It is almost as if Apple cell phones are not fungible, and Apple controls a monopoly on them!
Totally legal, that; a natural monopoly caused by market preferences.
If the whiners were smarter, they'd complain about that side. I mean, it is still a failing argument, but at least it is less stupid than "Amazon has a monopoly on used electronics. x.X"
It may be that very very few people choose Apple products, restrict their purchases to the single largest online Brandybrand(TM) store... and also are in the market for third party refurbished products.
I'm sure there is such a mouse, and I'm sure he's stirring ferociously, but it isn't going to be a typical sort of combination of purchasing habits.
RICO doesn't apply anywhere you come up with a theory that says a company had to have done some detail unlawfully.
RICO applies to where the underlying basis for the business is unlawful; for example, if your whole business is giving out loans, and you're not registered as some kind of financial institution, and you're not reselling loans given out by a financial institution, then the underlying basis of your business is unlawful; "loan sharking" in that case. So that would be a potential RICO situation. Or another example, if your business consists primarily of offering gambling services that are illegal, then you're a "bookie" and there is a potential RICO situation.
Now, lets say you're a internet reseller of used goods, and it turns out you're knowingly buying stolen goods and selling them. Generally that will not be RICO, because the business of selling used goods is a legit business. Even if you're only making a profit on the stolen items, and losing money on the legal items, it still isn't RICO.
Or consider a laundry mat that is used to launder money. Is there really a laundry mat? If the business exists, it probably isn't RICO, merely run-of-the-mill money laundering. If the laundry mat doesn't actually exist though, it is just a lie on paper, now we're getting into potential RICO territory.
The "cheat sheet" answer though is always: "It is never RICO." People shout RICO because they're upset at a real company; by definition it isn't RICO in those cases.
Why are you choosing the category "online sales" and not "sales," or "cell phone sales," or "online cell phone sales," or "online used cell phone sales?"
If you're not even willing to be honest about which words are relevant, how are you ever going to manage to mount your high horse?
Here, you're arguing with anybody else who is also against monopolies, because you want to defend hyperbole instead of exchanging opinions.
This is a website for nerds. Nerds do care if what you say is actually true, not just if it sounded like you had Virtuous Feefees.
When a person claims that they usually start at Amazon when looking for used goods, it is implied that they do not normally even buy used goods, and when they thought about it, they actually bought something new instead.
The only used market that Amazon has a major presence in is books.
The word you were looking for was "strategic partnership."
A cartel is a horizontal partnership designed to fix prices or prevent access horizontally. Amazon is not a cell phone manufacturer, and this relationship doesn't change the prices of cell phones. It also doesn't prevent access by other cell phone manufacturers. So it isn't close to a cartel.
A strategic partnership can be horizontal or vertical. Here, it is vertical; it is between the supplier of a good, and a retailer. While horizontal partnerships have to tread carefully around anti-trust law, vertical partnerships have very little exposure to that; they only have exposure when a monopoly is used to force some action that harms consumers by raising prices. Amazon is not a monopoly of any market, they're only a market leader; and here they're not using their position to force Apple to do anything. It is the opposite; Apple is such a big presence in the cell phone market that they finally were able to get Amazon to do what they wanted!
As long as the cell phone carriers are all selling phones directly to customers, and most cell phones are being sold that way, claiming some sort of "monopoly" by a retailer would get laughed out of court.
Anti-trust doesn't ban strategic partnerships, it mostly only bans price fixing; and even then only if it harms consumers.
Exclusive deals like this require a monopoly to be problematic, but it also would require use of the monopoly to force the deal; if Amazon had a monopoly on cell phone sales, and they used that monopoly to force Apple to do something that restricted access or raised prices, then that would be an anti-trust violation.
But Amazon doesn't have anything close to a monopoly on cell phone sales, and Apple is the one who wanted the deal! So it is not even close to problematic; no gray areas are even involved.
And anyways, if the refurbs move to ebay, the prices won't likely change. Without a price increase, consumers were not harmed.
In the article it mentions their definition of life includes "must be able to evolve". But is that true, and do we really want this synthetic 'life' to evolve? If we can keep it from changing, then we run less risk of releasing something into the wild that's potentially dangerous.
