Re: Re: Re: Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
Yeah companies don't need to announce policy changes on the news unless they want to make a big hoopla. In Calgary (where this stuff is a stretch to even be called relevant), they had a "big hoopla" on the news interviewing people about how they wanted the cops to make their neighbors take them down, the neighbors saying "F*%K you Rosco" and a bunch of companies about how they were going to boycott it because of the shooting.
Re: Re: We need to ban it because a mass murderer featured it, so.....
The confederate flag has always been the symbol of southern [wannabe?] rebels, and big media / gov / companies / whatever promoting it as a symbol so bad they won't associate with it only lends it legitimacy as a non conformist symbol.
Something not mentioned in the article, but I am curious about.. Has the number of daily sales been consistent for these devs? You would think the added confidence in the medium would bring a few more buyers. A 55% increase in refunds paired with a 65% increase in sales isn't necessarily so bad. Even a slight sales increase might paint a much less depressing picture since the return rates could certainly drop
And they can still sell duct tape? Like with no gov't issued monopoly at all?!? Mind Blown! What do they do.. like actually try to make people WANT to buy from them or something? WTF is this world coming to!
You are too generous.. I'd say the problems have a lot more to do with conflict of interest and bad intentions. They might be using duct-tape, but it's going to be with the intent of tacking on something to funnel money their way.. At best it will be under the guise of an attempted fix.
Well, regardless of whether or not you think it works, that's what they are trying to do with these sort of setups and that's why they are called "sharing". If it's not working then it's resource sharing that is not working. It's not a fiction, obviously, resource sharing is a reality it just doesn't work in all situations, and where it does work it's never going to be 100% efficient. It's not "framing", it's calling a spade a spade. It is an attempt at resource sharing regardless of your opinion on how well resource sharing works.
It's not ride sharing because it's free, it's talking about shared resources (ie: in this case, the fact that someone is already going your way, so you can catch a ride with them for less than a taxi would cost hypothetically).
Anyway, whatever you name it, regs that prevent this sort of competition are certainly no less corrupt for doing so because of the name. Fact is: you can pay someone who isn't a taxi driver to drive you somewhere if you want to. You SHOULD be able to pay someone to drive you somewhere if you want to.
What he is trying to say is that only extremists apply property rights to digital merchandise. As per usual, he doesn't need to convince, only excuse. He can claim whatever ridiculous thing he wants as an excuse for making our lives miserable.