Your whole post was pretty much void after you linked your referral link. The fact that _you_ get benefits from people signing up makes me think your review might be biased.
I mean, if you don't sell me on their service, I'm not going to give you your referral bonus.
Simple point, if you really want people to trust your review, don't post your referral links.
Again, that was just my opinion on your post, I'm not saying you're wrong.
Re:Was it a cause of his legal trouble?
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I'm sorry, but I work for a company in the top 10 of the fortune 500 and with the economy the way it is I'll be _lucky_ to not be outsourced by the end of this year.
Job security in IT is _not_ joining a large company that is going to ship your job overseas the second they realize they will save 50%+ letting you and your staff go.
Going out on your own may not yield the best results up front, but once you get a somewhat stable client base you are basically secure.
In the world of outsourcing IT, keeping yourself visible and available is the way to go. Not locking yourself behind some corporate facade that will drop you first chance they get.
Why attempt to force the market to change? Oh right, money. Someone stands to make a lot of money from a bunch of people being forced to upgrade.
I mean, they could just let the old tvs slowly die out and eventually noone will have a need for anything but HDMI, but where is the short term profit in that?
Somehow I still doubt it will work. People don't like being told they can't have their way and someone will find a way to give them what they want anyways.
Lets not start hating on a company just because they are big enough to pretend to hate.
I haven't had any issues with any google services in a _long_ time (Google Phone/Number, Google Search, GMail, Google Docs, etc).
If/When they decide to start really manipulating my wallet and charging outrageous prices for simple things (cable tv, phone, etc) like all my other providers, then I'll start hating on them.
But honestly, right now, while it's a bit scary the reach they have, they've only patted me on the back with it so far.
I'll support them and their efforts until it becomes self defeating to do so.
And if reseller A was too expensive and I would never sign up with them but reseller B was in my price range? That's profit gained, not lost.
If the only source you allow to sell your items is out of a large enough percentage of the populations price range, you're not going to sell that much. But if you allow the price to drop, you can gain more customers and potentially more profit.
Why sell one item at a million dollars when you can sell 10 million of the same item for two dollars? Especially when that item costs you next to nothing to reproduce/copy.
The best part is, you can allow both to continue to exist. If reseller A has value added services that keep it around, then you get more profit from them.
Say I had a bunch of bits on my server. Say those bits were recorded from people with talent and "permanently" placed on my server. I also have the right to sell those bits to whomever wants them.
The best part here, if you want to buy my bits, I send you a duplicate copy at next to no cost to me. Now you sell those bits or make money in/directly from them, I get a cut.
Now say a site out there wants to stream my bits to non-paying customers, but, I could see _some_ revenue from advertisements your site runs. How is this a bad thing for me as the bit holder? How is this hurting me?
Sure, I could let others stream my bits and get more money from them as they might have higher profit yielding business models. But in the end, site y streaming my music with advertisements isn't really going to hurt my profit from site x that charges an up-front fee (radio is unreliable if you want to hear x and y songs).
I guess my open question, to the recording industry is, if you can stream your bits to everyone and expect _some_ compensation from each, why wouldn't you want _everyone_ to start offering your products at whatever profit they can gleam for you?
If you're worried about piracy, well, that boat sailed a long time ago.
Profit is profit. You're not making a physical object that costs you x dollars. You're allowing others access to your bits that cost you next to nothing to duplicate (although, I know it costs _something_, it will be a lot less than physical items).
Obviously, that was rhetorical as the Recording Industry will never respond to me. But my own conclusion comes out as simple control, or at least their own illusion of control.
I'm excited about this announcement. I was also on the "iPad sucks" bandwagon but not necessarily because it's "cool" to hate on Apple.
To explain.
I'm in the market for a new portable computer. I've been looking at netbooks, etc. (Currently I do _not_ own a smartphone.)
Requirements:
Full web surfing capability. This means, even for all it's evils, Flash capability. Hulu, Netflix, Web TV, etc.
I don't need gaming, or at least "real" gaming. I don't need it to run Crysis, or even Quake. Some fun puzzles, etc, would be nice.
Bluetooth support and video camera abilities for video conferencing would be a plus, but not required.
Basically, when I'm out on vacation, etc, I want to be able to read the news, slashdot, gaming sites, etc. I also want to be able to watch Hulu if I get bored and want to chill to a missed TV show at night. Being able to pay bills/access my bank account is very very handy.