It isn't actually meaningful to the risk. They have to define "life" that way to exclude fire.
Defining life is an area of complete failure in the sciences.
Nanotech means technology that is reasonably measured in nanometers. For example, when you see things like "7nm process" or "10 nm process," that is the nanotech that you were hearing about in the past. At that time, the processes were larger; micro-scale.
You can not. If the cell reproduces via any form of DNA replication/duplication, then there is no possible way that it could not evolve.
This is 100% false. We as humans would be filled with messed up copies of our DNA if
Your fallacy is that you added a false dichotomy between what we are, and what is "messed up." We are the messed up copies of what we were in the past. That's why it looks "100% false" to you; it contradicts your value judgement. But it is a neutral statement without values; nature has no preference.
Pointing at two women and giving partial quotes with selective added emphasis that take their words out of context and make them sound like something different, that does indeed underline that you're an asshole, and you're trolling.
We owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there is some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn’t be our original purpose
What kind of dumb fuck is against politicians caring about the American people's financial security, dignity, and worth? You're hating on Nancy Pelosi for saying, basically, that if you're against American values it is OK if you don't get what you want. And you're against Maxine Waters for advocating that Americans petition their government for redress of grievances more often! Pathetic.
Except, that isn't true; the wood products industry in Canada grew as the industry shrank in the US, and it remains a major industry up there.
You can't change that by trying to find small anecdotes.
We're not cutting less trees, so it is silly to think it has to do with resource access; instead those trees get exported instead of processed locally, because the US market is flooded with Canadian products that are made in mills that are subsidized by your government. It is not rational to claim market reasons for why the industry in strong and healthy in Canada, when it is subsidized as a strategic industry.
Nothing is going to change those facts, including even minor anecdotes, or misleading claims about our ability to produce output. We have higher worker productivity, and we're selling to the same market, so it is obviously nonsense.
You don't consider, maybe that anti-American stuff you saw on the TV about the softwood market was political propaganda? Even just basic knowledge about the current state of the industry in both places refutes most of what you're saying, and yet, for some reason what you're saying lines up exactly with the Canadian political positions. Hmmmmm.....
You think I can't read, because I knew that it is logical fallacy to worry about who spoke an idea, when measuring its truth? That just makes you an idiot, shanen.
My reputation, by the way, is not relevant to that. Obviously.
The funny part is that, while you know you disagree with me about something, you're not really sure what it is. And your reading comprehension isn't even good enough for you to realize that your blind stab at insulting me was done utilizing the exact same logical fallacy that you didn't notice me pointing out! lololol And it was the whole thing I said! How hard can it be to comprehend one fucking idea that has been well-considered for thousands of years? You simply disagree with all of science and philosophy, and don't even notice it. That tells me you are aliterate; you know how to read, but you choose not to.
You didn't even imagine the possibility: What if my words aren't designed to earn a pat on the head, but are actually what I really think? You're an academic, it may simply be that you're incapable of imagining that intellectual honesty is possible!
You can bet however you like, nobody cares, and few think it a useful action to take.
You introduced the word "terminated," but no, nothing was terminated. If you went away, good for you, but even so: Perhaps my words were never specially designed for you personally, but were instead part of a public discussion; something well outside your powers to terminate. What a cluestick. But even an idiot like you, if you repeated a true idea, it would still be true, and in fact not even tarnished. If a stopped clock is sometimes correct, in those moments, it is correct. The idea is not the man, and the man is not the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to multiply by volume, and account for the level of demand.
I have never found a single redeeming feature in an Apple product
Apple ProDOS had a feature where you could hit a keyboard combo and drop into an ASM REPL for debugging.
You don't even need debugging symbols when you have that! Or you don't get to have them. Something like that. But it was pretty freakin' awesome.
It is almost as if Apple cell phones are not fungible, and Apple controls a monopoly on them!
Totally legal, that; a natural monopoly caused by market preferences.
If the whiners were smarter, they'd complain about that side. I mean, it is still a failing argument, but at least it is less stupid than "Amazon has a monopoly on used electronics. x.X"
Too many Slashdotters have a really skewed notion of what "Free Trade" means. Not to mention "Democracy".
Buttbuttbutt they TUK eR JERBS! er JERBS! Whatabutt r FREEZE PEACH they tuk er FREEZE PEACH!
