Just because the problem is "solved" (i.e. designs have improved to the point where this failure mode is no longer critical), doesn't mean that there aren't better (lower cost/weight and stronger) solutions available if the design constraints are changed by the availability of new technologies.

Now is it as safe or safer than current designs? I don't know, but I don't see a compelling reason why it couldn't be. I'm certain there will be quite a lot of testing and analysis of failure rates, system redundancies and the capabilities of the associated degraded states before regulatory agencies approve the use of this type of system.

The problem is that Congress made that illegal specifically to address community antenna television (CATV) operators who did almost exactly what you describe.

This is a good summary, but for the tl;dr crowd the opinion of the Court is essentially relying on the duck test. e.g. "if it looks like CATV and acts like CATV it is CATV"

The dissent clearly shows the flaws in this reasoning.

Yeah, I got that. Hence the mention that that family vs. stranger is irrelevant. This is about people being allowed to make decisions for themselves. As long as they enter into an employment contract fully informed, where's the unfairness?

Since when are three objects considered a swarm? If that's acceptable it should be appended to the list.

No it isn't. You can't "volunteer" anyone else to do anything. Besides, it doesn't matter whether the people involved are family or strangers.

Again an actual argument for your position would be appreciated, but if you have no salient points to make I see no reason to continue this discussion.

That's not an argument. Please defend your position with a substantive point.

Amazon's margins are in the low single digits right now. The razor thin margins of the mobile handset market will only be an improvement.

I read that first link when you posted it earlier. The second is a propaganda piece so I didn't watch the video, but I have read a few articles about the conditions in some of the factories in China. Conditions there may be deplorable by western standards, but remember that the factories in the west were similarly bad at the same stage of economic development. That doesn't make it acceptable to us now, but it is a transition stage that must occur before things like OSHA can be put into place. Ultimately, it will take the people themselves demanding safer work environments for developing countries to catch up to western standards. We can only help persuade them.

By the way, the Foxcon issue is one of the many reasons I don't buy Apple products. But there's a difference between exposing workers to dangerous chemicals and safety hazards without informing them vs. just low pay (by your standard). The first is immoral, but the second isn't as long as the employer does not monopolize the job pool or use coercive tactics to prevent employees from moving up into a higher payed talent pool. As far as I can tell, Amazon is not doing either of those, thus my decision not to boycott them. Of course, I'm always looking for new information and will revise that if I see something that is truly a violation of labor laws or human rights (and how they handle the situation when one of those stories shows up).

I want to win the lottery.

Of course Amazon wants a major piece of the mobile phone market. That's not news. What would be news is if they make a phone that plays nice outside of Amazon's ecosystem and isn't locked down like the rest of the kindle family of products.

How exactly are Amazon warehouse workers he oppressed? They entered into a an employment contract of their own free will and are free to end that at any time. Are the employer and employee on equal footing in negotiations? Of course not, but that's just the reality of how the job market works, not exploitation.

The problem with your way of thinking is that if you had your way and everyone was given a comfortable wage (whether or not their job produced value greater than that). For one, why would a company keep that person employed, if they represent a net loss? They wouldn't and those jobs would no longer exist and more people would be pushed out of the workforce. That's one of the reasons that the labor force participation rate is the lowest it has been in my lifetime. Instead I'd rather the people at the bottom were given the tools and opportunity to become productive members of society. That way the whole economy grows and everyone is better off. If this makes me "heartless", then fine I'll gladly accept that title.

Okay, I think I might apply for this position: Senior Product Design Engineer

What I'm saying here is that the labor market decides the pay of each job based on the availability of qualified applicants and what pay level those applicants will accept. If the pay were really unsatisfactory to the people in those low level warehouse positions, they would leave and find another that pays better. If there are no better paying positions available to them, they can continue working there while learning a skill that has more value to employers than unskilled manual labor. If they are unwilling* to learn that new skill, it means they are satisfied with where they are in life and don't want to improve their situation.

*I say "unwilling" because short of a severe mental handicap (which is an exceptional case) everyone can learn to do something. There are a vast number of free resources available and all one needs to do is show up and make use of them.

No, I read and comprehended. That doesn't mean that I must agree with the author's position.

If you have some specific point you think I'm not weighing heavily enough or want to expand on your argument, please elaborate. Otherwise, do me a favor and recognize that someone may be informed and intelligent and still disagree with your conclusions.

That doesn't really make me want to boycott Amazon as a whole. His arguments against avoiding Kindle and other digital "purchases" through Amazon are sound, but otherwise his criticisms are mostly just politically motivated disagreements. Although, some of the criticisms relating to anti-competitive practices may gain more weight if Amazon does eventually become an effective monopoly in book sales.

Actually, there's no regulation that requires a PE sign off on products like automobiles.

From Wikipedia: