It's not just "should they be fingerprinted". Taxi services are fingerprinted. It's "should Austin enforce its laws, when the internet is involved." And, I would definitely say, yes.
One, most importantly, the vote was "taxi services have to abide by taxi service rules, even if they're on the internet"
Two, rules change in a democracy when they no longer work for the people. Rules changing is what busted up Standard Oil and what kept Microsoft from owning the Browser.
Life may be considered a game, and stable rules are nice, but the stability is just one benefit. If it's worth it, the Supreme Court reverses a decision, or Congress adds a regulation or a referendum passes.
Uber is just a grand VC experiment in seeing how they can run illegal businesses and force laws to change for them
This used to be true. But I think DraftKings and FanDuel are the new ones pushing the boundary. "One particular law says that maybe our product is only regulated by all other laws, not just this one" --> We're legal !!
Funny, in general you would have been better off in a taxi. They prioritize medical rides, obviously (but lyft does not.) Beyond that, taxi in most places have radios, and can speed in the case of medical emergencies, arranging with the police to avoid being pulled over.
Prepaid debit cards, which hold the funds in a sort of anonymous way. Which is something criminals often use to move large sums of cash.
While the same scanners will work with cards linked to actual accounts, the civil forfeiture program doesn't allow forfeiture in that case. It does allow the confiscation of more than $X or cash equivalents. Which debit cards are.
TL;DR this doesn't change any of the legal requirements, nor whether those particular cards were confiscatible. It just changes whether a trooper can detect the amount on the cards. I oppose this because I would like to see where a supervisor got involved (or higher) before performing a civil forfeiture. But I don't think the police department should be denied these devices.
(1) They won't know if you're valuable until after they crack your system.
(2) It doesn't matter if you are more vulnerable than the guy down the street, it matters if what you are believed to have justifies the expense of cracking your system.
I agree wholeheartedly as an individual. But the number of people who are willing to do so is staggering. Just look at the apps that use ads + dollars as their revenue.
Why should people who aren't being disruptive with their cell phone be denied having it?
The same reason we block NASCAR drivers from going 100+ MPH on the highway, even though they could do so safely. Or forbid any number of actions that can be used irresponsibly. Because the rules cannot say "you can use a cellphone, unless you're an ass about it." Every type of being an ass must be codified To the point where sometimes its far easier to say "don't bring a cellphone" instead of "read this 100 page booklet on appropriate cellphone use."
In the Chicago case, the total number of homicides is between 293 and 306 (depending on how many of the 6 preceded vs. followed the 300th on of the year.). Orthogonal to homicides, 13 people were shot. 7 of those may have been homicides, or possibly fewer if some of the homicides had a different weapon. For context, that is out of a total of 55 people shot.
And MSN/the Tribune are going to differ on numbers, because homicide vs. manslaughter vs. self-defense are things determined ex post facto at trial, not when the police are called.
The second planet isn't 2 million years old. The star it's orbiting is. The article explains that the other planet could in fact be younger, but they're not sure.
They're not trademarking saying "Thank You". They're trademarking a rewards program called "Thank You". And they didn't sue AT&T. They asked the USPTO not to give AT&T a trademark on rewards programs called "Thanks" or "ATT Thanks". Which is at least as overreaching.
There are movies that are better than books. Star Wars, as a book, does not work. (The EU often does work, but that's the same universe. I mean the original trilogy).
Movies excel at action scenes, at non-retrospective/non-introspective characters who mostly fit into a fairly stereotypical model. With not much dialog, so they can do rather than say.
Heck, I'd much rather watch Shakespeare than read it.
But videoing myself talking is certainly the easiest way for me to tell a story.
Slashdot Mirror
You left out the most likely option. People say they would sacrifice 10 pedestrians, but don't in real life.
It's fairly common to have a difference like that with moral questions,
A 35 mph head on collision should not result in any loss of life with modern safety equipment. Injuries, yes.
People are complaining because the computer is biased, and unfair, and uses secret criteria and it disagrees with human intuition.
But algorithmic bias is worse than human bias, because people know other humans are biased, but give a pass to computers.
Depends on if they talk to one another.
The Sherman Antitust Act (1890) postdates Standard Oil's creation by decades, and their establishment of a monopolie far oil and beyond by years.
The Microsoft case was ultimately decided by a 2003 law changing the enforcement criteria.
It's not just "should they be fingerprinted". Taxi services are fingerprinted. It's "should Austin enforce its laws, when the internet is involved." And, I would definitely say, yes.
Sometimes principle is of overriding value.
One, most importantly, the vote was "taxi services have to abide by taxi service rules, even if they're on the internet"
Two, rules change in a democracy when they no longer work for the people. Rules changing is what busted up Standard Oil and what kept Microsoft from owning the Browser.
Life may be considered a game, and stable rules are nice, but the stability is just one benefit. If it's worth it, the Supreme Court reverses a decision, or Congress adds a regulation or a referendum passes.
This used to be true. But I think DraftKings and FanDuel are the new ones pushing the boundary. "One particular law says that maybe our product is only regulated by all other laws, not just this one" --> We're legal !!
Funny, in general you would have been better off in a taxi. They prioritize medical rides, obviously (but lyft does not.) Beyond that, taxi in most places have radios, and can speed in the case of medical emergencies, arranging with the police to avoid being pulled over.
That's a penny a user!
Thank you. It was in fact a writing error, not a reading error.
Some people enjoyed the fewer wires. I personally prefer the reliability and speed of plugging in an ethernet cord.
Hey, they spent $2 billion on Beats. They have to force people to use it somehow.
Prepaid debit cards, which hold the funds in a sort of anonymous way. Which is something criminals often use to move large sums of cash.
While the same scanners will work with cards linked to actual accounts, the civil forfeiture program doesn't allow forfeiture in that case. It does allow the confiscation of more than $X or cash equivalents. Which debit cards are.
TL;DR this doesn't change any of the legal requirements, nor whether those particular cards were confiscatible. It just changes whether a trooper can detect the amount on the cards. I oppose this because I would like to see where a supervisor got involved (or higher) before performing a civil forfeiture. But I don't think the police department should be denied these devices.
Aren't they working hard on natively supporting apks, so they can import the Google app store?
(1) They won't know if you're valuable until after they crack your system.
(2) It doesn't matter if you are more vulnerable than the guy down the street, it matters if what you are believed to have justifies the expense of cracking your system.
(3) A lot of this is done for lulz, not money.
I imagine some drops of superglue put directly on the microphone work. After all, the mike top has to vibrate...
I agree wholeheartedly as an individual. But the number of people who are willing to do so is staggering. Just look at the apps that use ads + dollars as their revenue.
The same reason we block NASCAR drivers from going 100+ MPH on the highway, even though they could do so safely. Or forbid any number of actions that can be used irresponsibly. Because the rules cannot say "you can use a cellphone, unless you're an ass about it." Every type of being an ass must be codified To the point where sometimes its far easier to say "don't bring a cellphone" instead of "read this 100 page booklet on appropriate cellphone use."
Maybe the problem is your reading comprehension?
In the Chicago case, the total number of homicides is between 293 and 306 (depending on how many of the 6 preceded vs. followed the 300th on of the year.). Orthogonal to homicides, 13 people were shot. 7 of those may have been homicides, or possibly fewer if some of the homicides had a different weapon. For context, that is out of a total of 55 people shot.
And MSN/the Tribune are going to differ on numbers, because homicide vs. manslaughter vs. self-defense are things determined ex post facto at trial, not when the police are called.
The second planet isn't 2 million years old. The star it's orbiting is. The article explains that the other planet could in fact be younger, but they're not sure.
It seems like the solution should be twitch using a ranking algorithm that's resilient to bots.
If someone wants to pretend to have friends/fans by spending money, why is that something we need to stop?
They're not trademarking saying "Thank You". They're trademarking a rewards program called "Thank You". And they didn't sue AT&T. They asked the USPTO not to give AT&T a trademark on rewards programs called "Thanks" or "ATT Thanks". Which is at least as overreaching.
You have autoplaying videos at work? We have plugins that require you to click on the video to even load it.
Do you need admin access to add a plugin to your browser?
There are movies that are better than books. Star Wars, as a book, does not work. (The EU often does work, but that's the same universe. I mean the original trilogy).
Movies excel at action scenes, at non-retrospective/non-introspective characters who mostly fit into a fairly stereotypical model. With not much dialog, so they can do rather than say.
Heck, I'd much rather watch Shakespeare than read it.
But videoing myself talking is certainly the easiest way for me to tell a story.