OpenStreetMap is not a serious competitor to Google Maps. Nobody is, last I checked.
Note in particular that the verb "is" would be a *PRESENT TENSE* conjugative form. I did not suggest that OpenStreetMap could never become a competitor, only that Google *HAS* no real competition on account of the significant advantage of a terrestrial virtual presence facility that has excellent coverage of every major city around the world.
Plus, I'm not entirely convinced that OpenStreetMap would ever really get thorough terrestrial virtual presence even in major cities anyways... lacking the commercial incentive to go out of the way and take photographs exhaustively through every side street in major cities like Google does.
Google Street view also has big swaths either uncovered...
Not in my experience. All of the cities that I have in my Google offline maps are practically a hundred percent covered today. I can't remember the last time I tried to look up an address and not been able to see a street view of a place unless it was very far removed from any actually populated areas.
I can agree that being 3 years out of date for what is evidently a new community such as what you are describing would be annoying, but for established areas that have been around for a long time, which covers a significant percentage of many major cities today, it's entirely adequate.
I live in a building that is 40 years old, the building itself being about as old as many of the other buildings near where I live, and there aren't even any views from the street I live on in either of the alternatives mentioned above, let alone my actual apartment building. The closest view I can get is about 2 blocks away, and is useless for identifying what my street actually looks like.
While it's not a live satellite feed, obviously, it's usually good enough for getting a feel for your actual destination.
So-called alternatives to Street View are sorely lacking... sometimes even completely missing out on large sections of roads in even very major cities, especially the side roads, but sometimes even many blocks of a so-called main road in that area as well.
No, it does not have to be significantly different.... except insomuch as where welfare is only offered to those that are virtually destitute, UBI would exist for practially everyone in an age where automation has actually eliminated most jobs done by humans. If one is already making money at a job that is excess of what the UBI threshold is determined to be, then they not require any further assistance. UBI is still universal at that point, even if not everyone is getting handouts because everyone is still making at least a basic income.
The point would be to still, however, only give it to people who had lost their job due to automation, or who had spent time training for a job that was computerized since beginning their training, but before they had finished, and could therefore not secure employment doing that task.
OpenStreetMap is not a serious competitor to Google Maps. Nobody is, last I checked.
Three words:
Terrestrial virtual presence.
Knowing what a place actually looks like from the ground is often just as useful as knowing where it is on a map. Otherwise, regardless of what other mapping system a person is using, they are just going to go check on Google Maps for its Street View anyways... and at that point, one might as well just do everything right there.
It could eventually become universal, as more people lose their jobs to automation. The entire point of it is to enable people to survive large scale unemployment due to automation anyways, so why not restrict recipients to that group?
How do they know, or even claim to know, that someone is "trying" to win, as opposed to simply playing, and who just happens to win? Or do they simply impose a limit on how often someone can win, regardless of whether the person is using any kind of system or not? If so, why don't they just say that instead of absurdly alleging that they could somehow read people's minds to know what people are thinking or trying to achieve?
There's a limited number of people that are going to be at any single voting station, so manual counts of paper ballots wouldn't take that long, happening in parallel all over the country. The ballots can even be kept for a little while, in case recounts are necessary.
Yes... another commenter posted this point earlier. I feel stupid for not realizing it. If the energy density per kg can really be increased by an order of magnitude then battery weight with the same amount of total energy could drop substantially, which would have the upshot of increasing the range of the vehicle because it has less mass to push around.
That's fine, except that, as I said... this is "fast" charging, which requires special electrical infrastructure to even begin to support. It's not something that you can just get wired up in your home garage.
$35, plus hundreds more and months of farting around with state agencies if you were born without a birth certificate or have lapsed or no identification. Which describes many homeless people as well as those who don't need to drive.
Where did I suggest that the ID needs to be a driver's license? Government issued ID can be many things. Also, a person has 18 years to get a birth certificate before they even have a right to vote.
But I have to ask.... why is the right to vote somehow more fundamental than the right to simply eat to live, because if you can't afford to do these things and secure some ID over the entire time period that you have in advance of an election where you know you are going to need to prove who you are, then you are, quite honestly, going to starve to death long before the election and wouldn't be voting anyway.
.... of magnitude would imply to me that it would also take ten times longer to charge.
Existing EV's can be fast charged to nearly completely charged in about a half hour.... would that mean that even overnight charging would have to be "fast"?
dang... stupid submit button is too close to preview.
Slashdot really needs a "edit" button, for like at least a minute or two, to give someone a chance to fix something that they posted before it had been checked properly.... or better yet, remove the submit button entirely until you preview first.
To recap, I meant that I agree that Voter ID is a waste of money, but identification required to vote should not need to be "voter ID", however.. any state or federal issued identification should be fine. I did not mean to put that statement in with your quoted comment above.
First, there is no use case for voter ID. Identification required to vote should not need to be "voter ID", however.. any state or federal issued identification should be fine.
I agree... that would be a senseless waste of money.
Second, voting is a right.
So is owning a gun. Wanna try legally owning one without paying anyone anything?
While I do agree with the principle that you should not need to pay vote, I see no problem with having to prove who you are in order to vote, so that they can cross your name off of the registered voters list and prevent you from voting more than once In general, such identification does cost money, but as I said.... so does eating. Such identification would cost literally pennies per day, and could easily be taken out of a person's food budget if they are actually that hard up for the money to get ID. I see no inherent problem with this.
Unless you seriously think that voting is somehow a more fundamental right than the right to simply be alive. The dead don't have any legal right to vote anyways.
Honestly, if you can't afford to get even the most rudimentary form of photo identification, you've got a lot more to worry about whether or not you have the right to vote because you aren't going to live very long without food.... which costs a helluva lot more than 2 cents per day, which is all it would take to cover the cost of a person's government-issued photo ID.
I am not, by the way, talking about any special form of identification that is required simply to vote, that *would* cost a lot of money, because you'd have to provide it for every American citizen over the age of majority. I am talking about only proving who you are before you are allowed to vote... that can be absolutely any kind of identification the the government could otherwise easily authenticate, such as a driver's license, or any other kind of government issued ID. It's about just making sure that the name on the whatever identification you present matches the name of a registered voter, so that they have a verifiable way to make sure that nobody votes more than once and that people who are not registered voters do not vote. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Is the mere act of providing it to someone who later goes and does what you are prohibited from doing by that eula, even without your involvement beyond the initial act of providing it, considered "allowing" them?
If so, Intel can just... let me see if I can put this delicately.... go fuck themselves so hard that they die.
I think there's a fair argument that government issued ID should be available for free... or at the very least subsidized through taxation. My point is that even if they are not free, the costs are still low enough that the cost of having ID is not any kind of reasonable justification for anyone who is living as an adult in today's society to not have one.. literally less than two cents per day.
A VM doesn't help the end user get an application onto a physical device.
You can bypass the Apple store completely for iOS apps with only a modest amount of technical skill required on the part of the users, even without a jailbreak.
There are ways around the Apple store tax as well, if one is willing to be unconventional, and require only that users have a mac desktop that they can work with, as well as of course the physical iOS device they want to install the app on.
And to follow up, if they are not going to require ID in order to vote, then what is the point of even trying to say that only ciitzens can vote in the first place? Why not just allow anyone to vote, as long as they are in the country? Oh, that's right.... you'd have to stop people from voting more than once. Hmmm.... how would you do that? Voter registration cards? Why the hell would any reasonable person be worried about not having a voter registration card when they don't even have enough money to live in society in the first place?
It is no more unreasonable to have to pay for ID that simply proves who you are (and implicitly, that you are not somebody else who has no right to vote and is trying to pass themselves off as a legitimate citizen) than it is to expect people to have to pay to eat just to stay alive in the first place. Dead people, after all, have no rights at all.
The cost of government issued photo ID amortizes out to less than 2 cents per day.... and that amount of difference in how much a person eats each day isn't going to spell the difference in whether or not they live until the next election and can exercise their right.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice illustration of Poe's Law
Note in particular that the verb "is" would be a *PRESENT TENSE* conjugative form. I did not suggest that OpenStreetMap could never become a competitor, only that Google *HAS* no real competition on account of the significant advantage of a terrestrial virtual presence facility that has excellent coverage of every major city around the world.
Plus, I'm not entirely convinced that OpenStreetMap would ever really get thorough terrestrial virtual presence even in major cities anyways... lacking the commercial incentive to go out of the way and take photographs exhaustively through every side street in major cities like Google does.
Not in my experience. All of the cities that I have in my Google offline maps are practically a hundred percent covered today. I can't remember the last time I tried to look up an address and not been able to see a street view of a place unless it was very far removed from any actually populated areas.
I can agree that being 3 years out of date for what is evidently a new community such as what you are describing would be annoying, but for established areas that have been around for a long time, which covers a significant percentage of many major cities today, it's entirely adequate.
I live in a building that is 40 years old, the building itself being about as old as many of the other buildings near where I live, and there aren't even any views from the street I live on in either of the alternatives mentioned above, let alone my actual apartment building. The closest view I can get is about 2 blocks away, and is useless for identifying what my street actually looks like.
While it's not a live satellite feed, obviously, it's usually good enough for getting a feel for your actual destination.
So-called alternatives to Street View are sorely lacking... sometimes even completely missing out on large sections of roads in even very major cities, especially the side roads, but sometimes even many blocks of a so-called main road in that area as well.
Both of which have vast swaths of roadways even in major cities that are entirely uncovered.
The point would be to still, however, only give it to people who had lost their job due to automation, or who had spent time training for a job that was computerized since beginning their training, but before they had finished, and could therefore not secure employment doing that task.
OpenStreetMap is not a serious competitor to Google Maps. Nobody is, last I checked.
Three words:
Terrestrial virtual presence.
Knowing what a place actually looks like from the ground is often just as useful as knowing where it is on a map. Otherwise, regardless of what other mapping system a person is using, they are just going to go check on Google Maps for its Street View anyways... and at that point, one might as well just do everything right there.
