So maybe all of that is happening, but the point of my post is that we wouldn't know from this extremely limited analysis. All we know is that AirBNB increased rents in NYC by $86 over 7 years, or roughly $10/year. And that analysis is flawed because they make no distinction between part-time and full-time listings so they likely overstate the effect.
So I'm not making any judgements as to whether allowing AirBNB to operate is reasonable or not - simply pointing out that this study does not get us very far in that debate.
Well I agree that the study is flawed. We don’t know exactly what AirBnB does to the economy of an area, but I think it should be readily apparent that it does affect rent when the units are being used as 24/7 AirBnB rentals as opposed to rental properties. They didn’t need to do a study for such a limited report. And there are probably areas where it actually benefits the economy, too. There are scenic areas where people own cabins that they personally probably only use a couple of months out of the year. Those types of areas do not usually have a lot of resort space. Therefore, renting out the cabins to tourists probably does increase the total spending in the economy and helps to offset the cost of owning the cabin itself.
Every type of economic activity increases rents... like, all of them. New restaurants - increase rents. Jobs increase rents. So you flood an area with tourists and the rents go up? OK, in isolation that sounds bad - but what did all of that tourism money do to the local economy? If rents go up, doesn't that also encourage investment in the neighborhood? How can you just look at this one statistic in isolation? Cities were murdering each other to get the new Amazon headquarters... what would that do to rents?
Look at Vancouver, BC and I believe Toronto as well. Chinese millionaires looking to diversify their holdings and move money beyond Chinese government reach are snatching up units left and right and just rent them out as AirBnB properties. Of course that is going to drive up rent. Does it encourage more people to go to these cities? Probably not since most people have to pay the expense of flying, eating out, etc while they are on a trip. So they end up spending $200 for a weekend at an AirBnB instead of $300 at a hotel. But at what cost? Regular people living in those cities having to move further outside while hotel rooms sit vacant because AirBnB renters are flouting hotel regulations and the renters are bypassing hotel taxes. I will admit that AirBnB has tried to enforce hotel taxes in some areas, but they are still circumventing regulations. These regulations generally didn’t appear out of thin air to make it harder to run a hotel (though I am sure there are some that DID come to being in this way), but are generally around to guarantee the safety and quality of lodging to visitors from out of town.
...cable modem of my own, one call and it was working.
Around here it's operational faster if you don't call! Just plug it in and fire up a web browser, you get hijacked to a modem registration page, then it's working!
Their gigabit service actually has its own support in my experience. But when I signed up for it, they wouldn't even advertise it was available. You had to find the page on their website and request for them to contact you about availability. Of course, that might have changed by now on both counts.
It's a hard problem. There is a direct relationship between car height and fuel economy (extra height makes the car less aerodynamic and thus decreases mileage) so car makers want to keep their cars short for efficiency. If you're tall, and especially if most of your height is in the torso rather than the legs, you're going to find it impossible to sit upright in most cars.
Same deal with the back windows that are difficult to see out of. In the Olden Daisies sedans had nearly vertical back windows, but the aerodynamics of those are terrible. More recent ones have gone to a more gradual dropoff in back, but unless you use a very large rear window (and you can only go so far with that if you want a trunk that is concealed from view) that gives you a higher window.
Look at the difference in the body shape of the Chevrolet Impala, a representative full size sedan, over time. Here is the current 2018 Impala: http://www.chevrolet.com/conte... And here is the 1985 Impala: http://testdrivejunkie.com/wp-... The older version has a long flat hood (needed to accommodate the large engines available at the time); the new one has a shorter hood, reflecting the fact that improvements in engine technology have eliminated the need for 300+ cubic inch engines. (The biggest engine available in the 2018 version is a 3.6 liter V6, which converts to 220 cubic inches. The biggest engine in the 80s was a 5.7 liter V8, or 350 cubic inches, though in some model years the 305 cubic inch version was the largest one offered. Note that the 3.6 liter engine in the 2018 model produces more power than the larger 5.7 liter engine did!) The new one also has a slowly sloping rear windows, while the older one had a nearly vertical rear window.
That’s why I drive a crossover SUV, about the size of a Ford Escape. It’s bigger than I need 95% of the time, but at least I can sit upright and do not have to slouch to see outside. I just wish it had better fuel economy. In the case of my vehicle, that is partly to do with the transmission and partly to do with the height / wind resistance. If I could have gotten a manual, I would have. That would increase fuel efficiency but they only offered that in the lowest trim package. It only has a 4 speed tranmission and highway speeds have you at about 4k RPMs when an extra gear could lower that down to about 3200, which would also improve gas mileage.
Starting in May 2018, all new cars sold in the US and Canada will have backup cameras. Because of the way car model years work, it's likely that nearly every car on a showroom floor right now already has one. The Trump administration ordered a review of the requirement by the NHTSA, but changing the requirement would require an act of Congress and that did not happen so the mandate is proceeding.
My complaint isn’t with backup cameras. There’s nothing wrong with them. But making the rear window layout such that you can’t see anything useful behind you is a problem that they would not have if not for backup cameras. I can’t find a sedan where my head isn’t buried in the ceiling. When I am a sedan I have to lay my seat back like I’m a cholo cruising in a 64’ impala. It’s ridiculous. I would love a more fuel efficient car. I just want to be able to see through my windows and sit comfortably.
Ford just mostly pulled out of the North American car market, leaving the US/Canada with a bunch of tippy little trucklets and bigger trucks. I hope gas does a 2008 and shoots up to $5/gal soon -- if it won't push people to buy more reasonable cars, maybe it will at least help sales of electric cars out of their current niche.
Also, thank God for the Japanese makers who still sell reasonably-sized, nice-to-drive actual cars in the US market.
I disagree about Japanese cars being nice to drive. They now design the vehicles so you can't really see your trunk when you're backing up, so you had better have a rear view camera. And the windshield is set up such that you had better be under 5'8 if you want to be able to look right and see out the windshield past the rear view mirror. Their designs these days are absolutely horrendous when it comes to usability, though their aesthetics are generally nice.
I’d actually have to park in a neighborhood. It’s no where near an off-ramp or on-ramp to the interstate. By no where near, I mean that it is over 1.5 miles to the nearest one. Because of nearby amenities the parking in that neighborhood is generally permit only. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind the people at all. It’s a great urban location near to a huge park, musuems, concert halls, etc. I think the people that come in to take advantage of those amenities make the neighborhood more fun. But the city has taken action to try to prevent people from using it as a short cut to those amenities. There are multiple subway stations and bus lines that service the area, even from the suburbs. The morning traffic has more vehicles but fewer problems because they are all daily office commuters going to their high rise office buildings that are also in my neighborhood. The evening traffic contains a lot of suburbanites going to these amenities even though they are on a main thoroughfare that the city is trying to push all the traffic onto. Again, I don’t mind that, either. It is a public road. I am only irritated by the selfish way in which they block traffic. If they knew where they were going and where they needed to be, it wouldn’t be an issue. The signage could be better but they could also accept that there’s no reasonable way for them to get into the lane they want and make other plans rather than causing an issue for hundreds of others.
These people are actually going out of their way, leaving a through street, to go to a street that literally ends to prevent them from going where they are trying to go. So they just drive through the neighborhoods to get back onto the thoroughfare they got off of a few miles earlier.
Sounds like another problem which could be solved by adequate signage... or adequate transportation networks.
Well, people who live off of my street do legitimately need to take the route that these people are taking. It is busy because of that. But I live in a metro area and most of the traffic is designed to be early morning commute traffic to office buildings or weekend traffic to a large urban park in the area. There is way higher traffic flow in the mornings but it is a lot more organized. The commuters all know what is up and are very considerate and polite. It’s the evening traffic that gets snarled and it’s entirely due to people using navigation apps. It did not happen prior to the Waze craze and has actually been getting worse over the last few years as Google maps now starts routing people that way, too.
The signage isn’t great, to be honest, but there are multiple subway lines and bus routes that service the area. The city intentionally took measures to block the traffic in the last 30 years or so. The streets are more than adequate for the planned traffic. To be honest, if I had to guess what makes it so bad is suburban traffic coming into town for special events during the week. There are multiple museums and concert halls that are close by, but actually on the main thoroughfare that the city has been trying to get people to use.
"for the love of god, know where you are going or just accept that you can't end up where you want to be and let everyone else go by accepting the consequences of your actions."
You mean like the action of buying a house on a through street that was virtually guaranteed to wind up carrying more traffic with or without Waze?
I'm not on a through street, though. Not at all. Not remotely. In fact, due to the number of special events that occur on the spring and summer weekends in my neighborhood, my street is designed to discourage traffic and encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and transit traffic. I know my neighborhood can be loud and busy on the weekends and that there can be unusual traffic during those times. These people are actually going out of their way, leaving a through street, to go to a street that literally ends to prevent them from going where they are trying to go. So they just drive through the neighborhoods to get back onto the thoroughfare they got off of a few miles earlier.
Waze doesn't do any of that in my town but it still takes 15 minutes for me to drive across the street because of people using my town as a throughway to the metro area. Who can I sue?
I am not proposing that anyone be sued whatsoever. I am merely pointing out that just because we can do something, doesn't mean we OUGHT to do it. I am not certain that Waze actually makes traffic better or safer.
... if you don't like people driving on a public road, then... well, it's a public road.
By definition, the public can go on a public road.
Are people speeding? Give them tickets.
Are people not stopping at lights/stop signs? Give them tickets.
Otherwise STFU.
I would agree with you if people weren't selfish assholes in general. Waze routes people through my neighborhood and then they end up not realizing that the way they want to go only has one lane of access from a two lane thoroughfare. So they block traffic and make people stop unnecessarily so that they can avoid going to the next light to make their turn, or make a u-turn. So what happens? It takes me 15 minutes to drive a distance that the slowest, most geriatric person you know could walk in about 5 minutes and it's absolutely infuriating. I don't really care if they drive through my neighborhood but for the love of god, know where you are going or just accept that you can't end up where you want to be and let everyone else go by accepting the consequences of your actions.
it doesn't mean that they didn't temporarily disable this feature when it started to get a lot of press.
Probably this exactly. Facebook got some press for using the speaker in your phone and mic in other devices to send out inaudible tones used for ad tracking purposes. Facebook says they’ve stopped allowing this and, true to their word, it stopped happening for about a year or so. Now? I can be listening to something on my phone, open up facebook and scroll for a bit and then all the sudden my audio stops playing. When I pull up the hidden toggle to see audio status it is playing an inaudbile track from facebook. That started happening sometime in the last few weeks and does not happen every time I use facebook.
Have you tried Eudora 7 (last version of real Qualcom Eudora)? I am still using it and haven't run into any serious problems yet.
Didn't realize it was still in production, to be honest. I'm sure it can handle the latest and greatest crypto. I will take a look. Thanks for the heads up.
Every time you allow your computer to load and run a tracking javascript from some web site... that's what you vote for.
Oh don't be ridiculous. I would guess that ninety-nine percent of the people surfing the web have no idea that google ad services, analytics, or that facebook ad services are running on a non-google or facebook website. They have no idea how to prevent this or to even check if this is the case. And now all of the sudden their ignorance is their obvious support of such surveillance? Give me a break buddy. Most of these people don't even understand the implications of such things, so they probably wouldn't object even if they knew. Stop blaming people and start educating them and perhaps you'll see some change.
he might have a leg to stand on here. Still, none of this really matters. The only way to solve this is to kick the bum out that appoints him.
Since he is being sued claiming that he intentionally destroyed net neutrality, I do not believe any memos, emails, or any other written documents related to the creation of that video would be considered privileged during civil litigation. That video tends to suggest that he doesn't give a damn about the best interests of the people of the US, and that he brazenly mocked the people he is supposed to be serving. So the first thing any plaintiff is going to ask for is communication regarding the video.
and what do you think happens to a person when they get arrested for drug possession and get put on probation or spend a year or two in jail?
You tell me. Has NYC's crime rate gone up or down in the last 5 decades? Or are you claiming that's being manipulated as well?
I am not suggesting that anyone is overtly or intentionally manipulating data. But do you not think that there might be some sort of a sampling bias in place? You have more police presence in minority neighborhoods -> minorities have more interactions with the police -> more minorities are caught committing the crimes that many people commit on a regular basis. Most people commit a crime on a daily basis, sometimes out of ignorance of the law and sometimes out of maliciousness. But in either case, once you get caught and thrown into the correctional system, you will have a hard time regaining control of your life. So minor crimes turn into more serious crimes as desperation increases. I do not believe that blacks or other minorities are predisposed to committing crime. Wealth is a strong deterrent to committing crime, however. The more you have to lose, the less incentive you have to commit crime.
That's completely nonsensical. Do you think white people are sneaking into poor black neighborhoods and murdering them? Or do you suppose police are hiding white corpses in white neighborhoods?
The process I am talking about does not happen over the course of days, weeks, months, or even years. Minorities have been treated differently by the police for a long time. These people already have a hard time making ends meet, and some resort to crime out of desperation. This is especially true for ex-convicts who often can’t even get honest work to begin with. It’s a cycle that tends to make things worse over time. I have a friend who is harassed by police in NYC so often that he is happy to go places with me so that he won’t have to worry about the police. He looks like a Rastafarian but is smart and well educated, and very financially stable. He is profiled everywhere he goes and he has no criminal record whatsoever. You don’t think that such treatment can cause people to lose respect for law enforcement and even the law itself? Crime is worse because these people feel like they have nothing to lose. They feel that way because of countless decades of oppression and mistreatment. It has nothing to with their skin color and everything to do with their environment. To suggest that a person’s likelihood to commit crime is tied entirely to their race and not their socioeconomic status is preposterous. Is there some crime gene that only black people have?
It's not just about stop and frisk, it's about violent crime, burglaries, etc. Why would the police be manipulating that data? We're not in a political climate for them to do so.
and what do you think happens to a person when they get arrested for drug possession and get put on probation or spend a year or two in jail? They find that they can't get stable employment and have to resort to crime to eat. The police manipulate the data by how they focus their man hours. They may not even realize that they are manipulating the data. And this process was started a long time ago, when the police were mostly white and there were a lot of openly racist people in this world. Just go read the book Les Miserables and you can see that this was a problem 200 years ago. It only takes one criminal conviction to ruin your life forever.
It's not about population statistics, it's about the fact that blacks are on average massively more criminal than whites. Per head of population.
Did you ever think about the fact that this crime data can easily be manipulated by the police? For instance, NYC had (has?) a stop and frisk law that they only applied to minority people. So they end up finding drugs on a lot more minorities than white people because they don't bother frisking them. Then all of the sudden you have a lot more minorities that are ex-convicts and cannot find work who all of the sudden resort to crime to live and then their neighborhoods become more dangerous, causing the police to spend more time there stopping and frisking people and all of the sudden you have a population who has been manipulated into being more criminal than others.
Oh for crying out loud! Why the heck would anyone give your name, email address, physical addresses, or birthday to Panera bread just to do an online order! These data breaches are bad, but I'm sick and tired of everyone giving away completely unnecessary information! If the cashier says "What's your zip code" you say "no thanks." If the grocery store wants you to give your name and phone number to get a discount card either lie, or don't get the discount. Enough is enough folks! My sympathy has run out.
This data is collected by Panera’s loyalty program. They send you free things on your birthday. If you have food delivered, which Panera offers, you must give them a delivery address. So if you always did online order, in store pickup, without using a loyalty card, they do not have (nor did they ask for) that data. They would only have your payment details in that case. Even if they did not ask for that data, however, they could acquire it. You have to provide your zip code for 3D Secure to work, so they could easily take your card holder information, plus your zip code to determine your address, birthday, etc without you ever having any consent in the matter. So please stop the victim blaming.
NFC from the actual, physical card can send the full track 1 data, including 16-digit account number (Apple Pay shares a virtual number). It's a real card number and could still be potentially used online - just can't be cloned to a magstripe card and used, and can't be used online without the 3-digit code off the back.
NFC does send the track 1 and 2 data, yes. However, there are two different ways to send NFC data. There is NFC EMV and NFC MSR. The former sends a virtual account number and CVC based on the information from the transaction that is included in the payload of the transaction, and cannot be replayed. The latter sends your exact card data, with a different CVC that is only valid for NFC, and can be replayed. Apple Pay uses the EMV format for sending NFC data. It is not replayable. And account numbers are not always 16 digits. The valid range is 13-19 digits depending on the BIN range used for the card. Some brands are shorter than others, and some, like Visa and Mastercard, have multiple length possibilities.
Shaming pedestrians for crossing safe roads (I assume they are not suicidal) while the president makes himself an all-powerful dictator makes a fine country indeed. I'd rather have a country where corruption is automatically shamed.
My experience in China is that, yes, this is the wrong way around, but not in the way you’re suggesting. Instead, they should be going after people who run red lights in vehicles. I’ve walked somewhere in the 100 mile range in the streets of China and have almost been hit by vehicles disobeying a red light on average at least once every 10 miles. And that is NOT including the times I’ve stopped to avoid people running a red light. Those are strictly the times where I didn’t realize I was about to get run over.
China is pushing electric vehicles hard. They’re quiet enough that you had better have your eyes glued to oncoming traffic, even when you have right of way, or you just might get killed!
Stop, you've fallen into the trap. Facebook's staying power has nothing to do with Facebook and everything to do with people. It's staying power is the result of the people you want to communicate with using it, be that friends, family, businesses, event organisers, etc.
No one gives a crap about the apps or its capabilities (kind of self evident that people used them for so long despite them being absolute turds from the very beginning).
Especially since Facebook managed to provide all of those capabilities in just ONE app once upon a time. But cell technology has fallen so far behind the rest of the world that they actually had to split this into two apps to try provide the same functionality that used to be capable in just one place. We really need Apple, Google, Samsung, and everyone else in the cell phone industry to really step up their game so that Facebook can give us the platform we really want.
Based on the video I saw, she was practically invisible until she entered the car's headlight beams. The road was poorly lit, and she had dark clothing, no reflectors on the bike and no lights.
I don't see how I could have stopped or swerved in time to avoid her in that brief window.
Believe me, I don't care for self-driving cars at all, but I have to remain unbiased here because I know I would have hit her in the same situation.
Be safe out there, people. Put lights on your bike or yourself when you're out there on the road at night.
That's due to the camera sensor. Your eye does a lot better than that at night,
Slashdot Mirror
So maybe all of that is happening, but the point of my post is that we wouldn't know from this extremely limited analysis. All we know is that AirBNB increased rents in NYC by $86 over 7 years, or roughly $10/year. And that analysis is flawed because they make no distinction between part-time and full-time listings so they likely overstate the effect.
