to remember the 1980's is very familiar with the "All Circuits Busy" message especially during peak use times and during holidays.
Olden Phones were Local Only, and that was highly reliable. You're talking about Long Distance Service and Inter-Carrier services, which were extra paid add-ons, that were less so.... Of course, because trunk capacity was limited, you may have had to wait for the chance at a time to call out on the Long-Distance/Cross-Provider exchange trunk.
discrimination? That's what the current system is, after all.
No... the insurance company is NOT a big customer. The insurance company is not the customer at all.
The insurance company is a cartel that represents customers of the insurance company.
The cartels are currently allowed to negotiate discounts which are available ONLY to people who pay that insurance company for full insurance coverage.
Discount Membership Programs AND Insurance (protection against loss) are two different kind of products that all the insurers are co-mingle: you can't as an individual get the discount rates to members of their network, unless you also have insurance from the insurance company.
If access to a Discount Membership Program is available separately to all individuals at a nominal fixed monthly or annual price as a separate product without buying insurance, then that could be fine ---- what should be prohibited is restricting access to the health provider discounts to Only people who also purchase an insurance policy from that insurer.
That would be a stupid law. You'd get rid of insurance contracts and the rates for everyone would increase.
No... it would provide EVERYONE with access to the rates that the insurance companies negotiate --- even the people that can't pay the insurance to cover them, so it would stop Insured people from being taken out of the competitive consumer marketplace.
To get access to the networks and many customers --- the providers would STILL have to choose rates which the insurance companies are willing to cover: which means they would have to greatly reduce their master charge rates.
How it works today is --- care providers compete for the customers of insurance companies only, and they only do so by offering discounts off the "master price", And the master price is ridiculously inflated, because the negotiation process is always that insurer A gets (for example) a 70% discount.
However, this leaves individuals who can't afford the insurance out in the cold --- the people LEAST able to pay Or perhaps who MOST need healthcare are unfairly charged the highest most unfair rates, because they get no access to the discounts.
I'm referring to small business owners in their 50's or so with revenues just high enough to disqualify them from medicaid, income ~$50k or so, possibly with some pre-existing conditions. Based on age alone: the premium to get individual health insurance is approximately $4000 per month, which is higher than the income.
If we allowed people to buy insurance across state lines, I imagine the insurer would require you to only obtain service from a little hospital in Delaware with the lowest rates or see your premiums jump.
They could already do that (in theory). The restriction is the insurance policy has to be incorporated in the same state as the buyer of the insurance... if insurance is from your employer, then it will probably be an insurance plan from the state your employer is headquartered in : a health insurance plan can have providers in ANY state in their network, So technically, they COULD already require you do that, but its an unrealistic requirement that people would not want to buy the insurance over.
911 is a service that Has to Work --- A local outage of 911 in one market might be explainable as multiple circuit or equipment failures, but having a national outage of 911 is unacceptable.
Having a "national outage of 911" means that the system/communications paths providing City X's 911 service have been consolidated or centralized in - order to cut costs or save money by having a smaller number of shared equipment (or single point of failure) required for City Y and City Z's 911 service to function ---- Contrary to a Telecommunication provider's obligation to provide reliable 911 service, which includes protecting customer access to the local 911 PSAP against failures of equipment that aren't in the same region as the PSAP.
What? Transformers are made almost entirely out of heavy metals.
No.... Transformers are made mostly of Copper and Iron.
Heavy Metals refers specifically to certain metals such as Antimony, Lead, Mercury, Lithium, Manganese, Cobalt, Nickel, Organotin, Cadmium, Arsenic, Chromium, and Thallium -- metallic chemical elements that have relatively high density, are toxic or poisonous at low concentrations, and which may have a tendency to bioaccumulate in some form.
Copper and Iron in the environment are not a major concern, because a high concentration is required for them to be acutely toxic --- you'd have to be WAY too close to that explosion.
The major environmental risk is from the bioaccumulation, since it means that ANY release of heavy metals into the environment can be a problem ---- because the effect of exposure to the poison is cumulative: even a small concentration in the air, soil, or water leads to higher concentrations in plants and animals, that accumulate through the food chain, and when a human eats an affected plant or animal, the metals build up in the fat tissue in the human body (including the brain) over time and never leave or reduce, thus causing the risk of a permanent poisoning.
This does not apply to the predominant metals in a transformer.
But this is NYC we're talking about. Even if it were PCBs, heavy metals, and your tinfoil hat which were vapourised it's probably an improvement over the air there anyway.
Bingo. The Arc is being seen a long distance away, so the bright bluish-white Arc flashes are being changed by the Air and crap that's already in the NYC air. Same reason the sky is not clear despite the light from the sun being white..... earth's atmosphere refracts the light and tends to reflect mostly the bluish hues back toward earth, and other wavelengths go into space.
The short of it you'd be hard pressed to find a transformer "filled" with PCBs anymore in a city.
Except, possibly, for distribution transformers that have been in continuous operation for 40 years or more with no maintenance ever performed on them..... perhaps in some older building/elevator/other equipment installations.
If you have a working electrical utility --- you don't have a luxury of being able to simply shut off distribution every few years to maintenance all the equipment and change the transformer oil. It might be possible to service a power plant when other plants are still online - but as far as distribution equipment and branch transformers: people get upset when they lose power and the POCOs try to get things restored as quickly as possible ---- except if a transformer has failed, its unlikely to get attention: when was the last time your utility told you they were going to turn you off to check oil on the transformers for your block?
Two transformers failed out. The typical result is a wave of extremely bright electrical arcs and lightning show until the circuit can be broken - in 2011, there was such an event in Fort Worth Texas for nearly half an hour --- anyone much closer to the transformers would likely have seen a much brighter blinding blue light that could do serious damage to the eyes b/c of the UltraViolet light wavelengths given off similar to an arc welder: there's your primary environmental hazard. I'm not sure why you're concerned about the smoke.
Now all we need is a Nondiscrimination law --- that is, to say,
a federal rule against price discrimination or blanket pricing deals in that: A healthcare provider may not charge individuals a higher price than a partner insurance company would pay for the same service.
They're all software, and their physical form is a consequence of the technological limitations of past generations, not expedience.
Many information BOTH in the past and in the future is published/released in printed books only. The fact that electronic/alternate forms of media exist does not mean that past forms exist only due to technological limitation.
Of course new technology created new forms of media that libraries can begin to participate in as well ----- Well, at least until the environmental crisis reaches its head - and the environmentalists get their way which is to shut down the harvesting of coal and crude oil, And access to electricity will become scarce, so electric media can no longer be consumed by anyone.
If they had no ground stations, receivers/transmitters in the US, then the FCC likely would likely not have had a leg to stand on ---- Not that they would be outside of US legal jurisdiction, But because they'd be outside the regulatory authority delegated to the FCC. The FCC's jurisdiction is the radio spectrum and radio stations, in a way the FCC has no authority to regulate "space". The FCC themselves rely on the "loophole" in that they have the regulatory power over radio stations that operate in the US --- including on ground, ship, airplane, or satellite.
Its just that practically ALL satellites need to be remotely controllable, and they require radio communications for that --- so a satellite without a radio is fairly useless, and the FCC deems for itself the authority to regulate EVERYTHING about a satellite, just because the satellite happens to have a radio on board.
A car analogy would be like.... the FCC starts making rules about how fast you can design your vehicle to go, because your vehicle has a radio built into it, and the FCC has regulatory power over radios, and therefore, in their view, they can regulate the design, deployment, and use, of any gadget as part of the licensing requirements of the radio which is built into that gadget.
Over time the FCC deemed for themselves the authority to regulate more than just the frequency usage and the operation of transmitters --- but safety aspects as well, such as required safety hardware, signage, markings and lighting on towers..... But since all satellites basically need a radio, the FCC just deems satellites as flying transmitters.
However, even if you are a US citizen and have to follow US laws.... you're still subject to US legal jurisdiction, but when you're outside the US: the FCC's regulations on radios and radio spectrum specifically don't apply to your radio transmissions ---- your FCC licenses aren't even valid (unless through treaty); every country regulates their own spectrum --- usually in cooperation with the ITU -- But in particular, the treaties are such that the FCC cannot apply their regulations.
I got news for you about transmissions... they arent "to" a specific place.
It doesn't matter. The US government has worldwide jurisdiction to regulate ALL the activities of any entity that either (1) Is US-based, or (2) Operates in the United States --- operating in the US includes doing any business in the US, residing in the US, or having any substantial activity in the US even through a subsidiary, partnership, or outsourcing arrangement ----- transmitting signals while over US airspace or that can be received at a location in the United States --- and definitely includes all operations of any US-based ground station.
last time i checked, the fcc didn't own outer space
According to the consent decree any entity launching satellites wishing to serve a U.S. market must adhere to all commission rules. Swarm's satellites becomes subject to US jurisdiction the moment one of their satellites transmits or receives a signal to or from a US destination or source.
Also, as a US company, Swarm is automatically subject to US jurisdiction, and they must adhere to FCC rules and licensing requirements prior to operation of any radio equipment on a ground station or on a satellite in orbit.
There's one remaining safety... the FTC itself still has the power to sue any company on behalf of customers over violations of the FTC Act and bring them to court over false advertising, etc. Regardless of any arbitration clauses or class-actino waivers.
Yes, most millennial and tech savvy Boomers do, but a very large portion of the population does not.
Well, they're trying to address suicide, and suicide is not uniform across age groups across the population. Its almost 20% in the group aged 45 to 64. The major factor for observed increase in suicide rates -- is suicide among young people, so if they want to combat that --- the solutions sought should be the ones that young people can and will benefit from. It makes little sense to create a voice phone hotline, since a majority of the population aren't accustomed to using that mode of communication anymore.
The other things they should really take a look at.... Nearly half or more of successful suicides involve the use of Firearms.
A good idea would probably be to step up firearm control efforts -- for example, lets say in order to purchase ammunition or a gun, you must pay an additional tax on all ammo to help fund government systems to manage this -- and you have to complete a safety+operation training and a thorough psych. exam, plus take a 250-question standardized test -- that allows you to be issued a special government ID card. Prohibit personally or commercially trading guns or ammunition to another person without first completing a government form describing and reporting all details of the exact transaction and verifying both persons' ID. Give a date and count on all ammunition purchases, create a national database of ammunition purchases, and every spent or unused ammunition casing must be turned in for destruction or recycling within 1 year of first sale by the manufacturer/retailer --- otherwise, a misdemeanor occurs, and access to the ID card and the privilege of making any further ammunition or gun purchases is rescinded. Also, as a renewal/app requirement on the ID: proof of additional continuing education and renewal of mental health verification must be shown. Including a sworn promise that "Per the terms of the ID, these products are for my use only. When any gun or bullet I own is not in my immediate physical possession, I will take all reasonable steps within my ability to keep them all locked and all firearms unloaded with ammo secured in a location removed from the place where any gun is stored, in a manner strongly secured against possible use of gun or of ammo by any other person including from housemates, friends, acquaintances, family, or ex-family members, or significant other/ husband/wife/spouse whether well-intended or malicious."
Simply by making it a hassle to keep and continue to possess ammo would probably dissuade a lot of people from harboring these deadly devices --- every bullet turned in or actually used in sport is 1 less bullet lying around to be used badly, that could be 1 less suicide attempt.
Guns won't work without ammo, and its outside the compass of most average people to manufacture their own ammo.
My home's daily internet usage is about 25GB --- just from typical surfing and video; when I actually need to download something like a set of Linux DVDs, much more, although its a frustrating long wait, since i'm only getting about 16 Megabits down 3 Megabits on cable.
The major frustrations are (1) The poor upstream speed --- makes attempting to do any live outgoing video streaming or uploading files hard. Other applications on the network stop working when I start uploading a 1-Gb file.
(2) The connection constantly drops or experiences a "loss of throughput" / major speed reduction (probably due to bad plant infrastructure Spectrum never seems to fix).
The big players pay way less taxes than small to medium businesses because they, unlike the little guys, can afford to hire entire financial services companies who dedicate themselves 24/7 to help the likes of Google to dodge taxes.
Bingo.... this is the problem (1) Legislators always want to carve out special exceptions and credits in the tax laws to benefit themselves, special interests that helped them, write in credits for activities they would like to encourage and penalties for activities they would like to discourage --- resulting in enormously complex steaming pile for the tax code, And Then (2) Accountants and Lawyers specialized in tax Available for hire by these companies are law are smarter than the legislators who make the laws.
So don't blame Google. Blame the stupid legislators that came up with the tax codes --- the only way you avoid unintentional loopholes and other situations where the tax code unfairly harms or unfairly helps someone else is to KISS (keep it simple stupid).
Basically, throw out all the dumb enormously complicated income tax crap, credits, and subsidies of all type, and impose say a 5% Trade Tax that is enforced equally against EVERY Person coming into a trade (including corporate persons).
For individuals it does look similar to income tax --- Since performing labor for salary would be a Taxable Trade -- the employee pays 5% tax on the cash the employer pays 5% tax on the value of labor presumed to be the same as the cash unless shown to be more, but for Google, Etc, it cannot be avoided in any way, because at the end of the day ---- the only way for a company to generate a profit is by trading away a good or service in exchange for cash or another good/service, and each Trade is individually taxable at the gross value of the trade, without regard to whether its profitable ----- Buyer pays 5% tax on the cash that changes hands plus the seller pays 5% tax on the cash that changes hands: each party is required to ensure that every transaction is electronically reported to the government with banking or employer information when the trade is made, And tax will be automatically witheld from the individual's either next paycheck or banking deposit transaction Plus if one participants of the trade paid in raw Currency not monitored by the banking system -- then double the tax should be witheld from that one side, as well --- when a corporation deposits a payment or an individual or company deposits cash in any form, the trade tax will be automatically witheld from their deposit; with refund for cases where tax was over-collected, (Only after the the financial reports are filed by the company or individual showing all their trades and what transactions the raw currency came from).
They are not taxing the US at all. These corporation make money in France and pay very little tax there.
Well, what one would say is... while Google earns money from French companies buying ads to display on their Google Search website: the amount the French authorities want to tax is an amount disproportionate to the amount of money Google makes in France. It looks like France wants to lay a tax on what amounts to 15% of their profit for the entire Europe, Middle-East, and Africa region.
These corporations will be free to avoid France if they don't like the tax.
Its not so easy.... these greedy countries are likely arguing that since Google's website is on the internet -- it therefore can be accessed worldwide, and therefore, always operates in France no matter what; French internet users can access their site, therefore the revenue from the ads displayed when their website is accessed remotely count.
Seriously... we already have the 741741 crisis prevention text line; which makes sense, because SMS Text messages are what people use to communicate these days... the concept of an "Emergency Number" is completely redundant, we already have that: its 911.
Also, the other bit is there are bound to be problems Because this number is already in use as described: which is currently used to report phone service problems by some U.S. and Canadian carriers.
That means 611 is already standard for a local use kind of like a private IP address and has already been assigned at least by some carriers for their own purposes... Which is a clear reason not to use the number to avoid confusion.
Also, since its a short# and not a valid telephone number, it won't work unless you can persuade every telecom to get on board with this - or dialing the number may just happen to get to nowhere on their network ---- which numbers can be assigned are determined by standards as well the assignable blocks are managed by the industry association - deciding what pushing 611 does on the telephone is outside the purview of the senate and even the FCC ---- just in the same way those bodies don't get to decide which subscriber 111-111-1111 goes to.
How do you propose self driving vehicles meet these requirements?
For now they don't have to, because -- for now, the human safety drivers are the legal drivers of the vehicle who is to retain ultimate control and responsibility for what the autonomous car does, and they will be a qualified vehicle operator possessing a legally valid driver's license.
Ultimately different laws will need to be developed by the legislature (or the courts) once the technology evolves further and safety drivers are no longer going to be used; that is, once some manufacturers feel their autonomous cars are ready to be set free and drive themselves without a human operator -- that is without a licensed human driver at the wheel monitoring the operation and bearing the responsibility for vehicle operation.
The current law in many states, accepted as rational and constitutional, requires those who want a drivers license to be at least 16 years of age, take a class, pass a written test, and pass a driving test in a state provided vehicle.
The states require licensing of human drivers, because humans must be of sufficiently sound mind to safely operate a vehicle; Humans also need training or self-learning on the operation and the rules of the road, and since some seem to ignore it, unsafe/reckless drivers cause
many accidents, and lack of proper knowledge of the rules is a factor: testing is required to help verify the training.
Those under 16 are children and are not in general capable of safely operating a vehicle and taking responsibility --- the age requirement for licensing or registering is for awarding a driver's license to a human.
You might notice that.... Age Requirements basically don't apply when it comes to registering or insuring a vehicle to a corporate entity or a non-human is involved in a business transaction, and verfiying an autonomous vehicle as capable of competent self-driving would be the same.
Autonomous vehicles will only really need to prove themselves a single time per each software+hardware implementation, once the code is finalized, and for any new patches or data releases.
Corporations are legal persons AND corporations also enjoy the same rights as natural born persons, because they're just entities made up of people organizing for a registered purpose.
You might like the argument that corporations are people two, but they can't get killed on the highway.
The people who administer a corporation are just as vulnerable to such things as any other person is.
They're not necessarily soft targets for (non-professional) criminals, because criminals don't like getting caught -- and these things Video Record Everything and collect other data; to use an Automatic taxi you'll probably have already had to identify yourself before you even get into the vehicle --- it doesn't take much more to stream footage in real-time or automatically upload it the moment something suspicious is detected.
Slashdot Mirror
to remember the 1980's is very familiar with the "All Circuits Busy" message especially during peak use times and during holidays.
Olden Phones were Local Only, and that was highly reliable. You're talking about Long Distance Service and Inter-Carrier services, which were extra paid add-ons, that were less so....
Of course, because trunk capacity was limited, you may have had to wait for the chance at a time to call out on the Long-Distance/Cross-Provider exchange trunk.
Umm, no. The telephone didn't work during Camille, for instance.
Your individual service was down, perhaps, b/c you had a pole down, but most phones would be still working for local service.
discrimination? That's what the current system is, after all.
No... the insurance company is NOT a big customer.
The insurance company is not the customer at all.
The insurance company is a cartel that represents customers of the insurance company.
The cartels are currently allowed to negotiate discounts which are available ONLY to people who
pay that insurance company for full insurance coverage.
Discount Membership Programs AND Insurance (protection against loss) are two different kind of products that all the insurers are co-mingle:
you can't as an individual get the discount rates to members of their network, unless you also have insurance from the insurance company.
If access to a Discount Membership Program is available separately to all individuals at a nominal fixed monthly or annual price as a separate product without buying insurance, then that could be fine ---- what should be prohibited is restricting access to the health provider discounts to Only people who also purchase an insurance policy from that insurer.
That would be a stupid law. You'd get rid of insurance contracts and the rates for everyone would increase.
No... it would provide EVERYONE with access to the rates that the insurance companies negotiate --- even the people that
can't pay the insurance to cover them, so it would stop Insured people from being taken out of the competitive consumer marketplace.
To get access to the networks and many customers --- the providers would STILL have to choose rates which the
insurance companies are willing to cover: which means they would have to greatly reduce their master charge rates.
How it works today is --- care providers compete for the customers of insurance companies only, and they only do so
by offering discounts off the "master price", And the master price is ridiculously inflated, because the negotiation process
is always that insurer A gets (for example) a 70% discount.
However, this leaves individuals who can't afford the insurance out in the cold --- the people LEAST able to pay Or perhaps
who MOST need healthcare are unfairly charged the highest most unfair rates, because they get no access to the discounts.
I'm referring to small business owners in their 50's or so with revenues just high enough to disqualify them from medicaid,
income ~$50k or so, possibly with some pre-existing conditions. Based on age alone: the premium to get individual health
insurance is approximately $4000 per month, which is higher than the income.
If we allowed people to buy insurance across state lines, I imagine the insurer would require you to only obtain service from a little hospital in Delaware with the lowest rates or see your premiums jump.
They could already do that (in theory). The restriction is the insurance policy has to be incorporated in the same state as the buyer of the insurance...
if insurance is from your employer, then it will probably be an insurance plan from the state your employer is headquartered in :
a health insurance plan can have providers in ANY state in their network, So technically, they COULD already require you do that, but
its an unrealistic requirement that people would not want to buy the insurance over.
911 is a service that Has to Work --- A local outage of 911 in one market might be explainable as multiple circuit or equipment failures, but having a national outage of 911 is unacceptable.
Having a "national outage of 911" means that the system/communications paths providing City X's 911 service have been consolidated or centralized in - order to cut costs or save money by having a smaller number of shared equipment (or single point of failure) required for City Y and City Z's 911 service to function ---- Contrary to a Telecommunication provider's obligation to provide reliable 911 service, which includes protecting customer access to the local 911 PSAP against failures of equipment that aren't in the same region as the PSAP.
What? Transformers are made almost entirely out of heavy metals.
No.... Transformers are made mostly of Copper and Iron.
Heavy Metals refers specifically to certain metals such as Antimony, Lead, Mercury, Lithium, Manganese, Cobalt, Nickel, Organotin, Cadmium, Arsenic, Chromium, and Thallium -- metallic chemical elements that have relatively high density, are toxic or poisonous at low concentrations, and which may have a tendency to bioaccumulate in some form.
Copper and Iron in the environment are not a major concern, because a high concentration is required for them to be acutely toxic --- you'd have to be WAY too close to that explosion.
The major environmental risk is from the bioaccumulation, since it means that ANY release of heavy metals into the environment can be a problem ---- because the effect of exposure to the poison is cumulative: even a small concentration in the air, soil, or water leads to higher concentrations in plants and animals, that accumulate through the food chain, and when a human eats an affected plant or animal, the metals build up in the fat tissue in the human body (including the brain) over time and never leave or reduce, thus causing the risk of a permanent poisoning.
This does not apply to the predominant metals in a transformer.
But this is NYC we're talking about. Even if it were PCBs, heavy metals, and your tinfoil hat which were vapourised it's probably an improvement over the air there anyway.
