Because they have the spectrum, and Google can afford to prepay for them to throw up a zillion towers. So those coverage maps will look really different soon. So that's good. Also, Google becomes a customer of theirs.
Bottom line, your question resolves to "Why would any company want to sell a bazillion units, albeit at much lower margins, to Google." And the answer is, a bazillion * small number = large number.
Net Neutrality means mandating that developers and services must create something that works on your dying platform?
Well, I mean, he never said that. (I know the article said he said that, but if you want to read what he wrote... It says that application and content delivery being platform neutral is an important principle to maintain a competitive ecosystem, and then echos a lot of the arguments for net neutrality.
And to some degree, he's right. Why does Windows Phone have such an uphill battle? No apps. Same for BlackBerry, and the new OS that Samsung just launched.
Now, there are a ton more technical challenges to ensuring all apps are automatically cross-platform compared to net neutrality. But, if it were easy and free, I would totally want that. And if it were a reasonable cost I would as well.
Bottom line, either we decide competition is good in the marketplace of cell phone OS's, in which case there is a definite benefit to reducing consumer locking, or we decide it's bad (for technical/interoperability reasons) and it makes sense to treat it like any other natural mono^H^H^H^H duopoly, with regulation of costs and fairness for all./p
How about we get politics out of science and rely on the scientific method to determine if "Global Warming" is real or not.
The purpose of the amendment isn't to determine if global warming is real (and manmade) or not. It's to get congressmen to go on the fucking record as either (a) able to recognize science or (b) batshit crazy. So either you have to vote that it exists, and then lose a fucking stupid talking point/excuse not to do anything, or you have to go on record as a dumbass. Hopefully ambitions not to have "thought global warming wasn't real" dragged out in future elections outweighs desires to be "pure Republican"
I never quite understood why breaking up divisions like this makes any sense whatsoever. What's the benefit to considering the revenue that any particular division brings in? It seems like it will just lead to really bad assumptions like the above
It seems like divisions in general having their own budget seems... well strange.
the dorky looks and people freaking out because of privacy issues weren't an issue that we saw.
Because whenever I saw someone with Glass on their face, I avoided being in their eyeline. Apparently, I should have walked up to them and said 'Stop wearing a camera that in two years is going to live-stream your life, but more importantly, my life anytime we cross paths to Google, you fucking ninny. '
Seriously, you mentioned the things that bothered you. But the vast majority of people you bothered just got creeped out and avoided you.
Nonsense, you have some expectations of privacy, even in public. You do have fewer expectations of privacy in a restaurant than in your home, but you have some. When you use the bathroom, you are in a "public" bathroom. Yet you have more expectations of privacy there. Why?
It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. (Justice Abe Fortas)
Students have civil rights. They may be intimidated into not exercising them, but they have them. And when students decide to exercise them, the courts enforce them.
Now, that said, schools have a lot more "legitimate government interests" then the government as a whole, and therefore can do things the regular government cannot (they are acting in the role of the absentee parents as well). But no, they cannot actually push forward to violate a student's rights.
Also, how nice you are about it. Not that social class, access to representation or manners should matter. But they do.
Politely refusing an order can often avoid being expelled/a police beatdown.
Which is why I never understood so many people's reactions to the police. They are humans. They are wrong. And if you're an ass they're just going to double down.
t no language can stop people from writing unreadable programs
While true, languages can encourage people to either create readable or unreadable programs. And which a language encourages has a lot to do with what you're trying to do in it..
I'm not sure why they shouldn't prep a raid. I mean, I don't want them outside eating doughnuts while I'm wrestling with a guy with a knife. I want them to come in and taze the fuck out of him.
Wow, you really object to the term "seems like". To reiterate what I said: a legitimate belief that they are rushing to the aid of people are being accosted by an armed intruder doesn't seem like a taking advantage of the slightest opportunity. And your response is "seem like" has a crazy low burden of proof, so even if I live up to it, you don't care.
