They should just make it so the button adds the item to your cart and then e-mails you x hours later as a reminder to check out. Then you can see what the item you're ordering is and the price before actually ordering it, but you still have the convenience of pushing the button so you don't forget that you needed to restock that item.
Or even easier, push the button, it puts the item in your cart and sends a push notification to your phone, which is probably in your hand already, or at worst in your pocket, asking you to approve the purchase with the price and item shown.
So are you saying that a cookie on a customer's hard drive will give state police jurisdiction in another state? Or will the police serve papers to that cookie and expect that it will be directed appropriately to the company?
How exactly does the state enforce its sales tax laws on out-of-state companies? If a company with no physical presence in the state decides to ignore the law and refuses to collect and remit sales tax to the state, how does that state do anything about it? They have no jurisdiction to go and arrest anyone at the company as they are outside of their state. I suppose they could sue them but the company has no presence in the state and therefore nothing the state can hold over them. I wouldn't imagine that they could use the federal government to arrest them as there is no federal law that they are breaking. So what do they do? Is this now a ruling and subsequent state law with no teeth? Is there a word for laws that are universally ignored thus nullifying them?
Ok, so back to my original argument. What is so problematic with offering "full access" at the same current prices, and "a la carte" separately? It's basically what people want for cable anyway, and as long as there's always a full access option that is held similar to current prices, would it be a problem to offer reduced access for reduced price as long as it doesn't affect full access pricing? Or is the assumption that it would eventually affect full access pricing, or even full access as an available option (which I fully agree would eventually happen and don't trust telcos to not eventually go there).
Yes, because what is different between a vast number of broadcasters digitally transmitting their content across a set of tubes as compared to a vast number of web sites digitally transmitting their content across a set of tubes? Why is combining similar cable channels (ie. sports packages, foreign language packages, etc.) into a package any different than combining similar websites?
Ok, but how is that much different than a cable company deciding what channels to carry? Not all companies carry all channels or networks. Or why is it not a big deal that cable companies charge you more for access to HBO, Showtime, certain sports packages, etc. Is it only because cable packages have been around longer and are accepted? What makes it fundamentally different?
Just as a thought experiment, say full access to the entire internet was a similar price to what we currently pay, and the option for "a la carte" exists, where you can save some money by cutting out or only subscribing to the "content groups" you're interested in. I realize that this could open the door for raising prices more easily, but if they always offer the "full access" package it at least gives you an anchored price to base off of.
Ultimately, is that any different than an "a la carte" cable package? Maybe what I'm missing is an explanation of why the internet would be fundamentally different than cable tv as a platform, which I'm sure it is, but can't think of a solid explanation as to why.
Believe me, I'm all for net neutrality, but just playing devil's (read: cable's) advocate.
Define "The Rich" and explain how you intend to guarantee that when that new money is no longer enough that the definition of "The Rich" doesn't suddenly creep to start including "The Not Quite So Rich, but Still More Money Than Me So It's OK".
Rerunning it this way Trump still wins, 270-257-11 (Trump-Clinton-Johnson), but it's closer than the 304-227 result that actually happened. Seems like potentially the fairest way to give all voters an equal say within their state, rather than being overshadowed for not being a member of the same party as the majority.
The whole point though is that each electorate (state) is different and has their own rights and powers as part of the nation. One of those is choosing how it throws its electoral votes into the hat for selection of the President. Each is allowed to choose any method they like, and most have chosen winner-takes-all. If any particular state wants to change that, they are always welcome to. By no means should all states be required to follow any given system as that goes back to the original comment of electing a president of America, not the United States of America, which is a critical element.
Given that the original intent was for Senators to be selected by and represent the state and Representatives to be selected by and represent the people, and that each state's number of electoral votes is set by the number of Senators plus Representatives, how about this:
The number of electoral votes by Representatives are divided based on the popular vote
The number of electoral votes by Senators (2) are winner-take-all
That way the states themselves are represented equally and the people are fairly represented by popular vote. A quick look through the 2016 results, it looks like Trump still would've won, 262-252, and Johnson gets 7. Obviously this method would require a change in the number of required electoral votes to win since none would have received 270. This may not actually be correct though since some electoral votes get dropped due to rounding (ie. each candidate has .3 electoral votes, none round up to 1, so no one gets it). This would require some further rules other than simple percentage based. Maybe after multiplication, whoever has the highest fraction of the last vote gets it? (3.3, 4.4, 0.3, becomes 3, 5, 0)
I should add here that given that the FCC had already exposed the e-mail addresses of commenters, it's an even easier leap to make that more and more people would use disposable addresses for security reasons.
"We should ignore the vast majority of comments because the other side couldn't be bothered to say something?"