It could eventually become universal, as more people lose their jobs to automation. The entire point of it is to enable people to survive large scale unemployment due to automation anyways, so why not restrict recipients to that group?
Restrict recipients *only* to people that have lost their job to automation.
How do they know, or even claim to know, that someone is "trying" to win, as opposed to simply playing, and who just happens to win? Or do they simply impose a limit on how often someone can win, regardless of whether the person is using any kind of system or not? If so, why don't they just say that instead of absurdly alleging that they could somehow read people's minds to know what people are thinking or trying to achieve?
There's a limited number of people that are going to be at any single voting station, so manual counts of paper ballots wouldn't take that long, happening in parallel all over the country. The ballots can even be kept for a little while, in case recounts are necessary.
Yes... another commenter posted this point earlier. I feel stupid for not realizing it. If the energy density per kg can really be increased by an order of magnitude then battery weight with the same amount of total energy could drop substantially, which would have the upshot of increasing the range of the vehicle because it has less mass to push around.
That's fine, except that, as I said... this is "fast" charging, which requires special electrical infrastructure to even begin to support. It's not something that you can just get wired up in your home garage.
Where did I suggest that the ID needs to be a driver's license? Government issued ID can be many things. Also, a person has 18 years to get a birth certificate before they even have a right to vote.
But I have to ask.... why is the right to vote somehow more fundamental than the right to simply eat to live, because if you can't afford to do these things and secure some ID over the entire time period that you have in advance of an election where you know you are going to need to prove who you are, then you are, quite honestly, going to starve to death long before the election and wouldn't be voting anyway.
Existing EV's can be fast charged to nearly completely charged in about a half hour.... would that mean that even overnight charging would have to be "fast"?
Wait, slashdot has a private messaging system?
Slashdot really needs a "edit" button, for like at least a minute or two, to give someone a chance to fix something that they posted before it had been checked properly.... or better yet, remove the submit button entirely until you preview first.
To recap, I meant that I agree that Voter ID is a waste of money, but identification required to vote should not need to be "voter ID", however.. any state or federal issued identification should be fine. I did not mean to put that statement in with your quoted comment above.
I agree... that would be a senseless waste of money.
So is owning a gun. Wanna try legally owning one without paying anyone anything?
While I do agree with the principle that you should not need to pay vote, I see no problem with having to prove who you are in order to vote, so that they can cross your name off of the registered voters list and prevent you from voting more than once In general, such identification does cost money, but as I said.... so does eating. Such identification would cost literally pennies per day, and could easily be taken out of a person's food budget if they are actually that hard up for the money to get ID. I see no inherent problem with this.
Unless you seriously think that voting is somehow a more fundamental right than the right to simply be alive. The dead don't have any legal right to vote anyways.
Honestly, if you can't afford to get even the most rudimentary form of photo identification, you've got a lot more to worry about whether or not you have the right to vote because you aren't going to live very long without food.... which costs a helluva lot more than 2 cents per day, which is all it would take to cover the cost of a person's government-issued photo ID.
I am not, by the way, talking about any special form of identification that is required simply to vote, that *would* cost a lot of money, because you'd have to provide it for every American citizen over the age of majority. I am talking about only proving who you are before you are allowed to vote... that can be absolutely any kind of identification the the government could otherwise easily authenticate, such as a driver's license, or any other kind of government issued ID. It's about just making sure that the name on the whatever identification you present matches the name of a registered voter, so that they have a verifiable way to make sure that nobody votes more than once and that people who are not registered voters do not vote. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Do they define "allow"?
Is the mere act of providing it to someone who later goes and does what you are prohibited from doing by that eula, even without your involvement beyond the initial act of providing it, considered "allowing" them?
If so, Intel can just... let me see if I can put this delicately.... go fuck themselves so hard that they die.
I think there's a fair argument that government issued ID should be available for free... or at the very least subsidized through taxation. My point is that even if they are not free, the costs are still low enough that the cost of having ID is not any kind of reasonable justification for anyone who is living as an adult in today's society to not have one.. literally less than two cents per day.
You can bypass the Apple store completely for iOS apps with only a modest amount of technical skill required on the part of the users, even without a jailbreak.
There are ways around the Apple store tax as well, if one is willing to be unconventional, and require only that users have a mac desktop that they can work with, as well as of course the physical iOS device they want to install the app on.
And to follow up, if they are not going to require ID in order to vote, then what is the point of even trying to say that only ciitzens can vote in the first place? Why not just allow anyone to vote, as long as they are in the country? Oh, that's right.... you'd have to stop people from voting more than once. Hmmm.... how would you do that? Voter registration cards? Why the hell would any reasonable person be worried about not having a voter registration card when they don't even have enough money to live in society in the first place?
It is no more unreasonable to have to pay for ID that simply proves who you are (and implicitly, that you are not somebody else who has no right to vote and is trying to pass themselves off as a legitimate citizen) than it is to expect people to have to pay to eat just to stay alive in the first place. Dead people, after all, have no rights at all.
The cost of government issued photo ID amortizes out to less than 2 cents per day.... and that amount of difference in how much a person eats each day isn't going to spell the difference in whether or not they live until the next election and can exercise their right.