Fine. Please replace "doesn't seem like" with "isn't beyond the shadow of a doubt" or whatever phrase you prefer.
Keep in mind, in the case we are discussing, the police believe (due to technical flaws in the the phone system) that someone inside the house called 911 and asked for assistance fighting off armed assailants. It's a situation I want them to take seriously.
you think the current "Send in a two dozen man hit squad, guns blazing and don't even check the address, every time someone thinks of a bong or other activity" is okay.
The current discussion has nothing to do with drugs, or anything that remotely looks like abuse of power. (I said earlier that I didn't think using SWAT to deliver warrants for non-violent crime to people without a history of violence is wrong.) "SWATing" is using technical problems in the phone system to convince the police that someone is calling 911 from inside a house and is asking for immediate help dealing with an armed intruder.
I suppose I am such a toady that I think when the police are being begged by a citizen to come to their aid, they should rush into that person's house. I also think the technical problems that mislead the police should be fixed.
I'll defend that sometimes mistakes happen with regard to the address, under the "holy shit, if people had to execute policy perfectly for it to be a good policy, we wouldn't even be able to eat raw bugs" defense.
In what universe does a government website selling personal info to advertisers count as even remotely fucking acceptable???
Probably the universe where a bunch of assholes insist that the federal government not use in-house personnel to build this website, and instead outsource it to the lowest bidder... who is lowest because they valued and counted on this additional revenue stream?
Uncle Sam needs to retire.
Uncle Sam needs to get his ass off the bench, and stop outsourcing all it's functionality to private companies who do this shit.
Now, the government was complicit in allowing this. But I think that if it weren't outsourced to a company attempting to monetize everything, no one would think of this.
There's an awful lot of other police forces in the world which don't feel the need to go in in full armour and with guns blazing at the slightest opportunity. For example, I think the US is the only place where a SWAT-like force is used to serve warrants against nonviolent offenders.
I agree that no-knock warrants that are being delivered to people with no history of violence, and not suspect of violent crimes, is a bad thing.
But in this case, the police believe someone from the house called and said there are armed intruders in the house. This doesn't seem like "the slightest opportunity". This seems like an immediate reaction to a request for help in a life-threatening situation.
They do have to follow due process with radar. The Supreme Court ruling that guarantees you need a warrant (or exigent circumstances) is old enough to date. Or listen to Justin Beiber. Or whatever teenager-related thing you want to use. I understand that most people assume the worst, but there's definitely a legal requirement that exists that people assume doesn't.
Neither the radar nor the kicking isn't being done to invade privacy. The kicking is being done because they believe there is an armed assailant attacking the family, and they are coming to help. I don't know what world you want to live in where "dear police, please help keep someone from killing me" gets a response of "I'm sorry, that would interfere with your civil liberties to... fight the invaders off yourself."
At least with the radar, the police are less likely to have to bust down the door. At least with the radar, the police^H^H^H^H^H SWAT team is less likely to get surprised rounding a corner and shoot someone. Heck, it may even turn more attempted SWATings into "hostage negotiation"ings.
Bottom line: When someone calls 911, the police are supposed to respond. We can obviously say that bad responses are bad. But you need to provide a better alternative solution. Because otherwise, what you are arguing for is "the police shouldn't respond to 911 calls". And I think you have an insurmountable burden to demonstrate that, and haven't even begun to attempt to meet that burden.
(To preempt a deliberate misreading:) Not that people should be forced to rely on the police, they should be able to defend themselves. But some people opting to defend themselves shouldn't release society (thru the police) from an obligation to assist.
And yet, when they try to get radar so they can see inside houses before/instead of kicking down the door, people react like the fucking sky is falling.
And, one should point out that your retirement account, unless used for silly things (like to avoid paying insurance) should not be counted as part of your assets for liability purposes.