Actually, in certain cases, yes. When comments heavily lean in one direction, if it can be shown that all or nearly all of those comments come from a group with a commonality, and few if any comments came from an opposing side, it doesn't necessarily mean that the comments represent the population, or even a majority.
In other words, if 98% of comments came from 5% of a population, it doesn't mean that 98% of the population feels that way. To use the McSundae metaphor, if 98.5% of comments said "no peanuts", but those comments were all from people with a peanut allergy, representing (for example) 5% of the total population, that doesn't mean that the entire population is represented by those 5% necessarily (they may be, but not necessarily).
There are plenty of other cases that this can happen as well. I'm not saying it is the case here with NN, just responding to your initial argument.
Because it's an incredibly easy logical jump to make. MANY people, especially technically oriented people, use disposable/temp-mail e-mail addresses for things like this because of the reasons Toom mentioned (ie. avoiding having their e-mails scraped and added to a spam list).
Also note that Toom did not say "All of those temp-mail comments are real", but instead said "I don't think all of these can be dismissed outright" simply because they used temp-mail. Those two statements are not equal.
The police using loudspeakers should not be considered a disturbance because they were performing their duties in the enforcement of regulations.
Also, saying "There was noise, but most of it was produced by the police" is not necessarily clear. Were the protesters making a lot of noise, but the police were the only ones understandable because they were much louder with speakers, or were the protesters very quiet, and absent the police there would've been minimal noise. The former is them performing their job in an appropriate manner given the high level of noise by the protesters. The latter is potentially the same due to the size of the crowd, but also potentially overkill and unnecessary.
Is my interpretation the only reasonable way to read it? Not likely, but that's why I said **I would interpret**, and not **it means**. Interpretation is a large portion of the job of the judicial branch. Should the policies and legislation be written more clearly? I would argue yes in almost all cases. However, it is difficult to do that most of the time because it requires being far more specific in what cases it applies to, which then removes the judicial latitude to consider all factors. Writing laws explicitly tends to catch more people in the webs, where being more loose potentially allows bad apples to fall through. I would prefer to err on the side of letting a few guilty people go than punishing a few innocent people, especially in cases like these where there is no physical harm done.
substantially interferes with the protected free expression rights of others, including protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in and listen to...
to mean that if you are shouting down a speaker, that is infringing on someone else's right to listen to. Is it not? I would still see it as permitting peaceful protests outside the venue, again, as long as it does not impede or prevent attendees from reaching the venue (ie. blocking the entrances or walkways).
In my eyes, the key for First Amendment is that it doesn't prevent anyone from speaking their mind or protesting, but it also can't allow those people to prevent others from listening to others. A protester shouting down a speaker to the point that the speaker cannot be heard by the audience is violating that rule. Just like all other rights, you are only entitled to those rights to the extent that you are not infringing on the rights of another.
I guess I'm not clear on which this bill is trying to cover then. If it's to stop "shout downs" or protests outside the venue, then it's wrong. If it's to stop them inside, then I have no problem with it.
In general, from several comments above, it seems like some people have no problem with protesters being overly disruptive at an event as long as they agree with the protesters. I disagree with that and think that inside an event, whether public or private, you should have to be non-disruptive and respectful of the rights of others who may hold different opinions than yours and are interested in listening to the speaker.
Outside the event is a different story and you should be allowed to protest the event on public property. That said, I personally draw the line at preventing people from being able to get to the event (like happened at some campaign events last year where protesters blocked off roads and sidewalks preventing people from getting to an entrance for the event).
At what point does a "shout down" go from free speech to disruptive? Consider a case where a government representative (legislator, president/governor/mayor, etc.) is speaking to a crowd. It could be an executive signed a bill, legislators debating, holding a town hall, whatever. These are public events by current government officials (as opposed to something like campaigns or election debates, which are usually private and not subject to 1A coverage). Given that these are public and involve the government, does anyone believe that people in the crowd would be allowed to protest by shouting down the speakers without being removed and reprimanded? If not, then why is this any different than doing it at a public school gathering/event? If it's a private school, then all bets are off in my opinion since they are in control of who is allowed or not allowed to attend, both on stage and in the crowd, similar to a concert or sporting event. But public schools are government entities and public places and therefore subject to government powers/restrictions.
(untitled comment)
Or even easier, push the button, it puts the item in your cart and sends a push notification to your phone, which is probably in your hand already, or at worst in your pocket, asking you to approve the purchase with the price and item shown.
Re: Re: Enforcement
Enforcement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Re: Re:
(untitled comment)
Ultimately, is that any different than an "a la carte" cable package? Maybe what I'm missing is an explanation of why the internet would be fundamentally different than cable tv as a platform, which I'm sure it is, but can't think of a solid explanation as to why.
Believe me, I'm all for net neutrality, but just playing devil's (read: cable's) advocate.
Re: How exactly do you see a monopoly due to physical locale could ever be "competitive"?
Re: Re: The Great Compromise of 1787
Re: Re: Hate Trump = Change System
The whole point though is that each electorate (state) is different and has their own rights and powers as part of the nation. One of those is choosing how it throws its electoral votes into the hat for selection of the President. Each is allowed to choose any method they like, and most have chosen winner-takes-all. If any particular state wants to change that, they are always welcome to. By no means should all states be required to follow any given system as that goes back to the original comment of electing a president of America, not the United States of America, which is a critical element.
Re: The Great Compromise of 1787
Given that the original intent was for Senators to be selected by and represent the state and Representatives to be selected by and represent the people, and that each state's number of electoral votes is set by the number of Senators plus Representatives, how about this:
That way the states themselves are represented equally and the people are fairly represented by popular vote. A quick look through the 2016 results, it looks like Trump still would've won, 262-252, and Johnson gets 7. Obviously this method would require a change in the number of required electoral votes to win since none would have received 270. This may not actually be correct though since some electoral votes get dropped due to rounding (ie. each candidate has .3 electoral votes, none round up to 1, so no one gets it). This would require some further rules other than simple percentage based. Maybe after multiplication, whoever has the highest fraction of the last vote gets it? (3.3, 4.4, 0.3, becomes 3, 5, 0)
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Actually, in certain cases, yes. When comments heavily lean in one direction, if it can be shown that all or nearly all of those comments come from a group with a commonality, and few if any comments came from an opposing side, it doesn't necessarily mean that the comments represent the population, or even a majority.
In other words, if 98% of comments came from 5% of a population, it doesn't mean that 98% of the population feels that way. To use the McSundae metaphor, if 98.5% of comments said "no peanuts", but those comments were all from people with a peanut allergy, representing (for example) 5% of the total population, that doesn't mean that the entire population is represented by those 5% necessarily (they may be, but not necessarily).
There are plenty of other cases that this can happen as well. I'm not saying it is the case here with NN, just responding to your initial argument.
Re: Re:
Also note that Toom did not say "All of those temp-mail comments are real", but instead said "I don't think all of these can be dismissed outright" simply because they used temp-mail. Those two statements are not equal.
Re: Re: Re: Vagueness [was Re: Re: Re: ]
Also, saying "There was noise, but most of it was produced by the police" is not necessarily clear. Were the protesters making a lot of noise, but the police were the only ones understandable because they were much louder with speakers, or were the protesters very quiet, and absent the police there would've been minimal noise. The former is them performing their job in an appropriate manner given the high level of noise by the protesters. The latter is potentially the same due to the size of the crowd, but also potentially overkill and unnecessary.
Is my interpretation the only reasonable way to read it? Not likely, but that's why I said **I would interpret**, and not **it means**. Interpretation is a large portion of the job of the judicial branch. Should the policies and legislation be written more clearly? I would argue yes in almost all cases. However, it is difficult to do that most of the time because it requires being far more specific in what cases it applies to, which then removes the judicial latitude to consider all factors. Writing laws explicitly tends to catch more people in the webs, where being more loose potentially allows bad apples to fall through. I would prefer to err on the side of letting a few guilty people go than punishing a few innocent people, especially in cases like these where there is no physical harm done.
Re: Vagueness [was Re: Re: Re: ]
From that, I would interpret
substantially interferes with the protected free expression rights of others, including protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in and listen to...
to mean that if you are shouting down a speaker, that is infringing on someone else's right to listen to. Is it not? I would still see it as permitting peaceful protests outside the venue, again, as long as it does not impede or prevent attendees from reaching the venue (ie. blocking the entrances or walkways).
In my eyes, the key for First Amendment is that it doesn't prevent anyone from speaking their mind or protesting, but it also can't allow those people to prevent others from listening to others. A protester shouting down a speaker to the point that the speaker cannot be heard by the audience is violating that rule. Just like all other rights, you are only entitled to those rights to the extent that you are not infringing on the rights of another.
Re: Re:
In general, from several comments above, it seems like some people have no problem with protesters being overly disruptive at an event as long as they agree with the protesters. I disagree with that and think that inside an event, whether public or private, you should have to be non-disruptive and respectful of the rights of others who may hold different opinions than yours and are interested in listening to the speaker.
Outside the event is a different story and you should be allowed to protest the event on public property. That said, I personally draw the line at preventing people from being able to get to the event (like happened at some campaign events last year where protesters blocked off roads and sidewalks preventing people from getting to an entrance for the event).
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Re: Zillow = bad
Re: Re: Re:
More comments from compujas >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by compujas.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt