Android Army
Are you in the Android clan?
0 posts
FLASH DANCE!
The Verge
- 1 posts
- 704 comments
Forum Memberships
-
-
Apple Core
All things Apple
0 posts -
Betamaxed
Home theater and beyond
0 posts
arbeck77
On The Verge since Nov 02, 2011
-
Comment
I still enjoy Kraftwerk, and I saw them perform live not to long ago; but their music does sound quite dated. It’s very identifiable to the time it was produced. Their music is very important and influential, but I wouldn’t call it timeless.
-
Comment
I think the better option is to have assigned overhead bin slots and charge for them. That way you get efficiency, you stop the mad rush to find a bin, and the airline gets to charge some extra fees.
-
Comment
The rush to board early is usually a function of finding an overhead bin near your seat.
-
Comment
That’s not very efficient because some people will not bring a carry on that requires the bin and then you end up with open spots. When my wife and I travel, we tend to only use one overhead bin between the two of us.
-
Comment
Simple solution, add a fee for any carry on that has to go in the overhead bin. Allow people who pay that fee to board first. Limit the number of those sold so that the bins don’t overfill. Force the rest of the people to gate check.
The biggest problems I have with carry ons is people bringing bags that are just too big. They need to enforce the size and weight restrictions.
-
Comment
Or just not commit to having people on the show who don’t have stable connections.
-
Comment
I’m actually much more interested in what FIFA 14 is going to be like on the current consoles. It’s going to be out on those for months before it ships on the new consoles. And I’m probably not going to consider buying a next gen console until FIFA 15 is imminent.
-
Comment
I thought the jump from FIFA 12 to FIFA 13 was pretty big. The first touch control and the AI crashing the goal on rebounds were a big improvement to realism.
-
Comment
Not really. Amazon is back to the pricing they had before, all the colluding publishers settled with the DOJ, and Apple is in court.
-
Comment
They signed a deal to let the publishers set the price in the iBook Store, and make sure that the iBook Store always had the best price. This means that the prices at Amazon have to go up.
-
Comment
The Agency pricing combined with Most Favored Pricing is the problem. Even if Amazon didn’t sign the agency model, if they sold below Apple, the publishers would yank the book from them.
-
Comment
They’ve already been painted in a bad light. If they settled the whole narrative would be that they fixed prices and were the bad guy.
With the trial they can attempt to change the narrative about how they were trying to fight the evil of Amazon.
-
Comment
This is true. However, this is all just a PR stunt for Apple. It would have been cheaper for them just to settle. What they are trying to do is have a more positive narrative.
-
Comment
Apple’s argument breaks down to Amazon was doing bad things and the only way to stop them was to come in and break things up. So even if we did fix prices, it was a good thing.
-
Comment
You could say the same things about prescription drugs or alcohol.
-
Comment
It depends on how they write the contracts between the franchisee and the parent company. I am not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure these guys are paying very expensive ones who can figure this out. The franchisee may simply have a contract stating the he’s purchasing marketing materials and supplies from the parent. Does the current law state that the shop owner can only buy materials from someone in state?
I don’t know how it all will work, but I’m pretty sure this guy hasn’t read up on the laws and had lawyers figure out how he can do this.
-
Comment
I’m quite happy with most of the way Washington’s law is written. But it’s nice to have a few states trying different things (California will most likely vote to full legalization in 2016). Having different experiments is the best way to see which one works the best.
-
Comment
The owner of the store could be a Colorado resident just fine if it’s a franchise. Just like your local McDonald’s is owned by a local businessman. The parent company would supply the local owner with everything he needs to set up shop and he would be in charge of running the business. He would continue to pay for the rights of the parent companies branding and any products they sell him (packaging, marketing, etc).
That seems like a perfectly legal way to do things. The parent company in that case can’t be argued to have a more beneficial interest in the establishment than any other supplier who signs a contract with the business. If the state tries to argue that they do, they’re going to force the establishments to not be able to sign contracts with anyone.
-
Comment
I’m pretty sure he’s read the law. That doesn’t stop him from franchising stores in Colorado. His stores in Washington/California can be company owned and he can franchise them out to Colorado.
-
Comment
You don’t have to smoke it. You can made edibles. You can vaporize it. There are other ways using it.
-
Comment
Personally I kind of like the logo that’s actually going to go on all the pot:
-
Comment
It’s a little more complicated than that, especially in Washington. The Washington law was specifically written to create a show down with the Federal Government and the state. In Washington every aspect of the marijuana supply chain is controlled and taxed by the state government. You get a license from the state of Washington to grow the pot. You have a license to distribute it and are taxed when you buy the pot from the grower. Then you have to sell to licensed retail outlets who pay a tax on their purchase. Then the licensed retail outlets sell to the consumer with an extra sales tax tacked on. All of this is controlled by the State Liquor Control Board. For the Federal Government to arrest Shively, it’s going to have to pick a fight with the state of Washington. And since the Washington law is designed to keep all the commerce in the states borders, it will be an interesting court fight due to the commerce clause.
-
Comment
I think you’re mistaken about one thing. A content provider can block their content from being shown when the API being used doesn’t support ads. Microsoft was showing content with this option enabled by the content providers. That breaks the Terms of Service.
If Microsoft was just using the regular public API’s, Google wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. But Microsoft isn’t. My best guess is that Microsoft used some packet sniffing to implement some of the private API’s.
-
Comment
Adblock doesn’t have to meet YouTube’s terms of service. It’s not implementing the API’s. It only has to meet the TOS of Chrome. Since it’s still available in the Chrome store I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. Google could change their Chrome TOS and remove it from the store. But since Chrome is built on an open source Chromium project, it’s pretty hard for them to block it.
Name another app that breaks the YouTube terms of service?
-
Comment
It’s quite possible (and I’d argue probable) that the Wii U app was just a simple app that uses the publicly available API’s. Microsoft can make an app that does the same thing. What Microsoft is asking for is to be able to create a YouTube app akin to what Apple made for iOS using private API’s that Apple and Google negotiated terms of use for. Since Google was pretty unhappy with how that worked out, they don’t want to enter that kind of agreement again.
-
Comment
But they aren’t doing that.
-
Comment
That makes sense, because the API’s are consistently being changed and upgraded. That’s probably the biggest reason Google wants to keep them private. But Apple did have access to API’s above and beyond what are available publicly.
-
Comment
Google has public API’s. Microsoft can use them. What Microsoft wants is special treatment akin to what Apple originally had with iOS. Google isn’t happy with the way that worked and isn’t willing to enter into an agreement like that again.
If those apps use the official API’s it’s ok that they don’t serve ads, because the official API’s won’t allow video to be served if the content creator doesn’t want it shown without ads.
If Adblock doesn’t violate the terms of service of Chrome, then they have no issues with it.
-
Comment
And content creators are allowed to keep their content from playing on devices that don’t show ads.
-
Comment
You do realize that a content provider can check a box and say they don’t want their content shown on devices that don’t display adds. They can say don’t show my content on mobile devices.
If Microsoft used the API available to them, and followed the terms of service, there would be no problems. Instead they are showing videos without ads that should require them.