Why wouldn't you get it back once you are no longer self-insuring? And you can deposit a security, so you can deposit 55k (current value) of bonds so you can still get a return on investment.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they have the spectrum, and Google can afford to prepay for them to throw up a zillion towers. So those coverage maps will look really different soon. So that's good. Also, Google becomes a customer of theirs.
Bottom line, your question resolves to "Why would any company want to sell a bazillion units, albeit at much lower margins, to Google." And the answer is, a bazillion * small number = large number.
Well, I mean, he never said that. (I know the article said he said that, but if you want to read what he wrote... It says that application and content delivery being platform neutral is an important principle to maintain a competitive ecosystem, and then echos a lot of the arguments for net neutrality.
And to some degree, he's right. Why does Windows Phone have such an uphill battle? No apps. Same for BlackBerry, and the new OS that Samsung just launched.
Now, there are a ton more technical challenges to ensuring all apps are automatically cross-platform compared to net neutrality. But, if it were easy and free, I would totally want that. And if it were a reasonable cost I would as well.
Bottom line, either we decide competition is good in the marketplace of cell phone OS's, in which case there is a definite benefit to reducing consumer locking, or we decide it's bad (for technical/interoperability reasons) and it makes sense to treat it like any other natural mono^H^H^H^H duopoly, with regulation of costs and fairness for all./p
The purpose of the amendment isn't to determine if global warming is real (and manmade) or not. It's to get congressmen to go on the fucking record as either (a) able to recognize science or (b) batshit crazy. So either you have to vote that it exists, and then lose a fucking stupid talking point/excuse not to do anything, or you have to go on record as a dumbass. Hopefully ambitions not to have "thought global warming wasn't real" dragged out in future elections outweighs desires to be "pure Republican"
I never quite understood why breaking up divisions like this makes any sense whatsoever. What's the benefit to considering the revenue that any particular division brings in? It seems like it will just lead to really bad assumptions like the above
It seems like divisions in general having their own budget seems... well strange.
Because whenever I saw someone with Glass on their face, I avoided being in their eyeline. Apparently, I should have walked up to them and said 'Stop wearing a camera that in two years is going to live-stream your life, but more importantly, my life anytime we cross paths to Google, you fucking ninny. '
Seriously, you mentioned the things that bothered you. But the vast majority of people you bothered just got creeped out and avoided you.
Try going to a nice restaurant and not a McDonald's. At most, they tend to record the parking lot and entrance. Not the diners.
Nonsense, you have some expectations of privacy, even in public. You do have fewer expectations of privacy in a restaurant than in your home, but you have some. When you use the bathroom, you are in a "public" bathroom. Yet you have more expectations of privacy there. Why?
Students have civil rights. They may be intimidated into not exercising them, but they have them. And when students decide to exercise them, the courts enforce them.
Now, that said, schools have a lot more "legitimate government interests" then the government as a whole, and therefore can do things the regular government cannot (they are acting in the role of the absentee parents as well). But no, they cannot actually push forward to violate a student's rights.
Also, how nice you are about it. Not that social class, access to representation or manners should matter. But they do.
Politely refusing an order can often avoid being expelled/a police beatdown.
Which is why I never understood so many people's reactions to the police. They are humans. They are wrong. And if you're an ass they're just going to double down.
It doesn't always stop them proactively. It takes time for someone in power, who cares to rule it unconstitutional and order it stopped and reversed.
Imperfect, sure. But I don't know how else to handle situations of overreach.
While true, languages can encourage people to either create readable or unreadable programs. And which a language encourages has a lot to do with what you're trying to do in it..
I'm not sure why they shouldn't prep a raid. I mean, I don't want them outside eating doughnuts while I'm wrestling with a guy with a knife. I want them to come in and taze the fuck out of him.
Wow, you really object to the term "seems like". To reiterate what I said: a legitimate belief that they are rushing to the aid of people are being accosted by an armed intruder doesn't seem like a taking advantage of the slightest opportunity. And your response is "seem like" has a crazy low burden of proof, so even if I live up to it, you don't care.
