Yes, and a few other location coding systems are similar as well. However, Google have their reasons for creating a new system. You can find their evaluation of the various systems explained here:
However, given the sheer power of Google and ubiquity of GMaps, it will prevail. It also has a bunch of benefits over all the other options, most of which don't necessarily tie it to Maps.
If you add a person to your plan, they are associated with one ore more vehicles.
When our daughter was still on our insurance, she was covered for anything she drove.
Luckily my kids can't drive yet so I don't have to insure them but you likely paid for each such vehicle she was authorized for. Each + combination adds to your total. Try removing her from one of the vehicles and your rate likely goes down.
Vehicles are required to have insurance, not people.
Vehicles are not liable for anything so no. It's the people who are insured, not the vehicle. You could say that the insurance "follows" the vehicle (in some cases) and in some policies the insurance follows the drive.
If my vehicle is the one required to have insurance and not me, then let my goddamn car pay for its own policy.
If you're being specific, what is covered for insurance is actually the *relationship* between the driver(s) and the vehicle(s). There is assumed insurance for incidental drivers. If you add a person to your plan, they are associated with one ore more vehicles.
Sounds like the fix is in and government and their buddies on Wall St.want to kill cryptocurrencies
Well, to be honest, I think the real goal is for Wall St. and their cronies in government to get a piece of the action. Their problem is that they're not profiting enough off this set of scams.
The interstate commerce clause authorizes CONGRESS to regulate interstate commerce. It does NOT give the Executive branch that power, other than in accordance with laws passed by congress. What law has congress passed allowing the FCC to do this?
This is my take. FCC can't supercede states doing inherently local activities. That portion of the order is likely unconstitutional, but it's possible that the GOP controlled courts (including the supreme court) could block this or delay the decision long enough to provide cover for the telecoms to win by default.
Agreed. I have CarPlay on my $31k ($16.5K after EV and dealer rebates ) Ford Focus Electric as part of the base price.
Perhaps - perhaps, the BMW hardware integration for CarPlay is somehow better, but on my FFE is pretty dang nice and ALL of that UI/UX is done by Apple.
So it's just usury just like when Apple asks Spotify / Netflix to pay 30% of any account charges originated from an iOS account (though in that case you can get around it by opening up the account outside of an Apple device).
You’d be stupid for buying a BMW anyway. Nothing wrong with a luxury car, but “German Engineering” has an abysmal record of reliability and high maintenance. BMW knows they can stick it to the suckers.
I really don't understand where BMW is going with this move. It's really got to piss off their car buyers, or they'll just do what I used to do before CarPlay - just put the phone on a mount, and use it directly with voice commands and the occasional tap. Which will result in more crashes, I'm sure.
Carplay isn't a service. It's a pair of software programs, one runs in your car - the other on your phone. Bizarre. BMW must want their customers to switch to Android, maybe they have an investment in Google or one of the Android handset manufacturers.
Actually the head end has very little software, it's just like a hardware VNC. The UI is entirely dependent on iOS or Android. It also means bug fixes and enhancements to the UI come with OS updates.
Who really cares about CES other than investors and people hawking their latest ideas and prototypes?
Apple never cared about CES. Why should they start now? That CES was obsessed about Apple a few years ago doesn't portend doom for Apple now that that obsession has faded (reverted to mean).
I think that it's more the effect of: Anybody willing to spend $1,200 on a *phone* is going to order it online. Why the fuck would I ever go to the cess-pool of sales and shitty customer service that is a mobile carrier's store?
Desperation. People buy at stores when availability isn't there at the Apple Store or online - but I think that's been addressed. Personally I like Apple but hopethey takes a step back from FaceID. I've seen and used it, and while it's cool, it's far more invasive for me than touchID and it has unique failure modes. Maybe in the 2nd iteration...
Also if Apple decided to lower the price it could really spur sales.
> Unfortunately, the Black Lives Matter movement co-opted the police militarization issue
Please go crawl under the rock you came from. BLM has probably done more for raising the issue of police violence than you could have dreamed of. Nothing unfortunate about that.
The fact that BLM has become a target for white supremacists and their sympathizers are what's at issue.
I see nothing wrong with their demands. De-militarization means - let police be police, not military. The hardware police departments have is ludicrous for their mission.
It sure seems like police are trying to throw all of the responsibility on the prankster, the better to protect one of their own
Yeah. It's hard not to think that the actual police office on the actual scene with the actual gun in his hand has to bear some responsibility for actually saying does any of what I actually see merit deadly force?
From what I've seen, than answer would have to be no. I fail to see how this is a clean shoot, but maybe some of the details are eluding me.
If the officer can't be held accountable surely his superior officer should be held accountable for creating a situation where one of his troops with a hair-trigger could derail and randomly KILL someone, possibly event THE HOSTAGE.
This whole operation from top to bottom was a clusterfuck of massive proportions and it's not just the cop who made the lethal shot who should be held accountable.
1) SWATTING should not be a goddamned verb. Who takes an anonymous tip without any validation and unleashes deadly force 2) Police should not be trained to escalate - that's the opposite of what they should do in such a situation. 3) The person shot could have been the one who needed saving (assuming in some weird world where the hypothetical called-in hostage was actually real). The Police did not verify who was who.
If heads don't roll, the PD should be charged massively. Absolutely shameful and probably an everyday fuckup in gun-land, USA.
> Colleague: So you won't be together for Christmas? That's sad!
At this point, I would have just repeated "Merry Christmas!" and cut short the conversation to let the other know their comment was not charitable or received well. Some people gotta learn how to converse without judgement.
I'm an atheist. And to me the difference between a delusion and a religion is basically the amount of people who share the delusion. Look up the textbook definition of delusion an tell me with a straight face that if it wasn't for the explicit exemption of religions from the definition that it would not fully, 100% describe basically any religion out there.
Still, if someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, I wish them the same. Not because or despite any religion but because I know how they mean it. It is a happy wish from someone who wishes you to be happy. And the very last thing I could think of in that moment is how offended I could possibly be because he assumes that I share his delusion.
At some point you just have to understand what people mean when they say something and not assume the worst. This is one of the occasions when it would be wrong to do so.
If the world was full of people with your EQ it would be a better place. I must admit at some times, if I hear a holier-than-thou "Merry Christmas" (I don't look Christian/American)... I sometimes respond with Happy Holidays (because fuck them).
But I should take your advice and just chill... tis the season, after all.
I've had to call 911 or Hospital emergency line a few times over the past several years (elder parent who's prone to issues + kid injuries). In most cases, they don't push you to get an ambulance. In one case, the ambulance arrived and said it'd be cheaper if we drove our daughter in (they took a look and determined it wasn't a critical injury), so that's what we did.
Uber/Lyft/Taxi instead of ambulance makes a lot of sense if you've talked with the appropriate folks to make sure there isn't a need for blood/oxygen/IV or EMT during the ride over.
Uber must be rejoicing over this "free advertising."
You see, when it comes to "ride sharing" all media talk about is "Uber," "Uber" and more "Uber."
It's as if the other more than 10 ride sharing companies/services just do not exist!
Doesn't everyone know that Uber is the "kleenex" or "coke" of their respective market?
meaning, it's a name brand that belies the actual choice made (Uber could mean "taxi" if that happens to be less friction - like ride from the airport).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and a few other location coding systems are similar as well. However, Google have their reasons for creating a new system. You can find their evaluation of the various systems explained here:
https://github.com/google/open...
That write-up is pretty much a perfect case study of the classic xkcd comic "There are 14 competing standards".
However, given the sheer power of Google and ubiquity of GMaps, it will prevail. It also has a bunch of benefits over all the other options, most of which don't necessarily tie it to Maps.
I for one welcome our new Plus-sized overlords.
When our daughter was still on our insurance, she was covered for anything she drove.
Luckily my kids can't drive yet so I don't have to insure them but you likely paid for each such vehicle she was authorized for. Each + combination adds to your total. Try removing her from one of the vehicles and your rate likely goes down.
Vehicles are not liable for anything so no. It's the people who are insured, not the vehicle. You could say that the insurance "follows" the vehicle (in some cases) and in some policies the insurance follows the drive.
If my vehicle is the one required to have insurance and not me, then let my goddamn car pay for its own policy.
If you're being specific, what is covered for insurance is actually the *relationship* between the driver(s) and the vehicle(s). There is assumed insurance for incidental drivers. If you add a person to your plan, they are associated with one ore more vehicles.
They are the only public facing company making any significant efforts toward a better future.
Wow, what a cynical (and unsupported) opinion.
Your comment is completely useful - not. Hyperbole aside, some people actually feel like Tesla is the only company building for a better future.
Which bike computer would you recommend?
Sounds like the fix is in and government and their buddies on Wall St.want to kill cryptocurrencies
Well, to be honest, I think the real goal is for Wall St. and their cronies in government to get a piece of the action. Their problem is that they're not profiting enough off this set of scams.
The Interstate Commerce Clause grants Congress, and by extension the United States, the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The powers granted to Congress does not inherit to the Executive (FCC). Please explain your reasoning.
If all else is equal, you may be correct. But all else isn't equal, we live in a world of hype, network effects and cost of electricity.
Wind/Solar is cheaper than other forms of electricity already even with subsidies for coal/natgas. It will only get more so.
The interstate commerce clause authorizes CONGRESS to regulate interstate commerce. It does NOT give the Executive branch that power, other than in accordance with laws passed by congress. What law has congress passed allowing the FCC to do this?
This is my take. FCC can't supercede states doing inherently local activities.
That portion of the order is likely unconstitutional, but it's possible that the GOP controlled courts (including the supreme court) could block this or delay the decision long enough to provide cover for the telecoms to win by default.
Does the FCC have the authority to pre-empt the states?
I thought that power was left to Legislative branch, not Executive.
Still, the anointed one DID appoint him...
Says the douchebag who didn't listen to the facts. Again.
Agreed. I have CarPlay on my $31k ($16.5K after EV and dealer rebates ) Ford Focus Electric as part of the base price.
Perhaps - perhaps, the BMW hardware integration for CarPlay is somehow better, but on my FFE is pretty dang nice and ALL of that UI/UX is done by Apple.
So it's just usury just like when Apple asks Spotify / Netflix to pay 30% of any account charges originated from an iOS account (though in that case you can get around it by opening up the account outside of an Apple device).
You’d be stupid for buying a BMW anyway. Nothing wrong with a luxury car, but “German Engineering” has an abysmal record of reliability and high maintenance. BMW knows they can stick it to the suckers.
I really don't understand where BMW is going with this move. It's really got to piss off their car buyers, or they'll just do what I used to do before CarPlay - just put the phone on a mount, and use it directly with voice commands and the occasional tap. Which will result in more crashes, I'm sure.
A real dick move by BMW.
Carplay isn't a service. It's a pair of software programs, one runs in your car - the other on your phone. Bizarre. BMW must want their customers to switch to Android, maybe they have an investment in Google or one of the Android handset manufacturers.
Actually the head end has very little software, it's just like a hardware VNC. The UI is entirely dependent on iOS or Android. It also means bug fixes and enhancements to the UI come with OS updates.
For BMW to charge $80/mo is pure larceny.
I wonder how successful it will be this time. At least courriel had the benefit of not increasing the syllable count.
https://www.wired.com/2003/07/...
Who really cares about CES other than investors and people hawking their latest ideas and prototypes?
Apple never cared about CES. Why should they start now? That CES was obsessed about Apple a few years ago doesn't portend doom for Apple now that that obsession has faded (reverted to mean).
I think that it's more the effect of: Anybody willing to spend $1,200 on a *phone* is going to order it online. Why the fuck would I ever go to the cess-pool of sales and shitty customer service that is a mobile carrier's store?
