swehner

I usually stay away from economist "writing."

Here some laughing points from this article:

* according to polling by Pew, a research outfit....

* Return on capital is at near-record levels, too (adjusted for goodwill).

* Together they own 10-20% of most American companies

* The spectre of very big online travel sites dominating the purchase of hotel rooms has led the hotel firms to consolidate, too

Not sure it's about hating. I imagine they just personally got the wrong kind of encouragement and incentive.

Who's reading freakonomics?? I don't think they (freakonomics) ever corrected their horrendous mistakes with respect to climate change.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/16/why-everything-in...

Embarrassing people! Here they serve up some more gossip ...

Hey that's a good way to put it!

Thing is, there is a sense of entitlement which is just not realistic with billions of peoples.

(And down-voting doesn't change that ...)

Sounds like total nonsense.

More capacity ⇛ more traffic.

Example reference, if one is even needed http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/11/californias-dot-admit...

Not hearing that that is part of the thought process here.

The lock-in is where the catch is right.

Imprisonment was not mentioned. And what "redress of the infraction" (for the "consumers") constitutes is not clear. Plus, the amount came from an "out-of-court settlement."

In this case, why let Apple continue their service?

Or, multiply the fine by 50.

Yes, that is not a useful way of looking at the issue.

Noone cares about the "null message".

How do you distinguish this case from the obligation to sign tax returns? (I think that is 26 U.S. Code § 6061, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6061)

The talk a bit about it here, https://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivol...

And this is kind of similar but about the 5th Amendment. http://openjurist.org/775/f2d/1292/eh-mosher-v-internal-reve...

Disagreeing. Nothing "very obvious" about it.

Here is how one commonly goes about defining free speech, "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship."

So that's a great freedom.

What you're saying is the other way around.

Exactly, that's not a free speech issue, and talking like that is cynical.

I submit this is cynical. To call this speech is just misleading.

Laws will always be around to make people do things they don't want to do. To twist this into some kind of speech issue is silly.

Wouldn't this apply to most dams around the world? Designed, constructed by foreigners?

Everything a (smart) phone should be able to do, no?

Why do you say "a judge has to agree with the argument" -- surely they don't need to agree with hokey arguments.

The last point may well be the best, "TEACH CONCEPTS, NOT TRICKS"

You'd think a stand-alone program could take care of this quite nicely? No need to clutter the compiler itself.

Not sure what you're saying, what has to be?

This argument sounds so hokey. Similar to the non-exectation-of-privacy-when-using-tor argument, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166991 The US legal system appears as a special case

Funny, they write "Aerogel is considered to be the most effective thermal conductor on the planet ..." where they mean insulator!

Apparently this "trojan" only works on a Windows computer.

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/10/10/german-governmen...

That page has some explanations including what they will be doing, "We seek to mitigate costs of shipping over time in part through achieving higher sales volumes, optimizing placement of fulfillment centers, negotiating better terms with our suppliers, and achieving better operating efficiencies. We believe that offering low prices to our customers is fundamental to our future success, and one way we offer lower prices is through shipping offers."

Those explanations do not include what you're saying.

Reminder: just say no to amazon!

Even professional economists struggle to understand the exponential function.

Predictable drivel.

How about using international data?

why was this downvoted?

The "proving Einstein right" part would be more fitting if there was some independent evidence of the collision. As it is it seems to go in circles.

But that's the NYT I guess.

Short summary: verdict - useless