Fine. Please replace "doesn't seem like" with "isn't beyond the shadow of a doubt" or whatever phrase you prefer.
Keep in mind, in the case we are discussing, the police believe (due to technical flaws in the the phone system) that someone inside the house called 911 and asked for assistance fighting off armed assailants. It's a situation I want them to take seriously.
The current discussion has nothing to do with drugs, or anything that remotely looks like abuse of power. (I said earlier that I didn't think using SWAT to deliver warrants for non-violent crime to people without a history of violence is wrong.) "SWATing" is using technical problems in the phone system to convince the police that someone is calling 911 from inside a house and is asking for immediate help dealing with an armed intruder.
I suppose I am such a toady that I think when the police are being begged by a citizen to come to their aid, they should rush into that person's house. I also think the technical problems that mislead the police should be fixed.
I'll defend that sometimes mistakes happen with regard to the address, under the "holy shit, if people had to execute policy perfectly for it to be a good policy, we wouldn't even be able to eat raw bugs" defense.
Probably the universe where a bunch of assholes insist that the federal government not use in-house personnel to build this website, and instead outsource it to the lowest bidder... who is lowest because they valued and counted on this additional revenue stream?
Uncle Sam needs to get his ass off the bench, and stop outsourcing all it's functionality to private companies who do this shit.
Now, the government was complicit in allowing this. But I think that if it weren't outsourced to a company attempting to monetize everything, no one would think of this.
Hell, if you want to get laid, that's just good advice in general.
I agree that no-knock warrants that are being delivered to people with no history of violence, and not suspect of violent crimes, is a bad thing.
But in this case, the police believe someone from the house called and said there are armed intruders in the house. This doesn't seem like "the slightest opportunity". This seems like an immediate reaction to a request for help in a life-threatening situation.
They do have to follow due process with radar. The Supreme Court ruling that guarantees you need a warrant (or exigent circumstances) is old enough to date. Or listen to Justin Beiber. Or whatever teenager-related thing you want to use. I understand that most people assume the worst, but there's definitely a legal requirement that exists that people assume doesn't.
Neither the radar nor the kicking isn't being done to invade privacy. The kicking is being done because they believe there is an armed assailant attacking the family, and they are coming to help. I don't know what world you want to live in where "dear police, please help keep someone from killing me" gets a response of "I'm sorry, that would interfere with your civil liberties to... fight the invaders off yourself."
At least with the radar, the police are less likely to have to bust down the door. At least with the radar, the police^H^H^H^H^H SWAT team is less likely to get surprised rounding a corner and shoot someone. Heck, it may even turn more attempted SWATings into "hostage negotiation"ings.
Bottom line: When someone calls 911, the police are supposed to respond. We can obviously say that bad responses are bad. But you need to provide a better alternative solution. Because otherwise, what you are arguing for is "the police shouldn't respond to 911 calls". And I think you have an insurmountable burden to demonstrate that, and haven't even begun to attempt to meet that burden.
(To preempt a deliberate misreading:) Not that people should be forced to rely on the police, they should be able to defend themselves. But some people opting to defend themselves shouldn't release society (thru the police) from an obligation to assist.
And yet, when they try to get radar so they can see inside houses before/instead of kicking down the door, people react like the fucking sky is falling.
What about people who don't want to run Chrome? Or who only run Chrome within the google app space?
I guess the users of languages don't like readable, simple, or maintainable code.
Confirmation!
And, one should point out that your retirement account, unless used for silly things (like to avoid paying insurance) should not be counted as part of your assets for liability purposes.
Why wouldn't you get it back once you are no longer self-insuring? And you can deposit a security, so you can deposit 55k (current value) of bonds so you can still get a return on investment.
My friend interviewed at a pretty major insurance company. It was a similar setup.
My guess is it's their variant of a partnership in a lawfirm or somesuch. Up or out!
The part of government trying to overthrow repressive governments invents it. Different part of the government, different goals.