Some of the issue with automobile manufactures is that the vehicles are so complex and need so much capital that almost everybody who tries to build a new manufacturing company in this industry usually goes bankrupt. Tucker and DeLorean are really good examples of this, in spite of conspiracy theories that suggest ulterior motives of existing manufacturers.

The other issue is simply complying with government regulations in the industry. Some of those regulations certainly have been established because of major screw-ups in the past, but many of them (in spite of the manufacturers complaining about them) are enacted explicitly to discourage new entrants into the industry. At the very least the existing manufacturers only offer token resistances to things like seat belt and safety laws that add complexity as long as it hits everybody in the industry equally... and keeps new companies busy trying to catch up if they tried. If somebody built an exact replica of the Ford Model T, it couldn't be driven today except as a historical re-creation for off-road usage and certainly not something for mass production.

The point of the dealership is to have a local representative who can help with compliance with local regulations. A hundred years ago, selling stuff was a whole lot more complicated in terms of trying to keep track of things each state wanted or didn't want, not to mention often even different laws for each city even in the same state. Communication was also a bit slower as well... and more importantly the system simply worked for almost everybody.

The problem is that once you have the franchisee in place, getting rid of them is nearly impossible, even if the situation has changed. This is why several historic systems still stick around years, decades, or even centuries after they are obsolete. Some places in Europe still use Roman aqueducts for their water supply... because they still work. There may be more efficient ways to get the same thing to happen now, but why change if it still sort of works?

If you do that kind of research by looking stuff up on-line, reading Consumer Reports, and digging up information about the automobiles before you show up to the dealer.... what is the point of the dealer in the first place?

I agree with you so far as that is the best way to avoid getting screwed over by incompetent salesmen, but you can intelligently use sales reps to get more information about their products. This is not strictly about the automobile industry either, and I've done that with electronics, software, and even groceries.

Tesla doesn't have dealerships, which is part of the problem though. They have stores... like stores which sell soap or drugs like aspirin. That is also the point of the ruling as they are trying to tell these mega-dealerships who own the rights to every automobile brand that they simply can't add Tesla to their list.

The reason why Tesla doesn't want these dealers to have their cars is primarily because they are afraid that these dealers will throw a couple of Tesla cars in the corner of their showroom and be pushing the other brands instead. Elon Musk has explicitly stated this as his primary objection, and why he felt it was necessary to go outside of the dealership model.

After all, you could turn the cops laser right back at him...

Oh personally I think collisions between people who don't look where they're walking and run into each other are highly necessary. Some people need to feel that they're acting stupidly.

I'm done fighting, arguing and whatnot. I offer to you what I offered everyone so far: I move inland, you move to the coast. If you're right, you get a wonderful piece of seaside real estate. If I am right, I get to shoot you if you try to escape drowning.

Deal?

Oh, well that's okay then. Wait... isn't that what they said about Skype?

That's pretty much what would happen in most countries in Europe. I am not aware of a "poisoned well" provision in our laws over here. If there's evidence against you and it's neither fabricated ("planted") nor required an incentive from law enforcement so you commit the crime (agent provocateur), it's a-ok to use it against you.

What keeps police in check is that they essentially have a job for life once they're in, they get a LOAD of job perks (official ones and "less official ones") and breaking the law to get evidence is almost certainly the end of that rather comfy job, and even if you don't get locked up (with all the nice guys that you got in there first...), what's left for you is some sort of mall cop crap job.

Seems to work really well.

Where to draw the line? And who gets to pick and choose what crimes are worse than others. The egoist in me would say that a government employee ignoring the privacy of citizens is a bigger threat to me than any pedo on the planet. Because he may be a threat to me, the pedo most certainly won't be. I'm kinda too old for that...

This just to illustrate that "worse crime" is highly subjective. I'm fairly sure if you ask the RIAA, the crime behind trading pedo pics is the potential copyright infringement.

Oh, I'm sorry, being a non-native speaker I took "at worst" to mean "if he did anything wrong at all"...

The TOS only restricts you from running a proxy service, not for using a proxy service as a client.

I honestly don't want to engage in the debate whether commies were a threat. The ones in Russia with the bombs, most likely. The idiots running around in the US? Very debatable.

I know the hearing between Welch and McCarthy rather well (I dare say most likely better than most non-US people). Its importance is less in what transpired, what mattered is what effect it had. It was the end of the witch hunts. Because that's what the whole zeal to find commies turned into. What went down in the US during those years around whether or not someone was a commie was not far from what happened in Russia with whether or not someone was anti-commie. The main difference being mostly that the outcome was less lethal in the US. The process itself, though, was the same mix of hysteria, opportunism and people who used it to get rid of opponents, as well as an excuse to do "whatever is necessary" and "end justifying any means".

I cannot help but find the same attitude now towards the proverbial four horsemen of the infocalypse. Is there a threat? Yes. Is it as big as we're led to believe? Hell no. But it is a very neat vehicle to get whatever you want because nobody may oppose it without provoking the question "or are you a commie/terrorist/pedo/whatever?"

Black and white. You're on one side or the other. The idea that BOTH sides could be wrong is not even offered as an option.

Maybe you could kindly elaborate how

"The criminals here worthy of being described as scum and deserving confinement are the people involved in child pornography, not the investigator."

does not fit the description of

"Disagreeing with one crime is no excuse for agreeing with another."

The law does not allow that type of sanction. When law enforcement abuses their power to make an arrest, the only remedy available to the courts or the defendant is to throw out the conviction. It's intended to ensure law enforcement ... obeys the law. When they exceed their authority, they are generally immune from prosecution when in the course of duty. Only things like excessive use of force and civil rights violations can be prosecuted, and even that requires proof of intent.