Android -- both on the Nexus-branded devices and on the other Android devices.
And to be fair, based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post, I can understand their reluctance at putting it on their home page, since it could substantially alter how the page balances visually on a full screen browser.
If sanctions didn't impact things that the sanctioned party cared about, they wouldn't be sanctions.
Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior.
The actual finding is about "social cognition, i.e., reasoning about the mental states of other persons" inhibiting "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects." "Emotionally driven behavior" is not at issue in the research.
Social cognition will lead to better outcomes if the problem you are addressing is largely related to the mental states of other persons. Physical cognition will lead to better outcomes if the problem you are addressing is largely related to the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects.
Analytic thought is usually the simplistic attempt to measure who is tough and "able".
Not in any sense relevant to TFA. What the informal popular media article linked in TFS characterizes as "analytical thought" is actually (from the abstract of the actual research paper linked in TFS) "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects." Which might be a reasonable use of the term "analytical thought", but certainly has nothing to do with "the simplistic attempt to measure who is tough and 'able'."
Actually, it does do a fair job of explaining why most voters seem to eschew reason in their decisions, as well as why it's so easy for politicians to distract from real issues that need analytical thought applied, by appealing to voter emotions.
Actually, it doesn't, since its about "social cognition" not "emotions"; while there may be other research findings about emoting inhibiting analytical thought, this research is about social cognition ("reasoning about the mental states of other persons") inhibiting analytical thought (or, rather, inhibiting "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects.").
A well-designed piece of software shouldn't need a Save button.
Well, probably not to persist changes. Might be worth having to commit the current state of the document as a complete "version" (if you don't need multi-version persistent history, the "saved" version instead of the "in progress" version which is persisted continuously.) Good software design doesn't suddenly make all the work that should be committed transactionally actually happen at the same time.
That explains the thought process of Liberals vs Conservatives.
Well, except that it doesn't.
Liberals think more with feeling and emotion, less with logic.
Conservatives think more with logic and reason, and less with empathy.
If it were as you suggest, emotional, non-rational appeals to tradition, religious values, nationalism, etc., would be particularly ineffective in motivating conservatives. In the real world, both groups are diverse and include both more-analytical and and more-emotional thinkers.
There are plenty of studies showing indications of various cognitive differences between conservatives and liberals, but the particular one you suggest isn't one of them.
When is the EU going to go after Apple for some of these same things?
Presumably when Apple first has a monopoly in some market, and then illegally leverages that monopoly to gain power in an existing, separate market, and then makes a settlement agreement like Microsoft made to resolve the anti-trust charges over that leveraging, and then violates that agreement the way Microsoft did that is at issue here.
Pundits are already predicting the end of Microsoft as a dominant player in the industry (which *is* a bit of an exaggeration, so far at least), yet they are still forced to adhere to an almost 10-year old anti-trust decision (an eternity in the industry).
Its not a decision, its an agreement they entered into to avoid a trial and a resulting decision. Its quite possible that an actual decision, rather than a negotiated settlement, would have involved greater up-front cost but less in terms of long-term, ongoing restrictions. Microsoft made a choice that they'd rather have what they are now subject to than take the risk of the kind of fines and other up-front consequences at risk in a trial. That may or may not have been a bad decision in retrospect, but it was Microsoft's decision.
Look at the whole French Newspaper/Google debacle that's going on right now. It's a direct symptom of socialism.
Participants in industry lobbying for strong copyright protection is a direct symptom of socialism now? I suppose that might be the case -- is some land of up-is-down, wet-is-dry, and day-is-night.
That's what you get when everyone is entitled to a cut of everyone else's work.
Well, its more what you get when copyright holders (not everyone) is entitled to a cut of any work that leverages the material on which they hold the copyright (not "everyone else's work" with no qualification), or, what you get with unbridled, strong-property-rights capitalism.
Some aspects of the French economy may reflect the fact that, overall, the French mixed economy features more influence from socialism than the mixed economy in, for example, the U.S., but the particular copyright issue between French Newspapers and Google isn't one of them.
You'd probably have a better case that the "fair use" limitation on private property rights in copyrights in U.S. law (the reason there isn't a similar big issue in the U.S. as there is a France and other parts of Europe) is a direct symptom of socialism and, particularly, the idea that "everyone is entitled to a cut of everyone else's work".
The law could require Apple or Google to delist any app that doesn't accommodate their laws, but a developer in Kazakhstan or Nevada has no presence in California.
Unless, as is the case of many out-of-state HQ'd operations, they do. United Airlines and Delta Airlines are examples (and, unlike abstract hypotheticals, are actual recipients of non-compliance notices in this case.)
I'm not so sure about that. Maybe I'm reading the wrong thing (someone please correct me if you have a better reference) but I don't see anything in here which suggests a client application which interoperates with an online service is an online service
The app is just the mechanism by which a consumer "visits" the online service, which is the point at which the cited law requires the operator of the online service to make the privacy policy available.
or that a client application which downloads other clients, is somehow governed by this law to display those other applications' policies in addition to its own.
If you are referring to the App Store as the "client application which downloads other clients", that's not mandatory under the law, but it is the subject of an agreement between the AG and many app store operators (the original agreement is announced here, and Facebook joining the agreement is announced here; its also a mechanism by which the operator of the online service accessed through the mobile act could mean the "reasonably accessible means" requirement of the law without actually including the privacy policy within the application itself.
It is a law which I do not see any way for them to constitutionally enforce on developers who operate out of another state (let alone another country).
The firms whose apps have been mentioned as recipients of non-compliance notices (e.g., United Airlines, Delta Airlines, and OpenTable) all have significant operations in California besides the mere presence of their mobile app (and OpenTable is headquartered in San Francisco.) So...what's your point?
Well he need to earn a pay check somehow. I mean seriously, this is a patent-troll lawyer wannabe. He doesn't give a shit about privacy, he just want's to have a new car and a boat.
Kamala Harris, the Attorney-General of California, is not a "he" (strike one), is not any kind of "lawyer wannabe" (strike two), and doesn't get any more money for doing this than she would get as Attorney-General not doing it (strike three).
expect app developers from other states to comply with the laws of California?
All of the specific businesses I've seen mentioned as recipients of these notices are businesses that do businesses in California in a fairly substantial way besides having their relevant online service available in California (e.g., major US airlines.)
Instead of attaching a sample compliance letter, why didn't the AG attach a sample privacy policy and open source it so that developers can use it?
Pasting in a generic document is much more likely to happen than all those app developers running out and hiring lawyers, so she will either get lower compliance or shoddier privacy policies.
Because the privacy policy has to describe what personally identifying information (PII) the online service actually collects and what the online service operator actually does with the PII, so a "generic document" that got pasted in wouldn't provide any value. (In fact, operators of an existing service pasting in a generic document would just move the violation from not posting a privacy policy to not following the posted privacy policy, except in the extraordinarily unlikely event that the PII the app collected and the manner in which it was used exactly matched what was in the generic document.)
Is it too much to ask that government take the lead in this case?
Yes, it is unreasonable to ask the government to write up the description of what PII online services collect and what they do with that PII.
I can't imagine it costs the AG anything, since that office hires a staff of lawyers.
It wouldn't hurt to have a lawyer review the language of the privacy policy once it was written up by someone who knew the relevant facts about the service, but being a lawyer doesn't make you magically know what information services collect and how they use it. Further, the staff of lawyers that work for the California Department of Justice already have work to do, so giving them additional work would have a cost as it would either:
1) Require hiring more lawyers, or
2) Require losing the value of the existing work they are doing.
Not sure, but I guess that the reason is that you have a special chapter in your lawbooks regarding mobile phones, and a separate one regarding the internet?
You could guess that, or you could RTFA -- or even RTFS -- and see that the law applies to all "online services", and the mobile apps that have been the subject of the recent round of notifications were singled out not because they were "mobile apps", but because they were online services within the meaning of the law and weren't following the rules applicable to online services.
Slashdot Mirror
The US election system isn't sent entirely (or even mostly) by the Constitution, as many of the key details are set in statute and regulation. So, even if we assume that the problem is that the election system is broken, you need to make a much more specific argument about how it is broken and what structure should replace it to support the contention that it is broken in a manner which requires a Constitutional fix rather than a less-drastic remedy.
Yeah, Amazon is playing a long game (much like Google) and actually getting more of a pass on lack of profits from Wall Street investors than Google, so Amazon is by far the bigger threat, even if in some of the spaces all three companies compete in Apple has more obvious current muscle.