So I'm not making any judgements as to whether allowing AirBNB to operate is reasonable or not - simply pointing out that this study does not get us very far in that debate.
Well I agree that the study is flawed. We don’t know exactly what AirBnB does to the economy of an area, but I think it should be readily apparent that it does affect rent when the units are being used as 24/7 AirBnB rentals as opposed to rental properties. They didn’t need to do a study for such a limited report. And there are probably areas where it actually benefits the economy, too. There are scenic areas where people own cabins that they personally probably only use a couple of months out of the year. Those types of areas do not usually have a lot of resort space. Therefore, renting out the cabins to tourists probably does increase the total spending in the economy and helps to offset the cost of owning the cabin itself.
Every type of economic activity increases rents... like, all of them. New restaurants - increase rents. Jobs increase rents. So you flood an area with tourists and the rents go up? OK, in isolation that sounds bad - but what did all of that tourism money do to the local economy? If rents go up, doesn't that also encourage investment in the neighborhood? How can you just look at this one statistic in isolation? Cities were murdering each other to get the new Amazon headquarters... what would that do to rents?
Look at Vancouver, BC and I believe Toronto as well. Chinese millionaires looking to diversify their holdings and move money beyond Chinese government reach are snatching up units left and right and just rent them out as AirBnB properties. Of course that is going to drive up rent. Does it encourage more people to go to these cities? Probably not since most people have to pay the expense of flying, eating out, etc while they are on a trip. So they end up spending $200 for a weekend at an AirBnB instead of $300 at a hotel. But at what cost? Regular people living in those cities having to move further outside while hotel rooms sit vacant because AirBnB renters are flouting hotel regulations and the renters are bypassing hotel taxes. I will admit that AirBnB has tried to enforce hotel taxes in some areas, but they are still circumventing regulations. These regulations generally didn’t appear out of thin air to make it harder to run a hotel (though I am sure there are some that DID come to being in this way), but are generally around to guarantee the safety and quality of lodging to visitors from out of town.
Around here it's operational faster if you don't call! Just plug it in and fire up a web browser, you get hijacked to a modem registration page, then it's working!
Their gigabit service actually has its own support in my experience. But when I signed up for it, they wouldn't even advertise it was available. You had to find the page on their website and request for them to contact you about availability. Of course, that might have changed by now on both counts.
It's a hard problem. There is a direct relationship between car height and fuel economy (extra height makes the car less aerodynamic and thus decreases mileage) so car makers want to keep their cars short for efficiency. If you're tall, and especially if most of your height is in the torso rather than the legs, you're going to find it impossible to sit upright in most cars.
Same deal with the back windows that are difficult to see out of. In the Olden Daisies sedans had nearly vertical back windows, but the aerodynamics of those are terrible. More recent ones have gone to a more gradual dropoff in back, but unless you use a very large rear window (and you can only go so far with that if you want a trunk that is concealed from view) that gives you a higher window.
Look at the difference in the body shape of the Chevrolet Impala, a representative full size sedan, over time. Here is the current 2018 Impala: http://www.chevrolet.com/conte... And here is the 1985 Impala: http://testdrivejunkie.com/wp-... The older version has a long flat hood (needed to accommodate the large engines available at the time); the new one has a shorter hood, reflecting the fact that improvements in engine technology have eliminated the need for 300+ cubic inch engines. (The biggest engine available in the 2018 version is a 3.6 liter V6, which converts to 220 cubic inches. The biggest engine in the 80s was a 5.7 liter V8, or 350 cubic inches, though in some model years the 305 cubic inch version was the largest one offered. Note that the 3.6 liter engine in the 2018 model produces more power than the larger 5.7 liter engine did!) The new one also has a slowly sloping rear windows, while the older one had a nearly vertical rear window.
That’s why I drive a crossover SUV, about the size of a Ford Escape. It’s bigger than I need 95% of the time, but at least I can sit upright and do not have to slouch to see outside. I just wish it had better fuel economy. In the case of my vehicle, that is partly to do with the transmission and partly to do with the height / wind resistance. If I could have gotten a manual, I would have. That would increase fuel efficiency but they only offered that in the lowest trim package. It only has a 4 speed tranmission and highway speeds have you at about 4k RPMs when an extra gear could lower that down to about 3200, which would also improve gas mileage.
Starting in May 2018, all new cars sold in the US and Canada will have backup cameras. Because of the way car model years work, it's likely that nearly every car on a showroom floor right now already has one. The Trump administration ordered a review of the requirement by the NHTSA, but changing the requirement would require an act of Congress and that did not happen so the mandate is proceeding.
Sources: https://www.autotrader.com/car... https://www.freedoniagroup.com... https://www.ceoutlook.com/2017...