Bingo. The Arc is being seen a long distance away, so the bright bluish-white Arc flashes are being changed by the Air and crap that's already in the NYC air. Same reason the sky is not clear despite the light from the sun being white..... earth's atmosphere refracts the light and tends to reflect mostly the bluish hues back toward earth, and other wavelengths go into space.
The short of it you'd be hard pressed to find a transformer "filled" with PCBs anymore in a city.
Except, possibly, for distribution transformers that have been in continuous operation for 40 years or more with no maintenance ever performed on them..... perhaps in some older building/elevator/other equipment installations.
If you have a working electrical utility --- you don't have a luxury of being able to simply shut off distribution every few years to maintenance all the equipment and change the transformer oil. It might be possible to service a power plant when other plants are still online - but as far as distribution equipment and branch transformers: people get upset when they lose power and the POCOs try to get things restored as quickly as possible ---- except if a transformer has failed, its unlikely to get attention: when was the last time your utility told you they were going to turn you off to check oil on the transformers for your block?
Two transformers failed out. The typical result is a wave of extremely bright electrical arcs and lightning show until the circuit can be broken - in 2011, there was such an event in Fort Worth Texas for nearly half an hour --- anyone much closer to the transformers would likely have seen a much brighter blinding blue light that could do serious damage to the eyes b/c of the UltraViolet light wavelengths given off similar to an arc welder: there's your primary environmental hazard. I'm not sure why you're concerned about the smoke.
Now all we need is a Nondiscrimination law --- that is, to say,
a federal rule against price discrimination or blanket pricing deals in that: A healthcare provider may not charge individuals a higher price than a partner insurance company would pay for the same service.
They're all software, and their physical form is a consequence of the technological limitations of past generations, not expedience.
Many information BOTH in the past and in the future is published/released in printed books only. The fact that electronic/alternate forms of media exist does not mean that past forms exist only due to technological limitation.
Of course new technology created new forms of media that libraries can begin to participate in as well ----- Well, at least until the environmental crisis reaches its head - and the environmentalists get their way which is to shut down the harvesting of coal and crude oil, And access to electricity will become scarce, so electric media can no longer be consumed by anyone.
If they had no ground stations, receivers/transmitters in the US, then the FCC likely would likely not have had a leg to stand on ---- Not that they would be outside of US legal jurisdiction, But because they'd be outside the regulatory authority delegated to the FCC.
The FCC's jurisdiction is the radio spectrum and radio stations, in a way the FCC has no authority to regulate "space". The FCC themselves rely on the "loophole" in that they have the regulatory power over radio stations that operate in the US --- including on ground, ship, airplane, or satellite.
Its just that practically ALL satellites need to be remotely controllable, and they require radio communications for that --- so a satellite without a radio is fairly useless, and the FCC deems for itself the authority to regulate EVERYTHING about a satellite, just because the satellite happens to have a radio on board.
A car analogy would be like.... the FCC starts making rules about how fast you can design your vehicle to go, because your vehicle has a radio built into it, and the FCC has regulatory power over radios, and therefore, in their view, they can regulate the design, deployment, and use, of any gadget as part of the licensing requirements of the radio which is built into that gadget.
Over time the FCC deemed for themselves the authority to regulate more than just the frequency usage and the operation of transmitters --- but safety aspects as well, such as required safety hardware, signage, markings and lighting on towers. .... But since all satellites basically need a radio, the FCC just deems satellites as flying transmitters.
However, even if you are a US citizen and have to follow US laws.... you're still subject to US legal jurisdiction, but when you're outside the US: the FCC's regulations on radios and radio spectrum specifically don't apply to your radio transmissions ---- your FCC licenses aren't even valid (unless through treaty); every country regulates their own spectrum --- usually in cooperation with the ITU -- But in particular, the treaties are such that the FCC cannot apply their regulations.
I got news for you about transmissions... they arent "to" a specific place.
It doesn't matter. The US government has worldwide jurisdiction to regulate ALL the activities of any entity that either
(1) Is US-based, or (2) Operates in the United States --- operating in the US includes doing any business in the US, residing in the US, or having any substantial activity in the US even through a subsidiary, partnership, or outsourcing arrangement ----- transmitting signals while over US airspace or that can be received at a location in the United States --- and definitely includes all operations of any US-based ground station.
last time i checked, the fcc didn't own outer space
According to the consent decree any entity launching satellites wishing to serve a U.S. market must adhere to all commission rules. Swarm's satellites becomes subject to US jurisdiction the moment one of their satellites transmits or receives a signal to or from a US destination or source.
Also, as a US company, Swarm is automatically subject to US jurisdiction, and they must adhere to FCC rules and licensing requirements prior to operation of any radio equipment on a ground station or on a satellite in orbit.
