I feel like this is a win for consumers in one way, with the potential for a huge loss in another way. While cord cutting is great, and I'd be happy to cut the cord myself if it wasn't for being unable to watch the things I want to see without it, I can see where my costs will be shifted under this kind of deal, not reduced.
With restrictive data caps on cellular services and cable companies wanting to put caps on their offerings as well, and more offerings like this hopefully becoming available, data usage will have to increase. The potential consumer raping that could follow isn't going to be any better than what we get now with traditional cable, and really has the potential to be far worse for those who want to rely on streaming services.
It's a good step forward, but one I think we need to take cautiously.
I get that it looks like a bomb. Great. And rules are rules, whether we agree with them or not.
My issue here is that they should not have confiscated it. They could have easily pulled the passenger aside, checked it to be sure it wasn't actually dangerous and then given the passenger two options:
1. Return the clearly, checked, non-bomb to the passengers' checked baggage where it can be safely stowed and inaccessible during the flight.
2. Allow the passenger to have the item boxed and shipped, at his own expense, to his final destination or home.
Either way, the passenger gets to keep his item. I think it's a fair compromise, one that might even help the TSA earn a bit of an image of being more than just government thugs.
I am not glossing over your point. I made the same point in my original comment, that manufacturers will make a product to meed the requirements set forth by the state of California. Because of that, the rest of us who DO NOT live in California will essentially be subjected to their laws, and there is a pattern of this happening throughout the U.S. because of laws passed in California (and apparently others as well, as you mentioned).
I agree that manufacturer's are also to blame, and really so is the public for not being more vocal about it. For the manufacturers though, they have to respond to changes in the law in order to sell their product. And they have to make a profit too, or at least break even, so they will naturally do things as cheaply as possible (i.e. one method of producing the product instead of 50). They get away with it in part because people outside of California aren't saying "hey, I don't want to buy your Widget with California's requirements" loud enough.
I understand that in reality, California doesn't have the authority to trump any laws of other states and the Feds. However, in practice this is what happens, precisely for the reason you've stated and as I stated in my original comment.
To you point about Texas, I agree as well. However, I don't see warning labels smeared all over everything citing the State of Texas. You could say the issues coming from Texas are a little less visible to many.
No. I'm saying the way that California's laws tend to trump and undermine Federal laws and impact other State's and their residents is a problem.
If I wanted to pay higher taxes, higher prices on consumer goods and have my choices dictated to me above what they already are, I'd move to California. I don't, and I should be free to live my life free from what passes as State Government in the state of California. My concern is, like many other things that come out of California, this law will affect me even though it shouldn't.
I merely used the emissions standards as an example because I am aware of it, and figured many others were as well.
Can we just agree to kick California out of the Union? Seriously.
I live on the East coast, and I've lived in the Mid-West. I've still had to deal with labels that say this product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause blah blah blah. Cars are mostly designed to meet some of their stricter emissions standards. I have a hard time believing that this will stay in California when the phone manufacturers decide it's simply cheaper to only build phones that meet the California requirements and sell them everywhere.
So please, lets kick them out of the Union before their poorly thought out ideas pollute our country any further.
Maybe we need a day of protest on protecting Net Neutrality kind of like SOPA. But instead of a blackout, get sites to agree to drastically cut their speeds for a day so people can see first hand what these policies will be like. Some sites could operate as normal. Or as an alternative, get sites to put up a mock webpage that notifies them that the page they are trying to access is not supported by their current access plan, sorry for the inconvenience. It worked before, it could work again. Just a thought
I tend to agree with you on this issue, though I am admittedly under-informed on the issue of Net Neutrality as a whole. But the one thing I can't help but think about what will happen if the broadband providers get their way is this video:
This sounds like what Sprint does honestly. What I mean is that Sprint offers "unlimited" data, but they throttle it after 2.56GB to a slower speed. They call it unlimited because there is no cap to how much data you can use, just a cap to how fast you can use it. So everyone can still get away with calling it unlimited despite the limits and it's business as usual.
There is a lot up here that I simply don't have the time to address. So I'll take a quick stab at this and a couple other points and leave it at that.
You strike me as anti-patent. That's my opinion. I'm not trying to defend our system as the right one. I have plenty enough of my own opinions of the shortcomings of our patent system and changes I'd like made. But given my position, I try to keep many of them out of the public eye for obvious reasons. No system can or ever will be perfect, but problems can and should be fixed. As an examiner, I work within the system we have to the best of my ability, and try not to issue things that I think would be problematic. So far, I haven't seen anything I've worked on show up here, and I'm not complaining.
And yes, I have read at least some of your stories about how do we fix the patent system. I'm not saying, and I never meant to imply, that you haven't done so. I guess I was looking for something more, not just a few ideas, but your overall idea for the system as a whole. I actually am curious to read it, whether I agree with it or not. It would be interesting to see a system without the hands of a lawyer all over it.
As to my statement about the constitution requiring something along the lines of a patent system. I'm not above admitting when I should have been more careful with my words. It does not say it is a requirement, but rather a power. I said requirement because I couldn't see a need for it to be enumerated otherwise. A little looking around (thanks Google and Wikipedia) and I accept that I screwed up. In reality it is a power probably better left in the hands of the federal government, because I am sure we can at least all agree having patents and copyrights on a state by state basis would be far worse than what we have now.
The burden is on patent proponents to prove that having a patent system in the first place is beneficial and then to propose a beneficial, evidence based, patent system and The biggest problem I see with the patent system is it's not evidenced based I think it's pretty clear that AC's comment is that we need a system based on evidence. I'm only pointing out that we have it, and I tried to briefly support that.
In any case, thank you for replying, I'll admit I was surprised. I'm glad to see that there was quite a bit of back and forth here, and that it was mostly civil.