It only sets a precedent in the 9th Circuit, if the Supreme Court had made a decision it would have been a national precedent and would have required them to establish a general test to justify their opinion.

You were making a flawed analogy to the situation in question in which the company does produce the item. Now if you were bartering instead of purchasing then you might have a slim point but the humor is otherwise trite and inflammatory.

You produced that money? And trademarked it? And have a trade agreement with the country where they're located? Thought not.

It was probably intentional so as not to set precedent either direction

It's better because absolutely everything purchased legally in the US is covered (only about 10% or less of which is wholly produced here) by the doctrine, not just items produced here. And yes I am saying that you don't have the legal right to resell an item you purchased in another country that is not imported for sale into the US, because technically by bringing the item into the US you agree to abide by the import restrictions, including the lack of resale. Most of the time it doesn't matter, you're a small fish but it has always been illegal. If the court had ruled to extend the First-Sale Doctrine to resellers it would violate a large number of trade agreements and treaties. Extending the First-Sale Doctrine to other countries is what is really unenforceable and an attempt to do so would see the price of EVERY import skyrocket to make up for it. Personally I want to see a world where the whole world has the equivalent of a First-Sale Doctrine, but this "lack of a decision" by the supreme court doesn't actually change the law it just proves that people don't understand international trade regulations as well as they thing they do.

Everyone making ridiculous claims that this applies to all goods manufactured outside the US take a Chill pill. If it can be legally imported for sale to the US then the doctrine still applies. It's goods that are NOT imported for sale that cannot necessarily be resold. The summary is false and misleading.

What we describe as "interesting" is really our brains reacting to a discongruity in the environment just something we don't expect to be there or can't immediately categorize. The issue is that the Human brain can't take a lot of "interesting" before it breaks down. As a result our brains found the means to just "accept" most things it considers normal even if they are amazing. The interesting thing about all this is that the more detailed a given person's analysis of a particular subject, the less this will affect them. People who do computer graphics are more likely to be taken by the very small variations in two CG approaches, where a layperson just sees two examples of CGI without much discernible difference. The same is true of any subject, at first the layperson is amazed, if they dig deeper they lose the initial interest and can lock the whole subject away as a nebulous "accepted thing", but if they become an expert they start seeing the variations themselves and have to accept each bit to lose their fascination.

...I drink too much stout

For the ten millionth time, the "Immaculate Conception" is the conception of MARY not of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Look I can beat the original Mario in 4 hours and it's taken me over 80 days of Play time in World of Warcraft just to get through the Majority of the end-game content (that's like 15% of the total content), easier is in your state of mind. For the most part games are getting harder and longer and for anyone who ever played games on the NES or Genesis or earlier when there was no "save" this should be obvious. The games you mention are supposed to be easy to "beat" (Compared to some other modern games) because the point of them isn't to win the story but to compete against other players.

Didn't realize the economic principal went by that name as well. Sorry for my disagreement. The reason they are replacing the signs however has more to do with them being defaced, destroyed, etc (my broken window not yours). It's routine maintenance that has to be done anyway. They aren't replacing the signs just because they feel like it.

The broken window principal states that people are more likely to vandalize and/or burglarize a property if it has a broken front window than without it. More succinctly: the better the upkeep, the more conscientious the visitor. 1) The signs have to be replaced in the next five years by federal mandate, 2) the city already had plans to replace the signs according to their existing maintenance cycle before the mandate, 3) To meet the mandate, they are now doing that replacement with compliant signs at a slightly faster pace to meet the deadline. There's no story here.

It's the broken window principal and has been demonstrated to work. And they'd be replacing the signs anyway, they're just changing the case on the new signs.