DVD playing functionality is a plus, but not required (especially since it would eat into battery life). The ability to connect an external drive would be very nice though (portable movie player).
_No_ _vendor_ _lock_ _in_. No apple store only and no AT&T only.
WiFi alone is fine by the way. A separate data plan just seems, redundant even if you can use it while outside of WiFi range.
But again, I don't have a portable computer right now and I don't need a full blown laptop to do what I need. But I do want an open platform that does what I need it to.
iPad does _not_ fit _my_ bill.
This new device _might_.
One of the other "iPad clones" may as well.
-In the case of the orbiter, the prime contractor is Rockwell International
-The Space Shuttle main engines are produced by the Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International
-The Shuttle's huge external tank is built at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans, La., by Martin Marietta Corp., Michoud Aerospace
-Several aerospace firms components for the Shuttle's solid rocket boosters (SRB). The solid propellant motors are built by the Wasatch Division of the Morton Thiokol Chemical Corp.
-All other SRB components are produced by United Space Boosters, Inc.
-assembly of the entire solid rocket booster -- is performed by the Lockheed Space Operations Co.
NASA really only project manages, provides the astronauts, and pushes the buttons.
But I'd submit that the lions share of the work is done by private companies already.
The iPod was a personal music and later a video and limited "game/app" device. The latter obviously more of a "can do" versus "is made for".
The iPhone was primarily a phone with PDA functionality and an iPod built in. Feels like either an iPod with phone functionality or an iPhone with iPod functionality. Not sure which, but it was replacing something you already carried in your pocket. Ok, I get the need.
The iPad.
Ok, it can't make calls.
It's an unportable iPod.
It's an eReader with a bright ass screen that will strain your eyes.
It can do limited word/spreadsheet processing.
It surfs the internet the way Apple says you should (no flash, IE: no Hulu, etc).
It plays limited games so it's not going to dominate the handheld market.
It only plays video from the apple store but the iPod et al already do that albeit on smaller screens.
I just don't get what niche this thing is supposed to fill. Is it a crippled laptop or a huge iPod?
And starting at $500 for the version without 3G surfing capability, which arguably is it's strongest trait, I don't see the "Well, I already had one of these in my pocket (cell phone) and this one does it better plus it does tons more (iPhone), so I must get one." argument.
It seems to be a solution to a problem, or a replacement for a product no one needed to invent.
I think he's saying it's a step backwards because they are taking, what is essentially a tablet computer, and 100% locking it down to only do what Apple explicitly allows.
This thing isn't a phone and it's not an mp3 player, it is a tablet computer that is directly trying to compete with netbooks and even laptops. But again, they are entirely locking down the platform and the software to such a degree that any freedom is entirely lost. You can fully understand a phone being locked down to phone applications delivered by the manufacturer and the same with mp3 players. The software is written for the device and that's all there really is to say about it.
The iPad on the other hand, again, is a computer meant to be used like a laptop with its own internet connection. Locking it down so harshly is a step backwards in the usability of the device.
Not all models are 3G enabled. If you watched the presentation you would have noted that the 3G versions are $130 more expensive than the non-3G versions.
No, there are "base" models with _no_ 3G adapter built in and then there are the "3G" versions which are a carbon copy of all the base models but with a 3G adapter built in at a $130 higher tag. Basically, there are 6 versions of the iPad.
I would guess the cameras are very steady and will have much better vision than human eyes from 500ft.
Helicopters are also usually out assisting ground units in specific cases. Meaning, the ground units need an eye above them for a _limited_ amount of time to track a fleeing suspect or to just keep an eye open in the even a situation they are engaging in turns into a chase situation (IE: meth lab bust, etc).
Drones can just go up and stay up. They aren't there to follow chases and they aren't there to provide lighting. Drones can simply stay up recording anything a controlling officer finds interesting to look at.
Basically, helicopters are specific use and drones are whatever the camera operator wants it to be.
What are the laws going to be on probable cause to stop someone that is on "candid camera"?
What I mean is, if it spots you jaywalking, can they just follow you around and order local units to stop you? If you're walking by a street vendor and they see you reach into a bin, then moments later just happen to put your hand in your pocket, are they allowed to detain and search you?
Anecdotal evidence here, take this as you will.
