I don't disagree that this was provocative on purpose - the merits thereof I'll leave for some other day - but the situations presented aren't comparable.

This was a meeting held in some random location (a community center, with permission) - not inside a mosque.

Your freedom of speech expression apparently explicitly puts the BBQ in a synagogue. Unless you somehow got permission to do so, it's likely that you would be trespassing and - with the smoke from the BBQ - damaging property.

You could certainly hold your BBQ outside the synagogue, but then it would probably be just a BBQ. I'd imagine there's hot dog carts nearby synagogues in NYC, for example, without any particular issue.

Only if you don't count the $250 they already got for the ticket you bought. Their complaint (on that issue) is that you're buying a cheaper ticket than they wanted to sell you. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, which amount to "we want to sell the same seat twice, and we can't when you do this, and we don't like it even though we couldn't if you bought the ticket we wanted to sell you."

I'm not sure that makes sense, from the airline's perspective.

If you bought a ticket NY-LA, you essentially bought two seats; NY-Chicago and Chicago-LA.

If you bail in Chicago, then their desire to have been able to sell the Chicago-LA seat doesn't mean they wanted to sell the seat twice - they would just rather have sold the NY-Chicago and the Chicago-LA seats on separate tickets, for a higher price on both seats.

And yes, there's all sorts of collateral issues - both positive and negative. I'm sure the same applies when I buy a roundtrip ticket from B to A and back to B when I just want to go from A to B, because the roundtrip ends up being much cheaper than the one-way (intercontinental flight, early 2000's - no idea if it's still the case as I haven't been in a situation lately where that would present itself as a necessity)

I'm just paraphrasing the articles (had to click-through some). The first article summarizes it thus:

The âoehidden cityâ ticketing technique involves buying an airline ticket between two cities with a connection, but ditching the rest of the trip.

Which very much sounds like buying a ticket A-C, then getting off the plane after A-B and essentially discarding B-C.

That's very much different from buying tickets A-B and A-C separately with a price that's cheaper than buying a ticket A-C.

I don't know if both are colloquially called 'hidden city' or whether one of the two is termed incorrectly.

Wouldn't have hurt to put this in the summary - who RTFA?

Say you want to fly from NY to Chicago, and that'd cost $300. You can also get a ticket from NY to LA, and that'd cost $250. The catch? That flight from NY to LA also lands in Chicago.
So if you wanted to go from NY to Chicago, you'd be better off buying the NY to LA ticket instead, saving $50.

The airlines don't like this, because if you book NY to LA, they can no longer sell the Chicago to LA seat (except at last minute rates or more often push standby passengers onto that flight) that might normally be $150. So not only are they out $50 on you, they're potentially out an additional $150 on the unsold seat.
( They save a few $ in fuel consumption, food and beverages, etc. )

Presumably the solution would be to not make part-flights more expensive than full-flights to begin with, but I'm sure the bean counters worked out that this is still the more profitable route for them.

As for headline - yeah, it's only tossed out because it's the wrong venue.. there's really no winner or loser, other than the courts who wasted time on a case that they apparently shouldn't have spent any time on at all.

Ah, you're absolutely right - I stand wholly corrected - I thought they still came with the systems and were offered separately / for updates as well.

http://gizmodo.com/after-nearl...
http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/...
http://www.theverge.com/2015/4...

Tell that to Apple who have bundled far more stuff with OS X (not so much on the driver front, thanks to building their own hardware) than Microsoft ever has with Windows - even before they were forced to remove parts - and whose users are quite happy that it includes everything and the kitchen sink.

You may never use iMovie, for example, but there it is, included with your Mac, whether you like it or not.

For those who much prefer a lean OS, there's always Arch.

I think we're getting way out of context here. OP's issue was indeed just a 2 minute thing, and any potential power-mad editor reverting entirely hypothetical. Even if the OP feels that hypothesis to be sound, then OP shouldn't refer to wikipedia in the first place - or at least not complain about not finding certain information there.

I'm not disputing that - I haven't had it happen, but I've read the stories.

I just feel that it's strange for some people to say they won't contribute to wikipedia - because they fear somebody else with an agenda will just revert their edits.. on any subject.. all the time.. with nobody backing them up despite facts - and at the same time complain about lack of certain information on wikipedia. At the point where they won't contribute, themselves, they should have written off wikipedia as a source of information entirely; unless they think they're special and everybody else's contributions are free of such tyranny.

Let me fix that for you by adding:
9. Don't go to 1 again. Ever.

Alternatively:
4-8. Don't happen, you just contributed, and anybody who went with step 1 in the first place is thankful for it.

I've always thought that was a rather simple cop-out.

1. Use wikipedia as a source for information.
2. Find it lacking.
3. Refuse to address that because reasons.
4. Go to 1.

That doesn't make sense, does it?

I thought I'd pop onto Wikipedia

Wikipedia, got it.

why OMIT this information in the History section of your own product's page

Well, it's not 'their' page. Doesn't wikipedia even discourage companies from editing pages about themselves or their products?

Which brings us to...

Now, it's not a deep secret, I can google and find stuff from that kind of era discussing it

...and you haven't edited the article to add the information you sought because...why?

That aside - yeah, by now there's quite a few competing products already on the market with various levels of success...and without the facebook involvement.

I'm a representative? Sweet! :D

Can't mod you up, but just wanted to say thanks for sharing some of the finer points of this.

I suspected that this is something that's common, and only rarely prosecuted in the way it appears to be done in this case. There's probably more specific reasons for the case, or they know it won't go anywhere and just want to push this to the forefront of some people's attention.
Like I said, though - I'm not a lawyer :)

I'm far from a lawyer, but:

As long as you place trades on the book that you're willing to fill

The 'willing to fill' part might be key - as he had no intentions of filling the orders that led to the mini-panic, using them solely to affect the price for personal gain.

Defendant willfully and knowingly, having devised and
intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for
obtaining money and property by means of false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, did
transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire
communication in interstate and foreign commerce,
writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the
purpose of executing such scheme and artifice.