My complaint isn’t with backup cameras. There’s nothing wrong with them. But making the rear window layout such that you can’t see anything useful behind you is a problem that they would not have if not for backup cameras. I can’t find a sedan where my head isn’t buried in the ceiling. When I am a sedan I have to lay my seat back like I’m a cholo cruising in a 64’ impala. It’s ridiculous. I would love a more fuel efficient car. I just want to be able to see through my windows and sit comfortably.
Ford just mostly pulled out of the North American car market, leaving the US/Canada with a bunch of tippy little trucklets and bigger trucks. I hope gas does a 2008 and shoots up to $5/gal soon -- if it won't push people to buy more reasonable cars, maybe it will at least help sales of electric cars out of their current niche.
Also, thank God for the Japanese makers who still sell reasonably-sized, nice-to-drive actual cars in the US market.
I disagree about Japanese cars being nice to drive. They now design the vehicles so you can't really see your trunk when you're backing up, so you had better have a rear view camera. And the windshield is set up such that you had better be under 5'8 if you want to be able to look right and see out the windshield past the rear view mirror. Their designs these days are absolutely horrendous when it comes to usability, though their aesthetics are generally nice.
Park closer to the on-ramp. Walk 5 minutes.
I’d actually have to park in a neighborhood. It’s no where near an off-ramp or on-ramp to the interstate. By no where near, I mean that it is over 1.5 miles to the nearest one. Because of nearby amenities the parking in that neighborhood is generally permit only. And don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind the people at all. It’s a great urban location near to a huge park, musuems, concert halls, etc. I think the people that come in to take advantage of those amenities make the neighborhood more fun. But the city has taken action to try to prevent people from using it as a short cut to those amenities. There are multiple subway stations and bus lines that service the area, even from the suburbs. The morning traffic has more vehicles but fewer problems because they are all daily office commuters going to their high rise office buildings that are also in my neighborhood. The evening traffic contains a lot of suburbanites going to these amenities even though they are on a main thoroughfare that the city is trying to push all the traffic onto. Again, I don’t mind that, either. It is a public road. I am only irritated by the selfish way in which they block traffic. If they knew where they were going and where they needed to be, it wouldn’t be an issue. The signage could be better but they could also accept that there’s no reasonable way for them to get into the lane they want and make other plans rather than causing an issue for hundreds of others.
These people are actually going out of their way, leaving a through street, to go to a street that literally ends to prevent them from going where they are trying to go. So they just drive through the neighborhoods to get back onto the thoroughfare they got off of a few miles earlier.
Sounds like another problem which could be solved by adequate signage... or adequate transportation networks.
Well, people who live off of my street do legitimately need to take the route that these people are taking. It is busy because of that. But I live in a metro area and most of the traffic is designed to be early morning commute traffic to office buildings or weekend traffic to a large urban park in the area. There is way higher traffic flow in the mornings but it is a lot more organized. The commuters all know what is up and are very considerate and polite. It’s the evening traffic that gets snarled and it’s entirely due to people using navigation apps. It did not happen prior to the Waze craze and has actually been getting worse over the last few years as Google maps now starts routing people that way, too.
The signage isn’t great, to be honest, but there are multiple subway lines and bus routes that service the area. The city intentionally took measures to block the traffic in the last 30 years or so. The streets are more than adequate for the planned traffic. To be honest, if I had to guess what makes it so bad is suburban traffic coming into town for special events during the week. There are multiple museums and concert halls that are close by, but actually on the main thoroughfare that the city has been trying to get people to use.
"for the love of god, know where you are going or just accept that you can't end up where you want to be and let everyone else go by accepting the consequences of your actions."
You mean like the action of buying a house on a through street that was virtually guaranteed to wind up carrying more traffic with or without Waze?
I'm not on a through street, though. Not at all. Not remotely. In fact, due to the number of special events that occur on the spring and summer weekends in my neighborhood, my street is designed to discourage traffic and encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and transit traffic. I know my neighborhood can be loud and busy on the weekends and that there can be unusual traffic during those times. These people are actually going out of their way, leaving a through street, to go to a street that literally ends to prevent them from going where they are trying to go. So they just drive through the neighborhoods to get back onto the thoroughfare they got off of a few miles earlier.
Waze doesn't do any of that in my town but it still takes 15 minutes for me to drive across the street because of people using my town as a throughway to the metro area. Who can I sue?
I am not proposing that anyone be sued whatsoever. I am merely pointing out that just because we can do something, doesn't mean we OUGHT to do it. I am not certain that Waze actually makes traffic better or safer.
... if you don't like people driving on a public road, then... well, it's a public road.
By definition, the public can go on a public road.
Are people speeding? Give them tickets.
Are people not stopping at lights/stop signs? Give them tickets.
Otherwise STFU.