A few years back I joined a "Citizens Police Academy". Basically, at its core, it is a PR program setup to bring the community and its police together. We got to basically take a free 10 week course meeting once a week where we went over the basics of all the police duties.
Personally, I got to partake in classes where they taught you about evidence gathering, etc. We got to do mock pull overs in the parking lot (quite interesting scenarios), I got to go on ride alongs (4 hours "on the beat" with an officer), I got to fire their weapons at their range, and I also got to partake (although limited) in on site SWAT training where I got to be the bad guy and we basically played hide and seek.
The most enlightening part of the whole experience, as well as my point, lie in the ride along.
Once nighttime hit, we were patrolling the back roads and an out of town car was just going along doing its thing. The driver, as far as myself and the officer were concerned, was obeying the traffic laws. However, the officer I was with had a hunch that this kid might be up to "something".
We followed him for a bit waiting for him to screw up. Although, we were certain he knew we were behind him (crown vic headlights are easily spotted when you know what they look like). Eventually the car we were following pulled off onto a private driveway.
The officer still was suspicious of his activity and wanted a reason (probable cause) to stop him. So we quickly u-turned and headed out to a "lookout" spot above the side street the officer expected him to exit from. The reason he wanted a good lookout spot was to see if he would not come to a complete stop at a particular stop sign.
Interestingly enough, the kid did come out the way the officer was expecting, however, he did come to a complete, 2 second, stop. No probable cause.
We followed him for a while longer and finally, the kid didn't come to a complete stop at another stop sign. Bam, cue the flashing lights and Signal 6.
While I wasn't allowed out of the vehicle, I noticed him take his time in talking to the driver. Smelling for smells and looking for things to see.
In the end, no ticket was written and it was a simple stop. However, I'm sure the kid had no idea we were 100% focused on stopping _him_ for the better part of half an hour.
We had no reason to suspect anything and simply followed him long enough until he made a simple and honest mistake. At that point the noose was tightened and we had Probable Cause to interrupt his night for no other reason than to quench the curiosity of a random police officer.
**For the record I want to state I didn't sense any malice or any power trip from the officer I was with. I also want to state that I won't second guess the intuition and gut feelings of police officers who deal with scum on a day to day basis. You never know when they will be right, then again, shoot a gun blindly into an ocean enough times and eventually you'll catch dinner.**
Now is this same thing going to be commonplace with drones overhead? Are officers going to look for anyone they find interesting and purposely waste time following them until the person does _anything_ to trip probable cause?
This just reeks of abuse of power and reeks of "show me your papers". Sure, you'll still need Probable Cause (hopefully) to stop the person, but with an unseen eye watching your every move from above, what are the chances you _won't_ do _something_ to trip PC and have your privacy invaded?
It really is quite interesting to see a new Super Power being born. This is made a bit more interesting as I'm an American and "I" have been the Super Power for my entire life. To be witnessing the handover/taking of that torch is, admittedly a little unsettling, but hey, lets be honest, the US is no barometer of "good". We're pretty shady in our own right.
That being said, I have a feeling if there isn't a massive overhaul of the Chinese government, it may be a short lived stay at the top. As their populace inevitably feels the benefits of being at the top, they are going to want a better standard of living. As more and more of their populace starts wanting more, wanting "better", and becoming more educated, the corruption, censoring, etc, is going to get more and more obvious. I can easily see their population eventually standing up and demanding something better.
Hopefully they don't have the same growing pains we did (civil war, etc), although, we did come out better for it and it didn't kill us as a nation.
It will be an interesting show to watch, even if it is a bit unnerving.
A CEO is a person just like you and me. If a person, CEO or not, wants to spend personal savings on a candidate, go for it. The business as a whole should get zero say, but each and every individual could be asked to "speak" on the issue individually. If the janitor wants to write and send $100, awesome. If the CEO wants to write and send $100, _equally_ awesome.
Simply put, the individuals get the voice, not a faceless organization that wants to sway political opinion for the _organizations_ (read: not the individuals who work/invest) benefit.
Again, I think there should be limits, just so 1% of the population doesn't get 99% of the voice, but that's not my point with this post.
Exactly, each individual in that group can write a personal check and the leader can put them all in the same envelope with a signed letter. We don't need a faceless organization _claiming_ to hold the support of its employees contributing millions of dollars on their "behalf".
If you want to assemble with like minded people, go for it!
If you want to all make a large contribution supporting your ideals, go for it!
Just make sure those contributions are from individuals and not a large organization with self serving interests and a huge coffer.
The power needs to lie with the people, not the organization.
[A U.S.] Supreme Court ruling in 1886... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before. Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves, the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech. Thus corporations were given the same “rights” to influence the government in their own interests as were extended to individual citizens, paving the way for corporations to use their wealth to dominate public thought and discourse. The debates in the United States in the 1990s over campaign finance reform, in which corporate bodies can “donate” millions of dollars to political candidates stem from this ruling although rarely if ever is that mentioned. Thus, corporations, as “persons,” were free to lobby legislatures, use the mass media, establish educational institutions such as many business schools founded by corporate leaders in the early twentieth century, found charitable organizations to convince the public of their lofty intent, and in general construct an image that they believed would be in their best interests. All of this in the interest of “free speech.”
— Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p.100
Personally, in my opinion, that's where it went downhill. A corporation doesn't need rights as an individual. If a corporation needs to speak it has many members which can be enabled to speak for it.
The problem is that the voice of a business has no bearing on the amount of individuals it represents but merely by the amount of money it can throw. If a business representing 100,000 employees only has $100,000 to contribute it won't even be registered against a tiny company of 5 people that can contribute $1,000,000,000.
If there were reasonable caps to contributions, say, $1,000 per person (people) and _no_ corporations were allowed to contribute, then the people get the power back. If a large corporation wants to push an issue, they can lobby their own employees to contribute to their cause, but the choice would again be with the individual people.
I mean honestly, if I have $300 to contribute to a politician I support, how in the world is that going to compare to a $10,000,000 contribution from Big Media when they are leaning in the opposite direction on an issue?
I'm not saying "the people" have had any real power for a long time (when compared to big business), but this just skews it even farther away from us.
Tossing out the government will end up requiring the use of arms. Those with the power will not just walk away. Our country is very polarized and you would find just as many people for as for against the "replacing" of government. You simply won't see "the people" all stand up and tell the current leaders to go.
We're talking about tearing down what we have, not just changing figureheads. All the laws that "we" "don't like" would have to be removed as well.
At the beginning those fighting the powers that be will be labeled, and handled, as terrorists.
If they succeed in gaining momentum, it will turn into civil war.
But without a powerful army of "our" own to fight the current standing army, I fear "our" army would be _severely_ out matched. Although, you could hope for a split in the armed forces as well and hope they back "our" team, but somehow I don't see that happening on a large enough scale.
Unfortunately, in the end, I don't see "us" beating the government. It will take another country to help with that, but they won't do it out of generosity. They will want something for it and I'm afraid the "rules" for helping will allow for laws even worse than what we see now.
This is all mental masturbation and I don't claim to be a strategist let alone an expert. But my logic tells me an internal uprising will easily be handled by the numbers and the technology of the current government.
"While more hemp is exported to the United States than to any other country, the United States Government does not consistently distinguish between marijuana and the non-psychoactive Cannabis used for industrial and commercial purposes."
If it wasn't obvious, I _was_ talking about the United States. So, basically it was the _basis_ for my argument. Legalize marijuana and hemp cultivation can move forward.
Actually, growing your own tobacco is legal, but if you grow to much it's considered intent to distribute and you'll find yourself in a world of hurt.
Distillers are regulated as well. Their size has to be pretty small and when someone sells one to you those records are to be open to the authorities whenever they need access to them.
Distributing commercially grown and packaged tobacco/alcohol is fine since these companies are watched and taxed. Doing it yourself out of your backyard is still a no-no.
Hence personal use and "not for distribution". You can grow/keep your own, but too much becomes intent to distribute and someone knocks on your door.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a random slashdot poster and just an fyi.
Your whole post was pretty much void after you linked your referral link. The fact that _you_ get benefits from people signing up makes me think your review might be biased.
I mean, if you don't sell me on their service, I'm not going to give you your referral bonus.
Simple point, if you really want people to trust your review, don't post your referral links.
Again, that was just my opinion on your post, I'm not saying you're wrong.
I'm sorry, but I work for a company in the top 10 of the fortune 500 and with the economy the way it is I'll be _lucky_ to not be outsourced by the end of this year.
Job security in IT is _not_ joining a large company that is going to ship your job overseas the second they realize they will save 50%+ letting you and your staff go.
