In many jurisdictions, Uber drivers are not required by law to accept your destination if it does not please them. A taxi faces consequences if they do that. The playing field is not even and Uber does not follow the same rules.
But when you call for a cab, they collect your number and location, and since they do this for everyone, pretty soon they have about as much information. And when you pay that single time with a credit card, bam - it all gets connected to a name. Without any privacy policies attached, not even a toothless one.
A taxi company knowing my phone number and location of pickup and location of drop-off is not "about as much information" as having my spacial coordinates and contact list at all times. Not even the same order of magnitude.
Your lament over taxi companies not having privacy policies is kind of odd. First, such policies protect the company, not you. Second, taxi companies have to follow rules, many of which cover privacy, which Uber flaunts.
Some operating systems have more granular permission options. It is certainly possible to be sensible with how much data one gives to a particular application.
Cost per issue is an objective measure. Cost per unit value ("actual news and analysis") is a subjective measure. While I personally agree with you, I feel objective data makes a better answer to the question of publication funding.
The Economist sells 1.5 million issues per week. Their subscriptions number over 1 million. Their subscriptions are growing almost 50% per year. They also charge more than most weekly magazines.
Yes, but good journalists cost money and most people have stopped wanting to pay for journalism. That said, there are still some publications out there that have a healthy body of paid readership willing to find actual non-sensational journalism.
You're forced to buy car (liability) insurance if you drive.
In Washington State, and likely other states, you are not forced to buy car insurance if you drive. You may instead buy a liability bond or obtain a certificate of deposit to prove you could pay any liability claims yourself. There are advantages and disadvantages to all the options, but the choices are there.
No of course not, but if I were in the market for a loan from a bank, having him do that would be well-worth the long term loan-costs he could save me.
It's a pretty weak citation to say a state requires it, when you can't even be bothered to look if they require it.
What you stated is that in Alaska, one may be refused emergency care if one does not provide a social security number. That is a pretty strong statement and requires a more rigorous citation than "Alaska law requires it". I'm not an expert in searching statutes, but I could find no such statute.
More traffic leading to more damage does *not* mean that no traffic means no damage. Leave a highly-trafficed road un-maintained for 5 years and compare it to an un-drive road that is un-maintained for 5 years.
Because roads still need to be maintained no matter what's driving on them. Those costs won't change.
Um, the type of traffic being carried by and the maintenance cost of roads are *not* independent. The more and the heavier the vehicles on the road, the more damage caused, the higher the cost of maintenance.
You're better off increasing the gas tax itself which then hurts less efficient (and presumably heavier) vehicles while reducing the impact on more fuel efficient (and lighter) vehicles.
Less fuel efficient vehicles need not be heavier and more fuel efficient vehicles need not be lighter. I recently retired my old car for a newer car and the newer car is twice as efficient and twice as heavy.
I didn't say it was or wasn't marketing. I was merely pointing out that government assistance helped. If we count government assistance as marketing then we start diluting the term. Are unemployed people very, very good marketers too, if they receive unemployment checks?
We cannot discount that Coca-Cola was standard ration for the US military during the last World War and the US government helped fund bottling plants all over the world near military deployments to supply troops economically. That certainly had a helping hand in growing their business.
Just to clarify, while Colorado charges $10.50 for an ID card, the cost to the potential voter is greater when you factor in travel time, expenses, and costs of having a mailing address.
One where you express your concerns tactfully, then when your superiors make a decision you either accept it and adapt or don't accept it and find new superiors. In both cases, you take responsibility for the choice *you* made.
Either you agreed with them it was the right thing you do, in which case you don't blame Microsoft for changing their platform that you signed up to use, or you disagree with them and find a job that does things differently.
I'm not saying you made the wrong choice here. I'm saying that moaning about Microsoft's change to their platform after you and your superiors signed up for the Microsoft way of doing things is trying to deflect responsibility and gets little sympathy from me.
In an earlier post, you blamed Microsoft, with your comment "You stupid Fuckers, Microsoft", for the headache they've caused you with their ecosystem. Your blame is misplaced, though. It is the fault of your authorities, who selected that ecosystem, and yourself, for agreeing to use that ecosystem. It's common knowledge that when you give control over your platform to another company, you accept the risk that the platform no longer suits your needs in the future.
Your options are to accept the change and rewrite your applications with the new Microsoft system, or if you are to rewrite it anyhow, to choose an ecosystem that has a wider support network than one vendor.
so maybe liberals have more conservative "friends" to de-"friend" than conservatives have liberal "friends" to de-"friend".
This is impossible as these are one-to-one relationships; for every liberal that has a conservative friend, that conservative has a liberal friend.
Can you explain what you mean by one-to-one? Most models of relationships are graphs, not functions. I am unsure what one-to-one means in this context. It does not appear that you mean each node may only have one mapping to another node, which would be, perhaps, the most sensible reading of a one-to-one relationship here.
In any case, node may be connected to any number of nodes, which means that a construct where you have six nodes, one self-identifies as "conservative" and five self-identify as "liberal". The "conservative" node may then be connected to each of the five "liberal" nodes. Is that one-to-one, by your usage?
It's more likely that liberals are the one's that initiate the un-friending.
Slashdot Mirror
In many jurisdictions, Uber drivers are not required by law to accept your destination if it does not please them. A taxi faces consequences if they do that. The playing field is not even and Uber does not follow the same rules.
But when you call for a cab, they collect your number and location, and since they do this for everyone, pretty soon they have about as much information. And when you pay that single time with a credit card, bam - it all gets connected to a name. Without any privacy policies attached, not even a toothless one.
A taxi company knowing my phone number and location of pickup and location of drop-off is not "about as much information" as having my spacial coordinates and contact list at all times. Not even the same order of magnitude.
Your lament over taxi companies not having privacy policies is kind of odd. First, such policies protect the company, not you. Second, taxi companies have to follow rules, many of which cover privacy, which Uber flaunts.
It's interesting that the most walled of all the gardens actually gives the user the most control over their device.
Some operating systems have more granular permission options. It is certainly possible to be sensible with how much data one gives to a particular application.
Cost per issue is an objective measure. Cost per unit value ("actual news and analysis") is a subjective measure. While I personally agree with you, I feel objective data makes a better answer to the question of publication funding.
The Economist sells 1.5 million issues per week. Their subscriptions number over 1 million. Their subscriptions are growing almost 50% per year. They also charge more than most weekly magazines.
the reader is the product.
That is not always true. There are still journalists who write for publications for which the reader is the customer.
Yes, but good journalists cost money and most people have stopped wanting to pay for journalism. That said, there are still some publications out there that have a healthy body of paid readership willing to find actual non-sensational journalism.
You're forced to buy car (liability) insurance if you drive.
In Washington State, and likely other states, you are not forced to buy car insurance if you drive. You may instead buy a liability bond or obtain a certificate of deposit to prove you could pay any liability claims yourself. There are advantages and disadvantages to all the options, but the choices are there.
With the amount of potential information mining that could be done with these apps, I'm surprised they aren't all cross-platform.
NSA is cross-platform and very easy to use. You don't even need to sign up for it. Come free with every phone call.
It does not come free with every phone call; we're playing for it.
No of course not, but if I were in the market for a loan from a bank, having him do that would be well-worth the long term loan-costs he could save me.
I would hand the letter to my lawyer, who would then work with credit bureaus to clean up fraudulent activity on my credit report.
It's a pretty weak citation to say a state requires it, when you can't even be bothered to look if they require it.
What you stated is that in Alaska, one may be refused emergency care if one does not provide a social security number. That is a pretty strong statement and requires a more rigorous citation than "Alaska law requires it". I'm not an expert in searching statutes, but I could find no such statute.
Not too many Python programmers use an IDE, though.
More traffic leading to more damage does *not* mean that no traffic means no damage. Leave a highly-trafficed road un-maintained for 5 years and compare it to an un-drive road that is un-maintained for 5 years.
Since apparently there is no downside to raising the minimum wage some, why not raise it a bunch?
That does not logically follow.
If some is good, more is better, and much more is much more better, right?
No.
Why not a minimum wage of $500/hr, and make almost everyone rich? (Except for the people who are already pulling in a megabuck per year.)
Because that's not how it works?
Noticing a difference is good. Drawing a causal relationship without actual data, not so much.
Because roads still need to be maintained no matter what's driving on them. Those costs won't change.
Um, the type of traffic being carried by and the maintenance cost of roads are *not* independent. The more and the heavier the vehicles on the road, the more damage caused, the higher the cost of maintenance.
You're better off increasing the gas tax itself which then hurts less efficient (and presumably heavier) vehicles while reducing the impact on more fuel efficient (and lighter) vehicles.
Less fuel efficient vehicles need not be heavier and more fuel efficient vehicles need not be lighter. I recently retired my old car for a newer car and the newer car is twice as efficient and twice as heavy.
I didn't say it was or wasn't marketing. I was merely pointing out that government assistance helped. If we count government assistance as marketing then we start diluting the term. Are unemployed people very, very good marketers too, if they receive unemployment checks?
We cannot discount that Coca-Cola was standard ration for the US military during the last World War and the US government helped fund bottling plants all over the world near military deployments to supply troops economically. That certainly had a helping hand in growing their business.
Just to clarify, while Colorado charges $10.50 for an ID card, the cost to the potential voter is greater when you factor in travel time, expenses, and costs of having a mailing address.
One where you express your concerns tactfully, then when your superiors make a decision you either accept it and adapt or don't accept it and find new superiors. In both cases, you take responsibility for the choice *you* made.
Either you agreed with them it was the right thing you do, in which case you don't blame Microsoft for changing their platform that you signed up to use, or you disagree with them and find a job that does things differently.
I'm not saying you made the wrong choice here. I'm saying that moaning about Microsoft's change to their platform after you and your superiors signed up for the Microsoft way of doing things is trying to deflect responsibility and gets little sympathy from me.
In an earlier post, you blamed Microsoft, with your comment "You stupid Fuckers, Microsoft", for the headache they've caused you with their ecosystem. Your blame is misplaced, though. It is the fault of your authorities, who selected that ecosystem, and yourself, for agreeing to use that ecosystem. It's common knowledge that when you give control over your platform to another company, you accept the risk that the platform no longer suits your needs in the future.
Your options are to accept the change and rewrite your applications with the new Microsoft system, or if you are to rewrite it anyhow, to choose an ecosystem that has a wider support network than one vendor.
so maybe liberals have more conservative "friends" to de-"friend" than conservatives have liberal "friends" to de-"friend".
This is impossible as these are one-to-one relationships; for every liberal that has a conservative friend, that conservative has a liberal friend.
Can you explain what you mean by one-to-one? Most models of relationships are graphs, not functions. I am unsure what one-to-one means in this context. It does not appear that you mean each node may only have one mapping to another node, which would be, perhaps, the most sensible reading of a one-to-one relationship here.
In any case, node may be connected to any number of nodes, which means that a construct where you have six nodes, one self-identifies as "conservative" and five self-identify as "liberal". The "conservative" node may then be connected to each of the five "liberal" nodes. Is that one-to-one, by your usage?
It's more likely that liberals are the one's that initiate the un-friending.
Why?
Was it deliberate, your commenting on an unpublished article to illustrate a point about how people don't read articles?