Dealers need to step aside and get out of the fucking way of the sale. It's a stupid business model. There is no value in having a middleman in this process anymore.
No value for ANYBODY. If this is really true:
A salesperson "can sell two gas burners in less than it takes to sell a Leaf," Deutsch says. "It's a lot of work for a little pay."
Then the commission on a $50,000 vehicle is way too low, and it's time the dealerships were seriously shaken up and kicked in the ass.
Somebody is making a ton of dough, and if it's not the salesmen, then it's the bosses in the backroom. I.e., the "overhead".
So to cut to the chase. Government opened up new territories, protected them and the trade routes and private business just ruthlessly and very destructively exploited what Government had provided.
Except that's mostly nonsense. Few ships were really "private". East India Company was profitable mainly because it had a Royal charter and was subsidized and protected by the crown. Even most pirates, up to about 200 years ago, were government-sponsored.
Some private enterprise did enter the sail-shipping business in the later years, but the earlier days were almost all government-driven, in one form or another.
Having said all that, I'm not sure I buy that space exploration will follow the same pattern. Government funding is fickle... corporations with smarts are in it for the long haul.
Many of the engineers I've worked with stayed on the verge of a nervous breakdown most of the time and were prone to extreme misanthropy. So I'm not surprised they would be attracted to a line of work where they get to blow people up.
OP doesn't explain why in the '60s and '70s US, domestic terrorists were almost exclusively Leftists, who exploded more bombs in 1968 in D.C. alone than all U.S. conservative domestic terrorists, in all parts of the country, in modern history.
Although I do admit that conservative US domestic terrorists as a rule have done rather better at it; tending to blow up real targets rather than toilets.
NOTHING ABOUT THIS ORGANIZATION CAN CHANGE, EVER, BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT.
I didn't actually say that, but since you mention it, it's true. The Constitution does forbid it from using its power EXCEPT to the extent necessary to help regulate Interstate Commerce.
That's the way it works, man. I didn't invent the damned thing.
By the way: "Class G" airspace is COMPLETELY UNCONTROLLED by the FAA. Maybe you should read your own sources.
You're claiming they have no jurisdiction- the FAA, Congress, and accepted constitutional law ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU.
No, they don't. "Accepted Constitutional Law" says that the Federal government has authority ONLY over the items specifically enumerated in the Constitution. One of those items is the Interstate Commerce Clause, which gives the Federal government to regulate some aspects of interstate commerce.
The Interstate Commerce Clause was the basis of authority for the Air Commerce Act of 1926, which was effectively the creation of the FAA. In fact it was a bureau of the Commerce Department. Look it up.
Regardless of attempted Federal expansion, the Constitution only gives the Federal government the power it gives it. No more, no less. Congress does not have authority to lawfully expand its own authority, nor the Executive Branch, nor the Judicial Branch.
So you decide: is the Constitution a valid document, or is it not? If it is, then the FAA can lawfully control only airspace that is regularly used in interstate commerce. That is the basis for ALL of its authority. No matter how many "regulations" it wants to pass.
If the Constitution is not valid, then screw it, it doesn't matter. The government could do whatever it wanted until it was overthrown... as it surely would be, and a new Constitution implemented.
Today's "common carriers" do in fact concern themselves with more than just the layer responsible for directing the connection from sender to receiver.
But they should not. That is the whole point being discussed here. It isn't essential for their services and it's private information.
Further, if they intentionally redirect my packets, in any way that wasn't essential for internet routing, they're interfering with a private communication, which is illegal for a common carrier to do.
The packet header is quite easy to see, and your analogy is like saying the Post office can't be a common carrier because they read the envelope to get the address, so the are already inspecting the mail.
Nonsense. All the information an ISP needs are in the link and internet layers. Any deeper information is none of their business. The source and destination IPs are in the internet layer, and are similar to the destination and return addresses on the snail-mail envelope.
Doing any deeper packet inspection is akin to steaming open the envelope to see whether the letter is actually intended for the addressee or her kids (transport layer, application layer, etc.), or the content of the actual message. That's absolutely none of the ISP's business as a common carrier.
There is a huge difference between reading an IP or TCP/UP header and trying to piece together a stream of packets in order to determine the content.
No. There is a huge difference between reading an IP header, and reading a TCP header. As a common carrier, an ISP has no legitimate reason to do the latter. No more than the post office has any business opening the envelope to see whether the message starts with "Dear John," or ends with "Love always".
I haven't looked at the actual case, but based on the summary, the judge must have issued a ruling overriding a request for dismissal of one or more counts that were predicated on the protections of the DMCA, and to do this, the judge would have to state his reasoning why.