Going out on your own may not yield the best results up front, but once you get a somewhat stable client base you are basically secure.
In the world of outsourcing IT, keeping yourself visible and available is the way to go. Not locking yourself behind some corporate facade that will drop you first chance they get.
Why attempt to force the market to change? Oh right, money. Someone stands to make a lot of money from a bunch of people being forced to upgrade.
I mean, they could just let the old tvs slowly die out and eventually noone will have a need for anything but HDMI, but where is the short term profit in that?
Somehow I still doubt it will work. People don't like being told they can't have their way and someone will find a way to give them what they want anyways.
Lets not start hating on a company just because they are big enough to pretend to hate.
I haven't had any issues with any google services in a _long_ time (Google Phone/Number, Google Search, GMail, Google Docs, etc).
If/When they decide to start really manipulating my wallet and charging outrageous prices for simple things (cable tv, phone, etc) like all my other providers, then I'll start hating on them.
But honestly, right now, while it's a bit scary the reach they have, they've only patted me on the back with it so far.
I'll support them and their efforts until it becomes self defeating to do so.
Frankly, I'm not entirely sure you want to be zapping mosquitoes and aerosolizing their body parts around an open surgery site.
Although, put one of these in every entry way where there are two sets of doors to pass through and you'll practically eliminate them.
Personally, however, I want one for my bedroom. Nothing annoys me more than a lone mosquito buzzing around me while I'm trying to fall asleep.
And if reseller A was too expensive and I would never sign up with them but reseller B was in my price range? That's profit gained, not lost.
If the only source you allow to sell your items is out of a large enough percentage of the populations price range, you're not going to sell that much. But if you allow the price to drop, you can gain more customers and potentially more profit.
Why sell one item at a million dollars when you can sell 10 million of the same item for two dollars? Especially when that item costs you next to nothing to reproduce/copy.
The best part is, you can allow both to continue to exist. If reseller A has value added services that keep it around, then you get more profit from them.
Say I had a bunch of bits on my server. Say those bits were recorded from people with talent and "permanently" placed on my server. I also have the right to sell those bits to whomever wants them.
The best part here, if you want to buy my bits, I send you a duplicate copy at next to no cost to me. Now you sell those bits or make money in/directly from them, I get a cut.
Now say a site out there wants to stream my bits to non-paying customers, but, I could see _some_ revenue from advertisements your site runs. How is this a bad thing for me as the bit holder? How is this hurting me?
Sure, I could let others stream my bits and get more money from them as they might have higher profit yielding business models. But in the end, site y streaming my music with advertisements isn't really going to hurt my profit from site x that charges an up-front fee (radio is unreliable if you want to hear x and y songs).
I guess my open question, to the recording industry is, if you can stream your bits to everyone and expect _some_ compensation from each, why wouldn't you want _everyone_ to start offering your products at whatever profit they can gleam for you?
If you're worried about piracy, well, that boat sailed a long time ago.
Profit is profit. You're not making a physical object that costs you x dollars. You're allowing others access to your bits that cost you next to nothing to duplicate (although, I know it costs _something_, it will be a lot less than physical items).
Obviously, that was rhetorical as the Recording Industry will never respond to me. But my own conclusion comes out as simple control, or at least their own illusion of control.
*Paying* Pandora Member/Customer
I'm excited about this announcement. I was also on the "iPad sucks" bandwagon but not necessarily because it's "cool" to hate on Apple.
To explain.
I'm in the market for a new portable computer. I've been looking at netbooks, etc. (Currently I do _not_ own a smartphone.)
Requirements:
Full web surfing capability. This means, even for all it's evils, Flash capability. Hulu, Netflix, Web TV, etc.
I don't need gaming, or at least "real" gaming. I don't need it to run Crysis, or even Quake. Some fun puzzles, etc, would be nice.
Bluetooth support and video camera abilities for video conferencing would be a plus, but not required.
Basically, when I'm out on vacation, etc, I want to be able to read the news, slashdot, gaming sites, etc. I also want to be able to watch Hulu if I get bored and want to chill to a missed TV show at night. Being able to pay bills/access my bank account is very very handy.
DVD playing functionality is a plus, but not required (especially since it would eat into battery life). The ability to connect an external drive would be very nice though (portable movie player).
_No_ _vendor_ _lock_ _in_. No apple store only and no AT&T only.