Cost + profit, and including hardware features (and additional non-Google, proprietary software) that the N7 doesn't have. Price isn't the only axis of differentiation, after all.
Because the thing that costs more has features the N7 doesn't have that consumers want.
When the Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 came out, the Nexus 7 wasn't an option. GT2 7.0 has a number of hardware advantages over the Nexus 7 (rear facing camera with higher resolution than the N7s front-facing camera, reportedly better WiFi, a cellular radio (which the original $199 N7 released shortly after the GT2 7.0 didn't have, although I think with the new refresh there is a $199 version with cellular data, but in the tablet marketplace you're not going to be the hottest new thing for very long), etc. Is it worth $150 more? For people for whom the advantages are important, it probably was. Of course, now, Samsung is making a profit building Nexus 10's -- sure, Google is selling them cheaper than Samsung would, but Google's actually bearing the cost of marketing and selling them.
Except that that's not what the OP said, what OP said was that the design put the common keys away from the middle to reduce jamming by slowing down typists. What the reference says is that QWERTY was designed to move keys commonly used keys farther away from each other to reduce jamming by reducing the probability that a typist at any given speed would hit nearby keys in close enough suggestion for their arms to jam.
ObCarAnalogy: The OP's claim is wrong in the same way that it would be wrong to claim that some race cars include negative lift wings to slow down drivers because driving too fast causes cars to lose traction; it correctly identifies the problem that modification addresses, but incorrectly casts the modification as interfering with the operator's goal to solve the problem rather than addressing the effect which causes pursuit of the operator's goal to trigger the problem.
True.
False, they didn't lose. The case was settled. As you allude to in the next sentence. Settling a case means that no one has "won" or "lost", because it was never decided.
That's a popular characterization of the agreement, though the actual details were (as is usually the case with legal agreements) considerably more complicated.
The Beatles' Music company (Apple Corp., not Apple music inc.) didn't lose (at trial) based on the trademark itself, they lost based on the specific terms of the settlement agreement of the earlier suit, in which Apple Computer (now Apple, Inc.) was granted specific rights to use and control the use of the Apple Computer trademarks in the area of music-as-content on "goods and services ... (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content ... (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music)."
So its not really an example of the phenomenon at issue.
Or using both GPS and atomic clocks.
In the world I live in, LG and Samsung do continue to make a profit on the devices they make, including those in the Nexus line. Google doesn't make a direct profit reselling the Google-branded LG, Samsung, Acer, etc., products it sells under the Nexus brand, which is what Google selling them at cost means, but Google profits from use of the Google services that are bundled with Android -- both on the Nexus-branded devices and on the other Android devices.
If sanctions didn't impact things that the sanctioned party cared about, they wouldn't be sanctions.
The actual finding is about "social cognition, i.e., reasoning about the mental states of other persons" inhibiting "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects." "Emotionally driven behavior" is not at issue in the research.
Social cognition will lead to better outcomes if the problem you are addressing is largely related to the mental states of other persons. Physical cognition will lead to better outcomes if the problem you are addressing is largely related to the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects.
Not in any sense relevant to TFA. What the informal popular media article linked in TFS characterizes as "analytical thought" is actually (from the abstract of the actual research paper linked in TFS) "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects." Which might be a reasonable use of the term "analytical thought", but certainly has nothing to do with "the simplistic attempt to measure who is tough and 'able'."
Actually, it doesn't, since its about "social cognition" not "emotions"; while there may be other research findings about emoting inhibiting analytical thought, this research is about social cognition ("reasoning about the mental states of other persons") inhibiting analytical thought (or, rather, inhibiting "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects.").
Well, probably not to persist changes. Might be worth having to commit the current state of the document as a complete "version" (if you don't need multi-version persistent history, the "saved" version instead of the "in progress" version which is persisted continuously.) Good software design doesn't suddenly make all the work that should be committed transactionally actually happen at the same time.
Well, except that it doesn't.
If it were as you suggest, emotional, non-rational appeals to tradition, religious values, nationalism, etc., would be particularly ineffective in motivating conservatives. In the real world, both groups are diverse and include both more-analytical and and more-emotional thinkers. There are plenty of studies showing indications of various cognitive differences between conservatives and liberals, but the particular one you suggest isn't one of them.