I would agree with you if people weren't selfish assholes in general. Waze routes people through my neighborhood and then they end up not realizing that the way they want to go only has one lane of access from a two lane thoroughfare. So they block traffic and make people stop unnecessarily so that they can avoid going to the next light to make their turn, or make a u-turn. So what happens? It takes me 15 minutes to drive a distance that the slowest, most geriatric person you know could walk in about 5 minutes and it's absolutely infuriating. I don't really care if they drive through my neighborhood but for the love of god, know where you are going or just accept that you can't end up where you want to be and let everyone else go by accepting the consequences of your actions.
it doesn't mean that they didn't temporarily disable this feature when it started to get a lot of press.
Probably this exactly. Facebook got some press for using the speaker in your phone and mic in other devices to send out inaudible tones used for ad tracking purposes. Facebook says they’ve stopped allowing this and, true to their word, it stopped happening for about a year or so. Now? I can be listening to something on my phone, open up facebook and scroll for a bit and then all the sudden my audio stops playing. When I pull up the hidden toggle to see audio status it is playing an inaudbile track from facebook. That started happening sometime in the last few weeks and does not happen every time I use facebook.
Have you tried Eudora 7 (last version of real Qualcom Eudora)? I am still using it and haven't run into any serious problems yet.
Didn't realize it was still in production, to be honest. I'm sure it can handle the latest and greatest crypto. I will take a look. Thanks for the heads up.
Every time you allow your computer to load and run a tracking javascript from some web site... that's what you vote for.
Oh don't be ridiculous. I would guess that ninety-nine percent of the people surfing the web have no idea that google ad services, analytics, or that facebook ad services are running on a non-google or facebook website. They have no idea how to prevent this or to even check if this is the case. And now all of the sudden their ignorance is their obvious support of such surveillance? Give me a break buddy. Most of these people don't even understand the implications of such things, so they probably wouldn't object even if they knew. Stop blaming people and start educating them and perhaps you'll see some change.
For me I'm using Thunderbird. It's good enough. And it's not like mail is going to change radically as it is now.
You may think that Thunderbird is a bit old, but it's working pretty well and don't cause any trouble.
I was using Eudora 5 until the SSL certs being used had too large of a signing key for it to handle. I'm a bit sad, to be honest.
he might have a leg to stand on here. Still, none of this really matters. The only way to solve this is to kick the bum out that appoints him.
Since he is being sued claiming that he intentionally destroyed net neutrality, I do not believe any memos, emails, or any other written documents related to the creation of that video would be considered privileged during civil litigation. That video tends to suggest that he doesn't give a damn about the best interests of the people of the US, and that he brazenly mocked the people he is supposed to be serving. So the first thing any plaintiff is going to ask for is communication regarding the video.
and what do you think happens to a person when they get arrested for drug possession and get put on probation or spend a year or two in jail?
You tell me. Has NYC's crime rate gone up or down in the last 5 decades? Or are you claiming that's being manipulated as well?
I am not suggesting that anyone is overtly or intentionally manipulating data. But do you not think that there might be some sort of a sampling bias in place? You have more police presence in minority neighborhoods -> minorities have more interactions with the police -> more minorities are caught committing the crimes that many people commit on a regular basis. Most people commit a crime on a daily basis, sometimes out of ignorance of the law and sometimes out of maliciousness. But in either case, once you get caught and thrown into the correctional system, you will have a hard time regaining control of your life. So minor crimes turn into more serious crimes as desperation increases. I do not believe that blacks or other minorities are predisposed to committing crime. Wealth is a strong deterrent to committing crime, however. The more you have to lose, the less incentive you have to commit crime.
That's completely nonsensical. Do you think white people are sneaking into poor black neighborhoods and murdering them? Or do you suppose police are hiding white corpses in white neighborhoods?
The process I am talking about does not happen over the course of days, weeks, months, or even years. Minorities have been treated differently by the police for a long time. These people already have a hard time making ends meet, and some resort to crime out of desperation. This is especially true for ex-convicts who often can’t even get honest work to begin with. It’s a cycle that tends to make things worse over time. I have a friend who is harassed by police in NYC so often that he is happy to go places with me so that he won’t have to worry about the police. He looks like a Rastafarian but is smart and well educated, and very financially stable. He is profiled everywhere he goes and he has no criminal record whatsoever. You don’t think that such treatment can cause people to lose respect for law enforcement and even the law itself? Crime is worse because these people feel like they have nothing to lose. They feel that way because of countless decades of oppression and mistreatment. It has nothing to with their skin color and everything to do with their environment. To suggest that a person’s likelihood to commit crime is tied entirely to their race and not their socioeconomic status is preposterous. Is there some crime gene that only black people have?
