That was great - vocalist nailed it. I vaguely remember watching The Beatles medley they did in a coffee shop or something and it was pretty legit too.

Kid from the coffee shop in Hawaii plays with Matisyahu in Los Angeles.

If that was the policy, I could agree, but the corporate representative has said publicly that in that region it's their written policy that non customers can't use the rest room or loiter inside, and they set up the manager, unintentionally, to fail with their policies. It's horrific to me that, for following written policy, the manager is now fired.

Crazy that you, of all people, are arguing the manager in a privately owned business doesn't have the right to eject even customers, much less non customers. How can that work? Any place open to the public is now publicly owned? No business may prosecute anyone for trespassing? Even non customers? Or is it just franchise coffee shops? I've seen many a white punk asked to leave Denny's at 2am for no purchase, or for nursing their coffee for hours....I've been one.

The cops have said they asked the men at least 7 times to leave peacefully over a prolonged, disruptive time period, and they continuously refused. During that time, backup and a supervisor were called and had time to show up while the men remained seated, ignoring the police requests/commands.

How hard would it have been to just buy their own coffee instead of causing all this over obstinate refusal to respect the manager's requests because they're waiting for someone? How often would you expect that excuse, if accepted, to end with hours of free WiFi and restroom use but no sales? Seems to me they caused all this themselves, and had dozens of easy opportunities to avoid even being asked to leave, much less arrest, just by being a customer in the store they set up shop in.

Edit: and I shouldn't have said it had nothing to do with race, there's likely a racial component....it's not only or definitively about race.

All that said...please go ahead and boycott Starbucks, if not for this then because they're out of control and a near monopoly.

Some routers will auto-switch to a 10. subnet (from the typical 192.) when there is either mishap with the router config/collision, or possibly repeat disconnect from the ISP. Some folks set this by design. Google can tell you the intricacies.

I won't *say* I've ever done something like this. However, it's incredible how many local coffee shops/independent establishments just do not change the default config of a router. I'm genuinely dismayed how this utility, appliance and overall service continues to confound people.

Your privacy isn't that, folks, just be careful!

We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

To his "don't go by the same coffee shop" point, it must have been really hard to avoid "the force awakens" with the huge marketing machine of Disney churning out toys and cross-promotions everywhere.

The coffee shop I buy my beans from also sells re-usable re-fillable pods for Nespresso machines. Grind your own beans and fill the pod, then empty it afterwards and re-use the pod http://www.emohomestore.com/

@entr0py

The premise is not off at all. Starbucks simply skipped all the moving around steps and located in the "middle of the beach" where the existing coffee shop already was, because (it is likely) that is the best spot in the market.

Starbucks, or any business, does not open to "drive them out of business" they open a store to sell their goods and make a profit.

As someone who has worked with several retailers in very aggressive market sectors (pizza, fast casual, etc) I can tell you that the two vital components to any successful retailer/restaurant are 1) Good location 2) Good Operations. A good location means your customer will see you and get to you. Good operations means once they are there they will be served well.

More often then not when we start working with a new client we look at their competition not because we want to "drive them out of business", but because they have already looked at and evaluated the market. We then evaluate their locations and see if that is still the correct location or not. Markets shift for a variety of reasons - housing growth, retail expansion, major retailers relocating, etc.

"It's easier to steal someone else's customer base than try to create your own." Really? I find this to be the silliest argument. There is a limited amount of money people are going to spend on a product. Lets say a town will spend $1000 a day on coffee. If you open another coffee shop they are not going to spend an additional thousand. The $1000 is just going to be divided up. Maybe there is a slight increase because of access, but by and large people are only going to spend so much. Furthermore, people are creatures of habit. They are actually more likely to continue to go where they have been going unless you offer something better. That better might be a combination of easier access, faster service, a nicer interior, cheaper prices, or better product.

In the city I work in there are several grocery chains expanding and opening new stores. Does that mean people are spending more on groceries? No. What has happened is the grocer with the weakest operations closed. Those locations (over 30) have since been taken over by a variety of both national chains and local independent grocers (all who have better operations). This competition has meant better prices and service for customers.