There's one remaining safety... the FTC itself still has the power to sue any company on behalf of customers over violations of the FTC Act and bring them to court over false advertising, etc.
Regardless of any arbitration clauses or class-actino waivers.
Yes, most millennial and tech savvy Boomers do, but a very large portion of the population does not.
Well, they're trying to address suicide, and suicide is not uniform across age groups across the population.
Its almost 20% in the group aged 45 to 64. The major factor for observed increase in suicide rates -- is
suicide among young people, so if they want to combat that --- the solutions sought should be the ones
that young people can and will benefit from. It makes little sense to create a voice phone hotline, since
a majority of the population aren't accustomed to using that mode of communication anymore.
The other things they should really take a look at.... Nearly half or more of successful suicides involve the use of Firearms.
A good idea would probably be to step up firearm control efforts -- for example, lets say in order to purchase ammunition or a gun, you must
pay an additional tax on all ammo to help fund government systems to manage this -- and you have to complete a safety+operation training and a thorough psych. exam, plus take a 250-question standardized test -- that allows you to be issued a special government ID card.
Prohibit personally or commercially trading guns or ammunition to another person without first completing a government form describing and reporting all details of the exact transaction and verifying both persons' ID.
Give a date and count on all ammunition purchases, create a national database
of ammunition purchases, and every spent or unused ammunition casing must be turned in for destruction or recycling within 1 year of first sale by the manufacturer/retailer --- otherwise, a misdemeanor occurs, and access to the ID card and the privilege of making any further ammunition or gun purchases is rescinded. Also, as a renewal/app requirement on the ID: proof of additional continuing education and renewal of mental health verification must be shown.
Including a sworn promise that "Per the terms of the ID, these products are for my use only. When any gun or bullet I own is not in my immediate physical possession, I will take all reasonable steps within my ability to keep them all locked and all firearms unloaded with ammo secured in a location removed from the place where any gun is stored, in a manner strongly secured against possible use of gun or of ammo by any other person including from housemates, friends, acquaintances, family, or ex-family members, or significant other/ husband/wife/spouse whether well-intended or malicious."
Simply by making it a hassle to keep and continue to possess ammo would probably dissuade a lot of people from harboring these deadly
devices --- every bullet turned in or actually used in sport is 1 less bullet lying around to be used badly, that could be 1 less suicide attempt.
Guns won't work without ammo, and its outside the compass of most average people to manufacture their own ammo.
15GB would be eaten in a week easily...
My home's daily internet usage is about 25GB --- just from typical surfing and video;
when I actually need to download something like a set of Linux DVDs, much more,
although its a frustrating long wait, since i'm only getting about 16 Megabits down 3 Megabits on cable.
The major frustrations are (1) The poor upstream speed --- makes attempting to do any live outgoing video streaming or uploading files hard. Other applications on the network stop working when I start uploading a 1-Gb file.
(2) The connection constantly drops or experiences a "loss of throughput" / major speed reduction (probably due to bad plant infrastructure Spectrum never seems to fix).
The big players pay way less taxes than small to medium businesses because they, unlike the little guys, can afford to hire entire financial services companies who dedicate themselves 24/7 to help the likes of Google to dodge taxes.
Bingo.... this is the problem (1) Legislators always want to carve out special exceptions and credits in the tax laws to benefit themselves, special interests that helped them, write in credits for activities they would like to encourage and penalties for activities they would like to discourage --- resulting in enormously complex steaming pile for the tax code, And Then (2) Accountants and Lawyers specialized in tax Available for hire by these companies are law are smarter than the legislators who make the laws.
So don't blame Google. Blame the stupid legislators that came up with the tax codes --- the only way you avoid unintentional loopholes and other situations where the tax code unfairly harms or unfairly helps someone else is to KISS (keep it simple stupid).
Basically, throw out all the dumb enormously complicated income tax crap, credits, and subsidies of all type, and impose say a 5% Trade Tax that is enforced equally against EVERY Person coming into a trade (including corporate persons).