Haven't you figured out by now; it is aliterate. It can read, but it won't.
What makes you think it could take a class, and learn something?
It may be that very very few people choose Apple products, restrict their purchases to the single largest online Brandybrand(TM) store... and also are in the market for third party refurbished products.
I'm sure there is such a mouse, and I'm sure he's stirring ferociously, but it isn't going to be a typical sort of combination of purchasing habits.
I don't think the concept of "partially illegal" would survive both the 10th and 14th Amendments.
RICO doesn't apply anywhere you come up with a theory that says a company had to have done some detail unlawfully.
RICO applies to where the underlying basis for the business is unlawful; for example, if your whole business is giving out loans, and you're not registered as some kind of financial institution, and you're not reselling loans given out by a financial institution, then the underlying basis of your business is unlawful; "loan sharking" in that case. So that would be a potential RICO situation. Or another example, if your business consists primarily of offering gambling services that are illegal, then you're a "bookie" and there is a potential RICO situation.
Now, lets say you're a internet reseller of used goods, and it turns out you're knowingly buying stolen goods and selling them. Generally that will not be RICO, because the business of selling used goods is a legit business. Even if you're only making a profit on the stolen items, and losing money on the legal items, it still isn't RICO.
Or consider a laundry mat that is used to launder money. Is there really a laundry mat? If the business exists, it probably isn't RICO, merely run-of-the-mill money laundering. If the laundry mat doesn't actually exist though, it is just a lie on paper, now we're getting into potential RICO territory.
The "cheat sheet" answer though is always: "It is never RICO." People shout RICO because they're upset at a real company; by definition it isn't RICO in those cases.
Why are you choosing the category "online sales" and not "sales," or "cell phone sales," or "online cell phone sales," or "online used cell phone sales?"
If you're not even willing to be honest about which words are relevant, how are you ever going to manage to mount your high horse?
Here, you're arguing with anybody else who is also against monopolies, because you want to defend hyperbole instead of exchanging opinions.
This is a website for nerds. Nerds do care if what you say is actually true, not just if it sounded like you had Virtuous Feefees.
When a person claims that they usually start at Amazon when looking for used goods, it is implied that they do not normally even buy used goods, and when they thought about it, they actually bought something new instead.
The only used market that Amazon has a major presence in is books.
called a cartel.
The word you were looking for was "strategic partnership."
A cartel is a horizontal partnership designed to fix prices or prevent access horizontally. Amazon is not a cell phone manufacturer, and this relationship doesn't change the prices of cell phones. It also doesn't prevent access by other cell phone manufacturers. So it isn't close to a cartel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A strategic partnership can be horizontal or vertical. Here, it is vertical; it is between the supplier of a good, and a retailer. While horizontal partnerships have to tread carefully around anti-trust law, vertical partnerships have very little exposure to that; they only have exposure when a monopoly is used to force some action that harms consumers by raising prices. Amazon is not a monopoly of any market, they're only a market leader; and here they're not using their position to force Apple to do anything. It is the opposite; Apple is such a big presence in the cell phone market that they finally were able to get Amazon to do what they wanted!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As long as the cell phone carriers are all selling phones directly to customers, and most cell phones are being sold that way, claiming some sort of "monopoly" by a retailer would get laughed out of court.
Anti-trust doesn't ban strategic partnerships, it mostly only bans price fixing; and even then only if it harms consumers.
Exclusive deals like this require a monopoly to be problematic, but it also would require use of the monopoly to force the deal; if Amazon had a monopoly on cell phone sales, and they used that monopoly to force Apple to do something that restricted access or raised prices, then that would be an anti-trust violation.
But Amazon doesn't have anything close to a monopoly on cell phone sales, and Apple is the one who wanted the deal! So it is not even close to problematic; no gray areas are even involved.
And anyways, if the refurbs move to ebay, the prices won't likely change. Without a price increase, consumers were not harmed.
In the article it mentions their definition of life includes "must be able to evolve". But is that true, and do we really want this synthetic 'life' to evolve? If we can keep it from changing, then we run less risk of releasing something into the wild that's potentially dangerous.
It isn't actually meaningful to the risk. They have to define "life" that way to exclude fire.