I buy my coffee a block from my house (and I usually just buy the beans they roast on site) from a local shop. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that other people choose to go to the Starbucks up the street. The coffee I buy is better and I pay a premium for it.

Edit: One last thought - Among the many competitive advantages corporate users have is that they can operate at a loss or lower profit than many "local" stores. That being said the same is not quite as true from franchisee business owners (who have different advantages, hopefully).

Yeah, I think that's a much more accurate description of what's going on. Another example is how national chains behave when they're trying to break into a new market. Back before Starbucks was everywhere, their strategy in a new town was to build right next to the local coffee shop (and hopefully drive them out of business). People are already in the habit of going to that location for coffee; it's easier to steal someone else's customer base than try to create your own.

But still I have to upvote for a good illustration of a few game theory concepts, even if their premise that it explains business clustering is off.

@Shepppard

Restaurants like to be next to one another so long as they are different products. It creates a "food destination". Preferably lack of availability or a restriction would prevent users that have a product that is very similar.

Ever notice how most retail developments only have one coffee shop or one sandwich shop? Retail users ask landlords for an exclusive use. For example, Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts will say they can be the only store that sells coffee in a shopping center. Another restaurant may serve coffee as an incidental use - that is it can't be the central part of their business. This makes it harder for a new user to enter an established market.

You seem to be fixated on peak capacity of sit down restaurants. Restaurants have to complete their own analysis of how much square footage to have to accommodate the heaviest dining times, but still cover their costs when seats sit empty. Each square foot adds to their cost.

This video is very accurate in describing how users evaluate and respond to competition within a market.

I have worked in commercial retail brokerage for the last 10 years with several national users - pharmacies, banks, restaurants, and general retail use.

As a final comment, users can and will move. People do not notice as much but retailers relocate when they must to stay competitive or to block another user from coming into a market.

They could do another video on the proliferation of tipping. You see tip jars at drive up windows, coffee shops, fast food places. I know there's less obligation to the jar, but it's still pretty awkward. Am I an ass for not tipping? What if no one else is tipping, will doing so look like a sad attempt to ingratiate myself to the attractive barista? Is it fine to just throw a bit of loose change in there on a small purchase, or will they see the pennies as an insult?

I'd like to know what makes this guy an expert. Is he a self proclaimed expert, does he write a blog about local coffee shops, does he work as a roaster or is he a taster for an international importer?

Coffee expert doesn't tell me anything and I'm not at all convinced by any of the tasting comments this guy made.

really need more details about this... When they had brand new devices, does that mean they were un-patched for known security holes? Or are all these exploits the Russians use unknown, and there are currently no patches, such that a completely patched/updated device is still vulnerable?

Any WiFi captive-portal "login" page could inject known browser exploits into the html - If you use your own MyFi (personal hotspot), and are willing to pay huge for roaming international data, then this form of attack isn't possible.

And the coffee shop owner probably doesn't know that their wireless access point is serving up malicious code. It was either hacked by who they bought it from, or whoever installed it, or by some hacker who went to the shop. But shame on the airport's IT security - if they have official WiFi that was also hacked. (but the criminals might have set up their own wireless and called it "Free Airport WiFi")

Every OS on every device (not just Windows) has security holes, Mac OS X included. The hole gets exploited to allow running some piece of software that the user didn't intend, and that software (malware/virus) collects user data and uploads it back to the criminals servers on the network (these 'data collection' servers are also usually attacked/compromised computers, so they can't be traced directly back to the criminals).

My advice to tourists would be to bring a "dumb" phone for voice calls. (keep bluetooth turned off though) Then you'll remember how great it was to only charge it once a week

"Conveniently located within walking distance of a McDonald's, a chip shop, a bunch of Thai food places, and several coffee shops (that don't serve coffee), I literally can't suggest a better weekend than getting stoned, biking over to a boat full of cats and then going for snacks with your grubby cat-hands in matching Poezenboot T-shirts."

Now on my bucket list! Meow puff puff pass