It's not just about stop and frisk, it's about violent crime, burglaries, etc. Why would the police be manipulating that data? We're not in a political climate for them to do so.
and what do you think happens to a person when they get arrested for drug possession and get put on probation or spend a year or two in jail? They find that they can't get stable employment and have to resort to crime to eat. The police manipulate the data by how they focus their man hours. They may not even realize that they are manipulating the data. And this process was started a long time ago, when the police were mostly white and there were a lot of openly racist people in this world. Just go read the book Les Miserables and you can see that this was a problem 200 years ago. It only takes one criminal conviction to ruin your life forever.
It's not about population statistics, it's about the fact that blacks are on average massively more criminal than whites. Per head of population.
Did you ever think about the fact that this crime data can easily be manipulated by the police? For instance, NYC had (has?) a stop and frisk law that they only applied to minority people. So they end up finding drugs on a lot more minorities than white people because they don't bother frisking them. Then all of the sudden you have a lot more minorities that are ex-convicts and cannot find work who all of the sudden resort to crime to live and then their neighborhoods become more dangerous, causing the police to spend more time there stopping and frisking people and all of the sudden you have a population who has been manipulated into being more criminal than others.
Oh for crying out loud! Why the heck would anyone give your name, email address, physical addresses, or birthday to Panera bread just to do an online order! These data breaches are bad, but I'm sick and tired of everyone giving away completely unnecessary information! If the cashier says "What's your zip code" you say "no thanks." If the grocery store wants you to give your name and phone number to get a discount card either lie, or don't get the discount. Enough is enough folks! My sympathy has run out.
This data is collected by Panera’s loyalty program. They send you free things on your birthday. If you have food delivered, which Panera offers, you must give them a delivery address. So if you always did online order, in store pickup, without using a loyalty card, they do not have (nor did they ask for) that data. They would only have your payment details in that case. Even if they did not ask for that data, however, they could acquire it. You have to provide your zip code for 3D Secure to work, so they could easily take your card holder information, plus your zip code to determine your address, birthday, etc without you ever having any consent in the matter. So please stop the victim blaming.
NFC from the actual, physical card can send the full track 1 data, including 16-digit account number (Apple Pay shares a virtual number). It's a real card number and could still be potentially used online - just can't be cloned to a magstripe card and used, and can't be used online without the 3-digit code off the back.
NFC does send the track 1 and 2 data, yes. However, there are two different ways to send NFC data. There is NFC EMV and NFC MSR. The former sends a virtual account number and CVC based on the information from the transaction that is included in the payload of the transaction, and cannot be replayed. The latter sends your exact card data, with a different CVC that is only valid for NFC, and can be replayed. Apple Pay uses the EMV format for sending NFC data. It is not replayable. And account numbers are not always 16 digits. The valid range is 13-19 digits depending on the BIN range used for the card. Some brands are shorter than others, and some, like Visa and Mastercard, have multiple length possibilities.
Shaming pedestrians for crossing safe roads (I assume they are not suicidal) while the president makes himself an all-powerful dictator makes a fine country indeed. I'd rather have a country where corruption is automatically shamed.
My experience in China is that, yes, this is the wrong way around, but not in the way you’re suggesting. Instead, they should be going after people who run red lights in vehicles. I’ve walked somewhere in the 100 mile range in the streets of China and have almost been hit by vehicles disobeying a red light on average at least once every 10 miles. And that is NOT including the times I’ve stopped to avoid people running a red light. Those are strictly the times where I didn’t realize I was about to get run over.
China is pushing electric vehicles hard. They’re quiet enough that you had better have your eyes glued to oncoming traffic, even when you have right of way, or you just might get killed!
Facebook's main staying power is that two apps
Stop, you've fallen into the trap. Facebook's staying power has nothing to do with Facebook and everything to do with people. It's staying power is the result of the people you want to communicate with using it, be that friends, family, businesses, event organisers, etc.
No one gives a crap about the apps or its capabilities (kind of self evident that people used them for so long despite them being absolute turds from the very beginning).
Especially since Facebook managed to provide all of those capabilities in just ONE app once upon a time. But cell technology has fallen so far behind the rest of the world that they actually had to split this into two apps to try provide the same functionality that used to be capable in just one place. We really need Apple, Google, Samsung, and everyone else in the cell phone industry to really step up their game so that Facebook can give us the platform we really want.
Based on the video I saw, she was practically invisible until she entered the car's headlight beams. The road was poorly lit, and she had dark clothing, no reflectors on the bike and no lights.
I don't see how I could have stopped or swerved in time to avoid her in that brief window.
Believe me, I don't care for self-driving cars at all, but I have to remain unbiased here because I know I would have hit her in the same situation.
Be safe out there, people. Put lights on your bike or yourself when you're out there on the road at night.
That's due to the camera sensor. Your eye does a lot better than that at night,