For individuals it does look similar to income tax --- Since performing labor for salary would be a Taxable Trade -- the employee pays 5% tax on the cash the employer pays 5% tax on the value of labor presumed to be the same as the cash unless shown to be more, but for Google, Etc, it cannot be avoided in any way, because at the end of the day ---- the only way for a company to generate a profit is by trading away a good or service in exchange for cash or another good/service, and each Trade is individually taxable at the gross value of the trade, without regard to whether its profitable ----- Buyer pays 5% tax on the cash that changes hands plus the seller pays 5% tax on the cash that changes hands: each party is required to ensure that every transaction is electronically reported to the government with banking or employer information when the trade is made, And tax will be automatically witheld from the individual's either next paycheck or banking deposit transaction Plus if one participants of the trade paid in raw Currency not monitored by the banking system -- then double the tax should be witheld from that one side, as well --- when a corporation deposits a payment or an individual or company deposits cash in any form, the trade tax will be automatically witheld from their deposit; with refund for cases where tax was over-collected, (Only after the the financial reports are filed by the company or individual showing all their trades and what transactions the raw currency came from).
They are not taxing the US at all. These corporation make money in France and pay very little tax there.
Well, what one would say is... while Google earns money from French companies buying ads to display on their Google Search website: the amount the French authorities want to tax is an amount disproportionate to the amount of money Google makes in France. It looks like France wants to lay a tax on what amounts to 15% of their profit for the entire Europe, Middle-East, and Africa region.
These corporations will be free to avoid France if they don't like the tax.
Its not so easy.... these greedy countries are likely arguing that since Google's website is on the internet -- it therefore can be accessed worldwide, and therefore, always operates in France no matter what; French internet users can access their site, therefore the revenue from the ads displayed when their website is accessed remotely count.
Seriously... we already have the 741741 crisis prevention text line; which makes sense, because
SMS Text messages are what people use to communicate these days... the concept of an "Emergency Number"
is completely redundant, we already have that: its 911.
Also, the other bit is there are bound to be problems Because this number is already in use
as described: which is currently used to report phone service problems by some U.S. and Canadian carriers.
That means 611 is already standard for a local use kind of like a private IP address and has already been assigned at least by some carriers
for their own purposes... Which is a clear reason not to use the number to avoid confusion.
Also, since its a short# and not a valid telephone number, it won't work unless you can persuade every telecom to get on board with this - or dialing the number may just happen to get to nowhere on their network ---- which numbers can be assigned are determined by standards as well the assignable blocks are managed by the industry association - deciding what pushing 611 does on the telephone is outside the purview of the senate and even the FCC ---- just in the same way those bodies don't get to decide which subscriber 111-111-1111 goes to.
How do you propose self driving vehicles meet these requirements?
For now they don't have to, because -- for now, the human safety drivers are the legal drivers of the vehicle who is to retain
ultimate control and responsibility for what the autonomous car does, and they will be a qualified vehicle operator possessing a legally valid driver's license.
Ultimately different laws will need to be developed by the legislature (or the courts) once the technology evolves further and safety drivers are no longer going to be used; that is, once some manufacturers feel their autonomous cars are ready to be set free and drive themselves without a human operator -- that is without a licensed human driver at the wheel monitoring the operation and bearing the responsibility for vehicle operation.
The current law in many states, accepted as rational and constitutional, requires those who want a drivers license to be at least 16 years of age, take a class, pass a written test, and pass a driving test in a state provided vehicle.
The states require licensing of human drivers, because humans must be of sufficiently sound mind to safely operate a vehicle;
Humans also need training or self-learning on the operation and the rules of the road, and since some seem to ignore it, unsafe/reckless drivers cause
many accidents, and lack of proper knowledge of the rules is a factor: testing is required to help verify the training.
Those under 16 are children and are not in general capable of safely operating a vehicle and taking responsibility --- the age requirement
for licensing or registering is for awarding a driver's license to a human.
You might notice that.... Age Requirements basically don't apply when it comes to registering or insuring a vehicle to a corporate entity or
a non-human is involved in a business transaction, and verfiying an autonomous vehicle as capable of competent self-driving would be the same.
Autonomous vehicles will only really need to prove themselves a single time per each software+hardware implementation, once the code is finalized,
and for any new patches or data releases.
There is no tyranny in restricting corporations.
Corporations are legal persons AND corporations also enjoy the same rights as natural born persons,
because they're just entities made up of people organizing for a registered purpose.
You might like the argument that corporations are people two, but they can't get killed on the highway.
The people who administer a corporation are just as vulnerable to such things as any other person is.
They're not necessarily soft targets for (non-professional) criminals, because criminals don't like getting caught -- and these things Video Record Everything and collect other data; to use an Automatic taxi you'll probably have already had to identify yourself before you even get into the vehicle --- it doesn't take much more to stream footage in real-time or automatically upload it the moment something suspicious is detected.
Does a guy lose his gun license for that, or would it be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" in Arizona?
Aggravated assault is a felony charge, so yeah, once found guilty they cannot possess a gun ever again their entire life.