Defining life is an area of complete failure in the sciences.
Nanotech means technology that is reasonably measured in nanometers. For example, when you see things like "7nm process" or "10 nm process," that is the nanotech that you were hearing about in the past. At that time, the processes were larger; micro-scale.
Quantum computing is also a real thing.
If we can keep it from changing,
You can not.
If the cell reproduces via any form of DNA replication/duplication, then there is no possible way that it could not evolve.
This is 100% false. We as humans would be filled with messed up copies of our DNA if
Your fallacy is that you added a false dichotomy between what we are, and what is "messed up." We are the messed up copies of what we were in the past. That's why it looks "100% false" to you; it contradicts your value judgement. But it is a neutral statement without values; nature has no preference.
Yep. Really.
Pointing at two women and giving partial quotes with selective added emphasis that take their words out of context and make them sound like something different, that does indeed underline that you're an asshole, and you're trolling.
We owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there is some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn’t be our original purpose
What kind of dumb fuck is against politicians caring about the American people's financial security, dignity, and worth? You're hating on Nancy Pelosi for saying, basically, that if you're against American values it is OK if you don't get what you want. And you're against Maxine Waters for advocating that Americans petition their government for redress of grievances more often! Pathetic.
I'm hoping this is going to be like a personal dome; a stylish gas mask with active filtering!
Welcome to the Future.
Maybe they already do?
Just like, maybe all those companies making "hand massagers" already do. ;)
Use quotes. Which words in the summary do you believe say that?
Except, that isn't true; the wood products industry in Canada grew as the industry shrank in the US, and it remains a major industry up there.
You can't change that by trying to find small anecdotes.
We're not cutting less trees, so it is silly to think it has to do with resource access; instead those trees get exported instead of processed locally, because the US market is flooded with Canadian products that are made in mills that are subsidized by your government. It is not rational to claim market reasons for why the industry in strong and healthy in Canada, when it is subsidized as a strategic industry.
Nothing is going to change those facts, including even minor anecdotes, or misleading claims about our ability to produce output. We have higher worker productivity, and we're selling to the same market, so it is obviously nonsense.
You don't consider, maybe that anti-American stuff you saw on the TV about the softwood market was political propaganda? Even just basic knowledge about the current state of the industry in both places refutes most of what you're saying, and yet, for some reason what you're saying lines up exactly with the Canadian political positions. Hmmmmm.....
You think I can't read, because I knew that it is logical fallacy to worry about who spoke an idea, when measuring its truth? That just makes you an idiot, shanen.
My reputation, by the way, is not relevant to that. Obviously.
The funny part is that, while you know you disagree with me about something, you're not really sure what it is. And your reading comprehension isn't even good enough for you to realize that your blind stab at insulting me was done utilizing the exact same logical fallacy that you didn't notice me pointing out! lololol And it was the whole thing I said! How hard can it be to comprehend one fucking idea that has been well-considered for thousands of years? You simply disagree with all of science and philosophy, and don't even notice it. That tells me you are aliterate; you know how to read, but you choose not to.
You didn't even imagine the possibility: What if my words aren't designed to earn a pat on the head, but are actually what I really think? You're an academic, it may simply be that you're incapable of imagining that intellectual honesty is possible!
You can bet however you like, nobody cares, and few think it a useful action to take.
You introduced the word "terminated," but no, nothing was terminated. If you went away, good for you, but even so: Perhaps my words were never specially designed for you personally, but were instead part of a public discussion; something well outside your powers to terminate. What a cluestick. But even an idiot like you, if you repeated a true idea, it would still be true, and in fact not even tarnished. If a stopped clock is sometimes correct, in those moments, it is correct. The idea is not the man, and the man is not the idea.
It seems like it might just be that adding the vesticles pollutes the petri dish environment in a harmful way.
I'd like to see this where a control was given different vesticles, instead of only controlling for "added" vs "not added."
There you go, that's more like it! Welcome to slashdot!
I tried to come up with one that put more emphasis on Chicago, the mythical place of Evil where Democrats are spawned, but I came up empty.
Go to a farm and ask them, dummy.
Farmers literally talk about this shit all the time.
I'm not presenting you with ideas or theories.