The community getting less revenue is exactly the goal. When the cost exceeds the revenue, the politicians will want to get rid of them as well, and slimy vendors will go out of business.
Walk up to the intersection wearing a hood and large sunglasses. Or shoot from a long distance, they're not using super-high resolution zoomable cameras. There's many other simple ways to get a paintball onto the camera without being noticed.
Wipers don't wipe off paint too well (think bird poop and your windshield without washer fluid.) And you could always freeze the paintballs and take out the wiper (glass, lens, and maybe the whole camera.)
Wow, with that witty and insightful refutation of my main points, I must concede that my idea was indeed ill-formed and fraught with confusion. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways, I shall endeavor to improve myself before posting again.
I can't believe that every one of these cameras has not been hit by a paintball gun already. Simple, quiet, effective, makes them cost more than they're worth, and although certainly illegal, pretty easy to get away with (if you shoot at 4 am and when your light is green.)
What ever happened to civil disobedience? So very few are willing to make a stand anymore.
So should Google shut down Google Trends? Block it from their ad customers? Somehow force them to ignore it? What the hell does he expect/want/think how in a perfect world this would work?
There's no point to this article. It's claiming an evil conspiracy just because Google Trends exists.
If someone in plain clothes got out of their car and started to pull a gun right in front of my motorcycle, they would have been run over by my motorcycle before they had a chance to identify themselves or aim the gun at me. I wouldn't wait around to get shot by an unknown assailant.
You don't pull a gun unless you're ready to shoot, and if you're out of uniform and pull your gun, expect law abiding people to react like you're a criminal. The idiot cop turned a speeding ticket into a potential firefight.
Save for those, you're good to go: as long as you are concentrated enough to see and react to any speeding cams, patrol cars and wild life from far enough, none of these will bother you.... In any case, speeding cams get approval ratings of around 70% in the UK.
They don't enforce speed limits like that in the USA. Speed cameras are hidden and frequently placed in the safest areas to maximize revenue. There might be a few marked speed cameras to slow drivers in a dangerous area here, but I've never seen one. Unmarked police cars use radar to catch people speeding on restricted access highways. There's no way to see and react to an unmarked car in oncoming traffic using radar to catch you on a 4 lane divided straight highway through Kansas 20 miles from any exit. Or off the road hidden behind an overpass. Or on an overpass radioing your speed to another patrol car down the road. Or...well, I could do this all day. Safety is the stated reason for the speed laws, but maximizing revenue is the way that is actually enforced.
Speed cameras approval ratings are so low here that people frequently block the lenses. Phoenix, Arizona is getting rid of them entirely due to public outcry. Kentucky has a few portable radar signs that display your speed, but never put cameras in them (because someone would eventually shoot them, is my guess.) Red light cameras are used the same way. Studies have repeatedly shown that increasing the length of yellow lights reduces accidents. Many cities with red light cameras have been caught decreasing the length of yellow lights where they have speed cameras, increasing both the number of accidents and the number of tickets, all in the name of safety.
They're publishing an archive which they own. They can charge a fee to modify it without running afoul of any laws.
There is no explicit connection. They're not making a threat to repost embarrassing pictures. They're reposting all the contents of facebook. There is no law preventing them from republishing the archive, or advertising that they are republishing the archive. There's no law that says they can't charge to modify the archive they legally own. No threats are made or needed.
US Code defines blackmail as "Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41 - 873
They don't cover pictures that you published of yourself in the past, and that you freely gave up to facebook. All they are doing is what you gave them the legal right to do, and even asked them to do. They could argue that they have to verify that you really are who you say you are, and this costs them to do so, so they charge a fee to do it.
You can't keep a newspaper from republishing a picture you gave to them to publish, but they might not run it if you pay for advertisements in the same paper.
One of Facebook's options is to keep all the status updates and pictures for 10-20 years, then republish everything. For a "deletion fee", they will keep all your high school and college pictures, raunchy status updates, and other potentially embarrassing information off the internet. Most wouldn't care, but I'm sure there's plenty who want a high profile job that would pay dearly to keep that hidden.
AFAIK, it's completely legal, and already impossible to stop, they own the data and you (or someone you know) voluntarily published it once. It's pretty likely that they'll be replaced by the next big social media site or at least won't be doing nearly as well financially in 10-20 years as they are now, if they still exist. And if they go bankrupt, anyone could buy the data and do the same thing.
You may not be 12, but it sounds like your friends act like they are, and some of your family.