WiFi alone is fine by the way. A separate data plan just seems, redundant even if you can use it while outside of WiFi range.
But again, I don't have a portable computer right now and I don't need a full blown laptop to do what I need. But I do want an open platform that does what I need it to.
iPad does _not_ fit _my_ bill.
This new device _might_.
One of the other "iPad clones" may as well.
What you fail to realize is that private industry already builds the spacecraft in use by NASA.
Source: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsover.html
-In the case of the orbiter, the prime contractor is Rockwell International
-The Space Shuttle main engines are produced by the Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International
-The Shuttle's huge external tank is built at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans, La., by Martin Marietta Corp., Michoud Aerospace
-Several aerospace firms components for the Shuttle's solid rocket boosters (SRB). The solid propellant motors are built by the Wasatch Division of the Morton Thiokol Chemical Corp.
-All other SRB components are produced by United Space Boosters, Inc.
-assembly of the entire solid rocket booster -- is performed by the Lockheed Space Operations Co.
NASA really only project manages, provides the astronauts, and pushes the buttons.
But I'd submit that the lions share of the work is done by private companies already.
This is exactly what I don't get.
The iPod was a personal music and later a video and limited "game/app" device. The latter obviously more of a "can do" versus "is made for".
The iPhone was primarily a phone with PDA functionality and an iPod built in. Feels like either an iPod with phone functionality or an iPhone with iPod functionality. Not sure which, but it was replacing something you already carried in your pocket. Ok, I get the need.
The iPad.
Ok, it can't make calls.
It's an unportable iPod.
It's an eReader with a bright ass screen that will strain your eyes.
It can do limited word/spreadsheet processing.
It surfs the internet the way Apple says you should (no flash, IE: no Hulu, etc).
It plays limited games so it's not going to dominate the handheld market.
It only plays video from the apple store but the iPod et al already do that albeit on smaller screens.
I just don't get what niche this thing is supposed to fill. Is it a crippled laptop or a huge iPod?
And starting at $500 for the version without 3G surfing capability, which arguably is it's strongest trait, I don't see the "Well, I already had one of these in my pocket (cell phone) and this one does it better plus it does tons more (iPhone), so I must get one." argument.
It seems to be a solution to a problem, or a replacement for a product no one needed to invent.
I think he's saying it's a step backwards because they are taking, what is essentially a tablet computer, and 100% locking it down to only do what Apple explicitly allows.
This thing isn't a phone and it's not an mp3 player, it is a tablet computer that is directly trying to compete with netbooks and even laptops. But again, they are entirely locking down the platform and the software to such a degree that any freedom is entirely lost. You can fully understand a phone being locked down to phone applications delivered by the manufacturer and the same with mp3 players. The software is written for the device and that's all there really is to say about it.
The iPad on the other hand, again, is a computer meant to be used like a laptop with its own internet connection. Locking it down so harshly is a step backwards in the usability of the device.
That's my impression, anyways.
Not all models are 3G enabled. If you watched the presentation you would have noted that the 3G versions are $130 more expensive than the non-3G versions.
No, there are "base" models with _no_ 3G adapter built in and then there are the "3G" versions which are a carbon copy of all the base models but with a 3G adapter built in at a $130 higher tag. Basically, there are 6 versions of the iPad.
The article you quoted has a typo. The 64GB
model does _not_ start at $799, it starts at $699.
Base model with no 3G is $499.
Each model higher with no 3G is $100 more.
Base models: 16GB-$499, 32GB-$599, 64GB-$699
Add $130 more to each of those prices to get the 3G enabled versions.
Cheapest 3G model is $499+130=$629
Most expensive 3G model is $699+130=$829
Just for clarification, it's MB, the capital 'B' signifies Byte over Bit.
Notes from watching streaming event.
3G Wireless w/AT&T
$14.99 for up to 250 MB per month
$29.99 for unlimited per month
Discuss?
I would guess the cameras are very steady and will have much better vision than human eyes from 500ft.
Helicopters are also usually out assisting ground units in specific cases. Meaning, the ground units need an eye above them for a _limited_ amount of time to track a fleeing suspect or to just keep an eye open in the even a situation they are engaging in turns into a chase situation (IE: meth lab bust, etc).
Drones can just go up and stay up. They aren't there to follow chases and they aren't there to provide lighting. Drones can simply stay up recording anything a controlling officer finds interesting to look at.