Desperation. People buy at stores when availability isn't there at the Apple Store or online - but I think that's been addressed. Personally I like Apple but hopethey takes a step back from FaceID. I've seen and used it, and while it's cool, it's far more invasive for me than touchID and it has unique failure modes. Maybe in the 2nd iteration...
Also if Apple decided to lower the price it could really spur sales.
> Unfortunately, the Black Lives Matter movement co-opted the police militarization issue
Please go crawl under the rock you came from. BLM has probably done more for raising the issue of police violence than you could have dreamed of. Nothing unfortunate about that.
The fact that BLM has become a target for white supremacists and their sympathizers are what's at issue.
I see nothing wrong with their demands. De-militarization means - let police be police, not military. The hardware police departments have is ludicrous for their mission.
Yeah. It's hard not to think that the actual police office on the actual scene with the actual gun in his hand has to bear some responsibility for actually saying does any of what I actually see merit deadly force?
From what I've seen, than answer would have to be no. I fail to see how this is a clean shoot, but maybe some of the details are eluding me.
If the officer can't be held accountable surely his superior officer should be held accountable for creating a situation where one of his troops with a hair-trigger could derail and randomly KILL someone, possibly event THE HOSTAGE.
This whole operation from top to bottom was a clusterfuck of massive proportions and it's not just the cop who made the lethal shot who should be held accountable.
1) SWATTING should not be a goddamned verb. Who takes an anonymous tip without any validation and unleashes deadly force
2) Police should not be trained to escalate - that's the opposite of what they should do in such a situation.
3) The person shot could have been the one who needed saving (assuming in some weird world where the hypothetical called-in hostage was actually real). The Police did not verify who was who.
If heads don't roll, the PD should be charged massively. Absolutely shameful and probably an everyday fuckup in gun-land, USA.
This will backfire and people will just end up blaming youtube, searching for another service on their device that will work
Maybe they'll stop buying FireTVs instead so they can get their fix of YouTube? It's not like the options aren't plentiful and cheap.
Lets just say it. the GOP supports killing the internet.
> Colleague: So you won't be together for Christmas? That's sad!
At this point, I would have just repeated "Merry Christmas!" and cut short the conversation to let the other know their comment was not charitable or received well. Some people gotta learn how to converse without judgement.
I'm an atheist. And to me the difference between a delusion and a religion is basically the amount of people who share the delusion. Look up the textbook definition of delusion an tell me with a straight face that if it wasn't for the explicit exemption of religions from the definition that it would not fully, 100% describe basically any religion out there.
Still, if someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, I wish them the same. Not because or despite any religion but because I know how they mean it. It is a happy wish from someone who wishes you to be happy. And the very last thing I could think of in that moment is how offended I could possibly be because he assumes that I share his delusion.
At some point you just have to understand what people mean when they say something and not assume the worst. This is one of the occasions when it would be wrong to do so.
If the world was full of people with your EQ it would be a better place. I must admit at some times, if I hear a holier-than-thou "Merry Christmas" (I don't look Christian/American) ... I sometimes respond with Happy Holidays (because fuck them).
But I should take your advice and just chill... tis the season, after all.
I've had to call 911 or Hospital emergency line a few times over the past several years (elder parent who's prone to issues + kid injuries). In most cases, they don't push you to get an ambulance. In one case, the ambulance arrived and said it'd be cheaper if we drove our daughter in (they took a look and determined it wasn't a critical injury), so that's what we did.
Uber/Lyft/Taxi instead of ambulance makes a lot of sense if you've talked with the appropriate folks to make sure there isn't a need for blood/oxygen/IV or EMT during the ride over.
Uber must be rejoicing over this "free advertising."
You see, when it comes to "ride sharing" all media talk about is "Uber," "Uber" and more "Uber."
It's as if the other more than 10 ride sharing companies/services just do not exist!
Doesn't everyone know that Uber is the "kleenex" or "coke" of their respective market?
meaning, it's a name brand that belies the actual choice made (Uber could mean "taxi" if that happens to be less friction - like ride from the airport).