Presumably when Apple first has a monopoly in some market, and then illegally leverages that monopoly to gain power in an existing, separate market, and then makes a settlement agreement like Microsoft made to resolve the anti-trust charges over that leveraging, and then violates that agreement the way Microsoft did that is at issue here.
Because this is what Microsoft agreed to.
Its not a decision, its an agreement they entered into to avoid a trial and a resulting decision. Its quite possible that an actual decision, rather than a negotiated settlement, would have involved greater up-front cost but less in terms of long-term, ongoing restrictions. Microsoft made a choice that they'd rather have what they are now subject to than take the risk of the kind of fines and other up-front consequences at risk in a trial. That may or may not have been a bad decision in retrospect, but it was Microsoft's decision.
Participants in industry lobbying for strong copyright protection is a direct symptom of socialism now? I suppose that might be the case -- is some land of up-is-down, wet-is-dry, and day-is-night.
Well, its more what you get when copyright holders (not everyone) is entitled to a cut of any work that leverages the material on which they hold the copyright (not "everyone else's work" with no qualification), or, what you get with unbridled, strong-property-rights capitalism. Some aspects of the French economy may reflect the fact that, overall, the French mixed economy features more influence from socialism than the mixed economy in, for example, the U.S., but the particular copyright issue between French Newspapers and Google isn't one of them. You'd probably have a better case that the "fair use" limitation on private property rights in copyrights in U.S. law (the reason there isn't a similar big issue in the U.S. as there is a France and other parts of Europe) is a direct symptom of socialism and, particularly, the idea that "everyone is entitled to a cut of everyone else's work".
Unless, as is the case of many out-of-state HQ'd operations, they do. United Airlines and Delta Airlines are examples (and, unlike abstract hypotheticals, are actual recipients of non-compliance notices in this case.)
The app is just the mechanism by which a consumer "visits" the online service, which is the point at which the cited law requires the operator of the online service to make the privacy policy available.
If you are referring to the App Store as the "client application which downloads other clients", that's not mandatory under the law, but it is the subject of an agreement between the AG and many app store operators (the original agreement is announced here, and Facebook joining the agreement is announced here; its also a mechanism by which the operator of the online service accessed through the mobile act could mean the "reasonably accessible means" requirement of the law without actually including the privacy policy within the application itself.
The firms whose apps have been mentioned as recipients of non-compliance notices (e.g., United Airlines, Delta Airlines, and OpenTable) all have significant operations in California besides the mere presence of their mobile app (and OpenTable is headquartered in San Francisco.) So...what's your point?
Kamala Harris, the Attorney-General of California, is not a "he" (strike one), is not any kind of "lawyer wannabe" (strike two), and doesn't get any more money for doing this than she would get as Attorney-General not doing it (strike three).
Kamala Harris is not a guy.
All of the specific businesses I've seen mentioned as recipients of these notices are businesses that do businesses in California in a fairly substantial way besides having their relevant online service available in California (e.g., major US airlines.)
Because the privacy policy has to describe what personally identifying information (PII) the online service actually collects and what the online service operator actually does with the PII, so a "generic document" that got pasted in wouldn't provide any value. (In fact, operators of an existing service pasting in a generic document would just move the violation from not posting a privacy policy to not following the posted privacy policy, except in the extraordinarily unlikely event that the PII the app collected and the manner in which it was used exactly matched what was in the generic document.)
Yes, it is unreasonable to ask the government to write up the description of what PII online services collect and what they do with that PII.
It wouldn't hurt to have a lawyer review the language of the privacy policy once it was written up by someone who knew the relevant facts about the service, but being a lawyer doesn't make you magically know what information services collect and how they use it. Further, the staff of lawyers that work for the California Department of Justice already have work to do, so giving them additional work would have a cost as it would either: 1) Require hiring more lawyers, or 2) Require losing the value of the existing work they are doing.
You could guess that, or you could RTFA -- or even RTFS -- and see that the law applies to all "online services", and the mobile apps that have been the subject of the recent round of notifications were singled out not because they were "mobile apps", but because they were online services within the meaning of the law and weren't following the rules applicable to online services.
They aren't. The law, as explained in TFS, applies to all "online services".