I have plenty of real friends who I ignore on FB, and I tell them about it. They don't mind because they're my friends. I have real life friends and family who I won't friend on FB, but I tell them why, and it doesn't affect our relationship. I hide everyone's feed that updates 3 times a day, and those whose posts are trivial daily activities ("Driving home," "Eating dinner with wife and kids," etc,) or that I just don't want a daily/weekly update about. I don't "like" anything since they changed the info section into mindless lists. I don't even "like" the band I play in. I block my status updates from some. I ignore posts to my wall frequently, and delete everyone else's posts to my wall from time to time. None of this has affected any of my real life relationships.
It's just facebook, it doesn't really matter. If you keep that attitude, people will accept it. If they can't or won't, they probably aren't the kind of person you'd want as a friend. Or at least that I'd want as a friend.
For FPS, aiming with a touch pad with just your left thumb is nowhere near as accurate as controlling a mouse with your hand, wrist, and arm. You're also still limited by the edge of the touch pad, a 360 turn would involve sliding to the edge of the pad, then lifting your thumb and moving it to the other side of the pad, then sliding it across again.
But I do like the touch pad controller idea, I wonder if anyone has it in the works. It would add the option of being able to tap to select objects on screen, if it were mapped 1:1 to the screen, a great benefit in strategy games (maybe it should be on the right side of the controller for that, below the buttons?) I'm sure there's other games it would be an advantage.
Barely literate people working in sweat shops have the financial expertise to accept an extra month's salary to use the special chips given to him by whoever did have the technical skills.
I'm sure they could program voice control, but it's probably not as high a priority on their to-do list as the "Have robot get beer" part.
As for the web interface, why not? My phone handles the web just fine, and I don't carry around a remote control. If it were voice controlled, you'd still want to have a way to control it when it's out of hearing range, the web/phone would still be the most convenient.
According to this logic, every benefit that doesn't benefit every employee is discrimination. Maternity benefits discriminate against those who won't or can't have kids. You have to be able to have children to benefit. Post-menopausal women and people who don't like or aren't ready for kids are being discriminated against, even though they won't have to pay the costs or need as much time off as parents with a newborn. It just happens that most beneficiaries of this are women or couples of child-bearing age, therefore it's pretty clear evidence that Google made this decision for their benefit. Health insurance benefits the frequently sick more than the perpetually healthy. Etc. etc.
Fair treatment is not the same as equal treatment, equal treatment is very often unfair. If you don't understand this, then ladies, there's the urinal, and guys, here's your tampon.
It doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation. It's determined by whether or not you pay a tax that the company thinks is unfair. You don't get this if you're a single gay or lesbian employee. Just as my laundry example is not discrimination of those who do not wear suits, reimbursing an employee for a tax that you are not subject to is not discrimination.
"We pay men more because they have families to support. It's not discrimination, it's a benefit of being a man."
He said universal translator, as in it only works on languages of this universe. Marketing speak is from the anti-matter dominant universe, as evidenced by the fact that the more it is spoken, the less is actually communicated.
"In short, it's not for Google to start correcting the unfairness of the tax system, and to do so in a discriminatory manner that favors gays over straights just isn't right or smart."
So the correct way to deal with an unfair tax system is to live with it? Employers are limited in their method of compensation?
Google is free to compensate any way they want. They're not paying employees more money for being gay or lesbian, they are compensating their employees who pay this unjust tax. They didn't cut anyone's salary, it's not discrimination, it's a benefit. They have free laundry, if they then offered free dry cleaning and an employee doesn't own a suit or anything that needs it, the employee is not getting screwed even though this effectively gives an extra $1,000/year to an employee who wears suits everyday.
The upcoming OS update might fix it. But if the update is no help, Apple would probably still say it'll be fixed soon, so keep buying them. If the update doesn't fix the issue, this will allow them to sell as many as they can before the update is released and sales drop like a left handed call.
There is the video of him singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
Most people consider presidential candidates publicly singing about bombing a country as sufficient evidence of his intent to go to war with them if elected.
Every form of motorsports has had a speed or distance reduction. NHRA doesn't race quarter miles anymore, they run 1000 feet. F1, Indycars, LeMans, Rally, etc. cars can all be built to be way faster than is safe to drive. They don't put in a literal speed limit, but they do limit the power of the engines, traction control devices, aerodynamics and electronics to keep it down.
The CART series cars had to cancel a race at Texas Speedway because some of the drivers were getting dizzy and disoriented from the G-forces. The track record was 225 MPH, the fastest cars were running over 236MPH.
What the hell kind of sales pitch is "We're only a little more than twice as slow!"
[W]e perform a rigorous performance analysis and find that after applying optimizations appropriate for both CPUs and GPUs the performance gap between an Nvidia GTX280 processor and the Intel Core i7 960 processor narrows to only 2.5x on average.