Basically, helicopters are specific use and drones are whatever the camera operator wants it to be.
At least, that's the way I see it.
What are the laws going to be on probable cause to stop someone that is on "candid camera"?
What I mean is, if it spots you jaywalking, can they just follow you around and order local units to stop you? If you're walking by a street vendor and they see you reach into a bin, then moments later just happen to put your hand in your pocket, are they allowed to detain and search you?
Anecdotal evidence here, take this as you will.
A few years back I joined a "Citizens Police Academy". Basically, at its core, it is a PR program setup to bring the community and its police together. We got to basically take a free 10 week course meeting once a week where we went over the basics of all the police duties.
Personally, I got to partake in classes where they taught you about evidence gathering, etc. We got to do mock pull overs in the parking lot (quite interesting scenarios), I got to go on ride alongs (4 hours "on the beat" with an officer), I got to fire their weapons at their range, and I also got to partake (although limited) in on site SWAT training where I got to be the bad guy and we basically played hide and seek.
The most enlightening part of the whole experience, as well as my point, lie in the ride along.
Once nighttime hit, we were patrolling the back roads and an out of town car was just going along doing its thing. The driver, as far as myself and the officer were concerned, was obeying the traffic laws. However, the officer I was with had a hunch that this kid might be up to "something".
We followed him for a bit waiting for him to screw up. Although, we were certain he knew we were behind him (crown vic headlights are easily spotted when you know what they look like). Eventually the car we were following pulled off onto a private driveway.
The officer still was suspicious of his activity and wanted a reason (probable cause) to stop him. So we quickly u-turned and headed out to a "lookout" spot above the side street the officer expected him to exit from. The reason he wanted a good lookout spot was to see if he would not come to a complete stop at a particular stop sign.
Interestingly enough, the kid did come out the way the officer was expecting, however, he did come to a complete, 2 second, stop. No probable cause.
We followed him for a while longer and finally, the kid didn't come to a complete stop at another stop sign. Bam, cue the flashing lights and Signal 6.
While I wasn't allowed out of the vehicle, I noticed him take his time in talking to the driver. Smelling for smells and looking for things to see.
In the end, no ticket was written and it was a simple stop. However, I'm sure the kid had no idea we were 100% focused on stopping _him_ for the better part of half an hour.
We had no reason to suspect anything and simply followed him long enough until he made a simple and honest mistake. At that point the noose was tightened and we had Probable Cause to interrupt his night for no other reason than to quench the curiosity of a random police officer.
**For the record I want to state I didn't sense any malice or any power trip from the officer I was with. I also want to state that I won't second guess the intuition and gut feelings of police officers who deal with scum on a day to day basis. You never know when they will be right, then again, shoot a gun blindly into an ocean enough times and eventually you'll catch dinner.**
Now is this same thing going to be commonplace with drones overhead? Are officers going to look for anyone they find interesting and purposely waste time following them until the person does _anything_ to trip probable cause?
This just reeks of abuse of power and reeks of "show me your papers". Sure, you'll still need Probable Cause (hopefully) to stop the person, but with an unseen eye watching your every move from above, what are the chances you _won't_ do _something_ to trip PC and have your privacy invaded?
The potential here is scary...
It really is quite interesting to see a new Super Power being born. This is made a bit more interesting as I'm an American and "I" have been the Super Power for my entire life. To be witnessing the handover/taking of that torch is, admittedly a little unsettling, but hey, lets be honest, the US is no barometer of "good". We're pretty shady in our own right.
That being said, I have a feeling if there isn't a massive overhaul of the Chinese government, it may be a short lived stay at the top. As their populace inevitably feels the benefits of being at the top, they are going to want a better standard of living. As more and more of their populace starts wanting more, wanting "better", and becoming more educated, the corruption, censoring, etc, is going to get more and more obvious. I can easily see their population eventually standing up and demanding something better.
Hopefully they don't have the same growing pains we did (civil war, etc), although, we did come out better for it and it didn't kill us as a nation.
It will be an interesting show to watch, even if it is a bit unnerving.
A CEO is a person just like you and me. If a person, CEO or not, wants to spend personal savings on a candidate, go for it. The business as a whole should get zero say, but each and every individual could be asked to "speak" on the issue individually. If the janitor wants to write and send $100, awesome. If the CEO wants to write and send $100, _equally_ awesome.
