And in the case of a communicable disease, it needs pathways to spread. Block enough pathways and it cannot spread. This is what herd immunity is. Even if a few % of people cannot be vaccinated they are still surrounded by enough people who are. It is no coincidence at all that when these outbreaks occur it is ALWAYS in areas where the vaccinate uptake is lower than required for herd immunity to be effective.
And California and other states should start passing laws and prosecuting parents for child endangerment, harm or even manslaughter if their kid ends up contracting a disease because the parents wilfully failed to vaccinate them.
Perhaps that, in itself, is compelling evidence that he didn't.
"Your honour, the defence submits that the fact that an entire room of people saw the accused stab the victim and state he was glad he did it, proves conclusively that he didn't. There is so much compelling evidence against our client that it is actually evidence of his innocence. And with that the defence rests."
Doesn't exactly work.
One day the world will be liberated and people will be free to trade. Right now we live in a Kafkaesque dystopia.
So basically this guy was a freedom fighter? Or just perhaps he was a somewhat tech savvy dealer who didn't give a shit what product he sold or the harm it might cause providing he got his cut?
Buying a car is not like that. Yes Tesla has a fixed price but it's their price or fuck you. Conversely dealers DO compete but they bury their prices under so much manure that it's hard to know what they are until they've reeled you in. So neither side is right. But the competition law is there not to justify scummy sales tactics but to promote competition. If Tesla feels a fixed price is right for selling their cars then they should sell their vehicles to deals wholesale and subject to contractual obligations on how to present the retail price to customers.
Really? I would love to be able to shop for a car and know that no matter where I shopped I was getting the exact same price. I absolutely HATE having to negotiate on the price, and the popularity of services like truecar suggest that a huge number of people agree with me.
That would be called price fixing. If I go shopping for a washing machine and I visit a bunch of websites I should expect to see a variety of prices. All non negotiable, but all transparent and available. Imagine now you could only buy a Bosch washing machine from the Bosch website. There is no longer any competition on price at all. "Ah" someone might say "but you could price compare your Bosch machine to the price for a somewhat equivalent Zanussi on the Zanussi site!", yeah but you're not comparing like with like and it's still not remotely the same competition when I want a Bosch not a Zanussi.
Why? Tesla sees dealers for the unnecessary middle men that they are. They've already shown that they would rather not enter a market than open a franchised dealership. I don't see any reason that this would change.
Because too many states have laws that prohibit direct sales. And as I said while I think most car dealers are scum, the law is there to ensure competition, not their sales ethics. But Tesla does have the means to exert some ethics of its own and open up the sale of its vehicles at the same time. Dealers would want to be able to do after sales service like servicing, selling parts, trade ins etc. There are obvious reasons they might sign up to some franchise or programme that ensures a consistent sales experience.
If Samsung can ensure that Android apps run perfectly well on Tizen, including Google apps like maps etc, then they're 80%+ to offering a mobile OS I'd move to if the handset was one I wanted.
The problem is they can't. Look at Blackberry in this department. Blackberry probably has the most mature Android stack running over BB10 / QNX but it's no damned good for apps that want to run background services, or support in-app payments, or use the Google services which the impl doesn't support. Then you're talking about forking the code to produce a BB compatible version stripped of that stuff or rebuilt with a 3rd party library. And Blackberry has another issue - Android apps, run over some Frankandroid layer which almost certainly impacts on launch times, performance and memory footprint.
I doubt the experience by Samsung would be much different. And doubtless Samsung would want to tie apps to their own store. Just the hassle of releasing an app twice, potentially in two different build flavours is enough to put devs off doing it at all. Look how bereft the Amazon store is compared to Google's. It costs time and money to support two builds through two stores of basically the same app. Doing so adds no benefit to the user or the developer. It's just a hoop they're supposed to jump through because yet another behemoth wants all the pie to themselves.