Slashdot Mirror
The community getting less revenue is exactly the goal. When the cost exceeds the revenue, the politicians will want to get rid of them as well, and slimy vendors will go out of business.
Walk up to the intersection wearing a hood and large sunglasses. Or shoot from a long distance, they're not using super-high resolution zoomable cameras. There's many other simple ways to get a paintball onto the camera without being noticed.
Wipers don't wipe off paint too well (think bird poop and your windshield without washer fluid.) And you could always freeze the paintballs and take out the wiper (glass, lens, and maybe the whole camera.)
Wow, with that witty and insightful refutation of my main points, I must concede that my idea was indeed ill-formed and fraught with confusion. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways, I shall endeavor to improve myself before posting again.
I can't believe that every one of these cameras has not been hit by a paintball gun already. Simple, quiet, effective, makes them cost more than they're worth, and although certainly illegal, pretty easy to get away with (if you shoot at 4 am and when your light is green.)
What ever happened to civil disobedience? So very few are willing to make a stand anymore.
Interesting theory, but not one that agrees with the studies I've read. Citation definitely needed.
So should Google shut down Google Trends? Block it from their ad customers? Somehow force them to ignore it? What the hell does he expect/want/think how in a perfect world this would work?
There's no point to this article. It's claiming an evil conspiracy just because Google Trends exists.
If someone in plain clothes got out of their car and started to pull a gun right in front of my motorcycle, they would have been run over by my motorcycle before they had a chance to identify themselves or aim the gun at me. I wouldn't wait around to get shot by an unknown assailant.
You don't pull a gun unless you're ready to shoot, and if you're out of uniform and pull your gun, expect law abiding people to react like you're a criminal. The idiot cop turned a speeding ticket into a potential firefight.
They don't enforce speed limits like that in the USA. Speed cameras are hidden and frequently placed in the safest areas to maximize revenue. There might be a few marked speed cameras to slow drivers in a dangerous area here, but I've never seen one. Unmarked police cars use radar to catch people speeding on restricted access highways. There's no way to see and react to an unmarked car in oncoming traffic using radar to catch you on a 4 lane divided straight highway through Kansas 20 miles from any exit. Or off the road hidden behind an overpass. Or on an overpass radioing your speed to another patrol car down the road. Or...well, I could do this all day. Safety is the stated reason for the speed laws, but maximizing revenue is the way that is actually enforced.
Speed cameras approval ratings are so low here that people frequently block the lenses. Phoenix, Arizona is getting rid of them entirely due to public outcry. Kentucky has a few portable radar signs that display your speed, but never put cameras in them (because someone would eventually shoot them, is my guess.) Red light cameras are used the same way. Studies have repeatedly shown that increasing the length of yellow lights reduces accidents. Many cities with red light cameras have been caught decreasing the length of yellow lights where they have speed cameras, increasing both the number of accidents and the number of tickets, all in the name of safety.
Read that code again, namely "threat of informing against any violation of any law of the US."
State laws might cover embarrassing photos, but federal law only covers criminal violations.
They're publishing an archive which they own. They can charge a fee to modify it without running afoul of any laws.
There is no explicit connection. They're not making a threat to repost embarrassing pictures. They're reposting all the contents of facebook. There is no law preventing them from republishing the archive, or advertising that they are republishing the archive. There's no law that says they can't charge to modify the archive they legally own. No threats are made or needed.
US Code defines blackmail as "Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41 - 873
They don't cover pictures that you published of yourself in the past, and that you freely gave up to facebook. All they are doing is what you gave them the legal right to do, and even asked them to do. They could argue that they have to verify that you really are who you say you are, and this costs them to do so, so they charge a fee to do it.
You can't keep a newspaper from republishing a picture you gave to them to publish, but they might not run it if you pay for advertisements in the same paper.
One of Facebook's options is to keep all the status updates and pictures for 10-20 years, then republish everything. For a "deletion fee", they will keep all your high school and college pictures, raunchy status updates, and other potentially embarrassing information off the internet. Most wouldn't care, but I'm sure there's plenty who want a high profile job that would pay dearly to keep that hidden.
AFAIK, it's completely legal, and already impossible to stop, they own the data and you (or someone you know) voluntarily published it once. It's pretty likely that they'll be replaced by the next big social media site or at least won't be doing nearly as well financially in 10-20 years as they are now, if they still exist. And if they go bankrupt, anyone could buy the data and do the same thing.
I don't think it's likely, but it is possible.
You may not be 12, but it sounds like your friends act like they are, and some of your family.