How does that make GP wrong? If this judge does make a bad call on the dismissal, then indeed Cox could use that as grounds for appeal. Sure, that does mean the case must be tried first.
I suppose you may have meant GP was wrong about recusal or "instant appeal". It doesn't work that way. But the decision will certainly be an influential one in the following procedures.
No, the deal is, if you fly a drone across a state line, it becomes subject to federal regulation. And not before.
Almost but not quite. "Navigable airspace" means commonly-traveled interstate air routes, and associated airspace, like around airports.
And that's reasonable.
But the vast majority of airspace, outside of those commonly traveled routes and altitudes, is completely outside FAA's jurisdiction. That's a basic principle of how our Constitution models Federal authority.
Yes, I do. Do you? Specifically, Class G airspace - the "uncontrolled" airspace up to 1200 feet, except in the vicinity of an airport, where the ceiling is much lower? Because that's part of the national airspace system, and the rules identifying and controlling it are the responsibility of the FAA. The FAA reauthorization of 2012 grants them the charter of "integrating uav flight" into the national airspace, which includes Class G - therefore, they are well within their legal rights to regulate that space.
That isn't an answer. You're defining something in terms of that something... a completely circular argument which has no meaning. I asked you a question which you haven't answered.
If you need it made more clear, then look this up: what was the Congressional authority under which the 2012 reauthorization was made? Here's a big hint: it's called a "REauthorization"... not a grant of new authority.
Your description of areas around airports are irrelevant, because I mentioned them myself, earlier.
the CONGRESS has constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce
This is just asinine. Of course it's Congress' authority under which the law was made. FAA authority can only be assigned via Congressional authority. Again, this is not an argument. It's something I already mentioned myself.
So, you're saying that Class G airspace only exists as a navigable airspace in one state?
Of course not. Where did I state that? What I stated was that it's part of a system of INTERSTATE routes. Get a goddamned clue.
Once again - shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!" doesn't constitute (ha!) an argument. Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce. Air travel is part of interstate commerce, and thus the use of the airspace used by air travel is regulated by the FAA, by order of Congress. The FAA regulates ALL airspace, not just the airspace above an airport, or routes between airports. Why? Because the stuff going on at 500 feet can easily affect the stuff going on at other altitudes, without a well-defined set of regulations in place to govern what responsible people will do in that space.
I didn't "shout" anything... you seem to be the one doing the shouting here. And an awful lot of hand-waving.
No, FAA does not regulate "all" airspace. This goes right back to my original statement. FAA regulates -- via its Congressionally-granted authority to regulate COMMERCIAL INTERSTATE AIR TRAVEL (that pesky "interstate commerce" clause you don't seem to understand) -- is in charge of "navigable airways". Which are defined as commonly-traveled INTERSTATE airways, and other airspace that is part of that system... like areas around airports.
That is a very far cry from "all" airspace. In fact, it's a system of particular routes and particular altititudes, and other areas (such as airports), which you can find clearly printed on aviation charts of the United States.
The FAA does NOT have jurisdiction over OTHER airspace... which in fact is the majority of the airspace.
Therefore it does not have jurisdiction over drones that do not cross into that airspace. For example, the FAA has absolutely NO legal authority over the air 250 feet above my property. That's MY airspace, by international law.
In fact, the law in question that gives the FAA the authority to regulate drones is the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012," specifically, Title III, Subtitle B, "Unmanned Aircraft Systems," in which Congress specifically directs the FAA as follows:
Do you know what "the national airspace system" referred to there is?
Do you know what the Commerce clause in the Constitution is (which is the ONLY Constitutional authority FAA has)?
Are you asserting that Congress doesn't have any authority to make this law,
No, I'm saying Congress' authority to make this law is limited to "navigable airspace", which is the concept which governs interstate air transportation. The "interstate" part is what gives the FAA its authority.
rather than spouting off generalized inanities that demonstrate your lack of knowledge about aviation. If not, then perhaps you can take your claims that the FAA has "no lawful authority" over you, and shove them up your ass.
It's not a generalization, it's Constitutional law. Read about it some time.
When idiots crash their drones into things then authorities will be able to hold the pilot responsible.
Show me where in the Constitution, or in the Air Commerce Act, the FAA was given authority over all airspace in the U.S.
They don't have such authority. Any more than the EPA has legal authority over the birdbath in your backyard.
Unless you're flying your drone in "navigable airspace" (which is interstate airways and around the airports that serve them), FAA has no lawful authority over you.
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.