Simply put, the individuals get the voice, not a faceless organization that wants to sway political opinion for the _organizations_ (read: not the individuals who work/invest) benefit.
Again, I think there should be limits, just so 1% of the population doesn't get 99% of the voice, but that's not my point with this post.
Exactly, each individual in that group can write a personal check and the leader can put them all in the same envelope with a signed letter. We don't need a faceless organization _claiming_ to hold the support of its employees contributing millions of dollars on their "behalf".
If you want to assemble with like minded people, go for it!
If you want to all make a large contribution supporting your ideals, go for it!
Just make sure those contributions are from individuals and not a large organization with self serving interests and a huge coffer.
The power needs to lie with the people, not the organization.
[A U.S.] Supreme Court ruling in 1886 ... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before. Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves, the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech. Thus corporations were given the same “rights” to influence the government in their own interests as were extended to individual citizens, paving the way for corporations to use their wealth to dominate public thought and discourse. The debates in the United States in the 1990s over campaign finance reform, in which corporate bodies can “donate” millions of dollars to political candidates stem from this ruling although rarely if ever is that mentioned. Thus, corporations, as “persons,” were free to lobby legislatures, use the mass media, establish educational institutions such as many business schools founded by corporate leaders in the early twentieth century, found charitable organizations to convince the public of their lofty intent, and in general construct an image that they believed would be in their best interests. All of this in the interest of “free speech.”
— Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p.100
Personally, in my opinion, that's where it went downhill. A corporation doesn't need rights as an individual. If a corporation needs to speak it has many members which can be enabled to speak for it.
The problem is that the voice of a business has no bearing on the amount of individuals it represents but merely by the amount of money it can throw. If a business representing 100,000 employees only has $100,000 to contribute it won't even be registered against a tiny company of 5 people that can contribute $1,000,000,000.
If there were reasonable caps to contributions, say, $1,000 per person (people) and _no_ corporations were allowed to contribute, then the people get the power back. If a large corporation wants to push an issue, they can lobby their own employees to contribute to their cause, but the choice would again be with the individual people.
I mean honestly, if I have $300 to contribute to a politician I support, how in the world is that going to compare to a $10,000,000 contribution from Big Media when they are leaning in the opposite direction on an issue?
I'm not saying "the people" have had any real power for a long time (when compared to big business), but this just skews it even farther away from us.
Sad day to be an American...
Tossing out the government will end up requiring the use of arms. Those with the power will not just walk away. Our country is very polarized and you would find just as many people for as for against the "replacing" of government. You simply won't see "the people" all stand up and tell the current leaders to go.
We're talking about tearing down what we have, not just changing figureheads. All the laws that "we" "don't like" would have to be removed as well.
At the beginning those fighting the powers that be will be labeled, and handled, as terrorists.
If they succeed in gaining momentum, it will turn into civil war.
But without a powerful army of "our" own to fight the current standing army, I fear "our" army would be _severely_ out matched. Although, you could hope for a split in the armed forces as well and hope they back "our" team, but somehow I don't see that happening on a large enough scale.
Unfortunately, in the end, I don't see "us" beating the government. It will take another country to help with that, but they won't do it out of generosity. They will want something for it and I'm afraid the "rules" for helping will allow for laws even worse than what we see now.
This is all mental masturbation and I don't claim to be a strategist let alone an expert. But my logic tells me an internal uprising will easily be handled by the numbers and the technology of the current government.
Per your linked article:
"While more hemp is exported to the United States than to any other country, the United States Government does not consistently distinguish between marijuana and the non-psychoactive Cannabis used for industrial and commercial purposes."
If it wasn't obvious, I _was_ talking about the United States. So, basically it was the _basis_ for my argument. Legalize marijuana and hemp cultivation can move forward.
Actually, growing your own tobacco is legal, but if you grow to much it's considered intent to distribute and you'll find yourself in a world of hurt.
Distillers are regulated as well. Their size has to be pretty small and when someone sells one to you those records are to be open to the authorities whenever they need access to them.
Distributing commercially grown and packaged tobacco/alcohol is fine since these companies are watched and taxed. Doing it yourself out of your backyard is still a no-no.
Hence personal use and "not for distribution". You can grow/keep your own, but too much becomes intent to distribute and someone knocks on your door.