I have plenty of real friends who I ignore on FB, and I tell them about it. They don't mind because they're my friends. I have real life friends and family who I won't friend on FB, but I tell them why, and it doesn't affect our relationship. I hide everyone's feed that updates 3 times a day, and those whose posts are trivial daily activities ("Driving home," "Eating dinner with wife and kids," etc,) or that I just don't want a daily/weekly update about. I don't "like" anything since they changed the info section into mindless lists. I don't even "like" the band I play in. I block my status updates from some. I ignore posts to my wall frequently, and delete everyone else's posts to my wall from time to time. None of this has affected any of my real life relationships.
It's just facebook, it doesn't really matter. If you keep that attitude, people will accept it. If they can't or won't, they probably aren't the kind of person you'd want as a friend. Or at least that I'd want as a friend.
For FPS, aiming with a touch pad with just your left thumb is nowhere near as accurate as controlling a mouse with your hand, wrist, and arm. You're also still limited by the edge of the touch pad, a 360 turn would involve sliding to the edge of the pad, then lifting your thumb and moving it to the other side of the pad, then sliding it across again.
But I do like the touch pad controller idea, I wonder if anyone has it in the works. It would add the option of being able to tap to select objects on screen, if it were mapped 1:1 to the screen, a great benefit in strategy games (maybe it should be on the right side of the controller for that, below the buttons?) I'm sure there's other games it would be an advantage.
Barely literate people working in sweat shops have the financial expertise to accept an extra month's salary to use the special chips given to him by whoever did have the technical skills.
I'm sure they could program voice control, but it's probably not as high a priority on their to-do list as the "Have robot get beer" part.
As for the web interface, why not? My phone handles the web just fine, and I don't carry around a remote control. If it were voice controlled, you'd still want to have a way to control it when it's out of hearing range, the web/phone would still be the most convenient.
According to this logic, every benefit that doesn't benefit every employee is discrimination. Maternity benefits discriminate against those who won't or can't have kids. You have to be able to have children to benefit. Post-menopausal women and people who don't like or aren't ready for kids are being discriminated against, even though they won't have to pay the costs or need as much time off as parents with a newborn. It just happens that most beneficiaries of this are women or couples of child-bearing age, therefore it's pretty clear evidence that Google made this decision for their benefit. Health insurance benefits the frequently sick more than the perpetually healthy. Etc. etc.
Fair treatment is not the same as equal treatment, equal treatment is very often unfair. If you don't understand this, then ladies, there's the urinal, and guys, here's your tampon.
It doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation. It's determined by whether or not you pay a tax that the company thinks is unfair. You don't get this if you're a single gay or lesbian employee. Just as my laundry example is not discrimination of those who do not wear suits, reimbursing an employee for a tax that you are not subject to is not discrimination.
This is not an analogous example at all.
He said universal translator, as in it only works on languages of this universe. Marketing speak is from the anti-matter dominant universe, as evidenced by the fact that the more it is spoken, the less is actually communicated.
"In short, it's not for Google to start correcting the unfairness of the tax system, and to do so in a discriminatory manner that favors gays over straights just isn't right or smart."
So the correct way to deal with an unfair tax system is to live with it? Employers are limited in their method of compensation?
Google is free to compensate any way they want. They're not paying employees more money for being gay or lesbian, they are compensating their employees who pay this unjust tax. They didn't cut anyone's salary, it's not discrimination, it's a benefit. They have free laundry, if they then offered free dry cleaning and an employee doesn't own a suit or anything that needs it, the employee is not getting screwed even though this effectively gives an extra $1,000/year to an employee who wears suits everyday.
The upcoming OS update might fix it. But if the update is no help, Apple would probably still say it'll be fixed soon, so keep buying them. If the update doesn't fix the issue, this will allow them to sell as many as they can before the update is released and sales drop like a left handed call.
There is the video of him singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
Most people consider presidential candidates publicly singing about bombing a country as sufficient evidence of his intent to go to war with them if elected.
I just looked on ebay, the total number of 1975-1995 Japanese cars of all makes for sale now is 703. There are 1,201 1975-1995 Chevrolets.
I guess we can agree, if you want your cars to last 15+ years, buy Japanese. But if you want them to last 35+ years, buy a Chevy.
Every form of motorsports has had a speed or distance reduction. NHRA doesn't race quarter miles anymore, they run 1000 feet. F1, Indycars, LeMans, Rally, etc. cars can all be built to be way faster than is safe to drive. They don't put in a literal speed limit, but they do limit the power of the engines, traction control devices, aerodynamics and electronics to keep it down.
The CART series cars had to cancel a race at Texas Speedway because some of the drivers were getting dizzy and disoriented from the G-forces. The track record was 225 MPH, the fastest cars were running over 236MPH.
What the hell kind of sales pitch is "We're only a little more than twice as slow!"
It's gonna work, too.
Humanity sucks at math.