I don't understand how this is technically possible. don't you need a different type of phone to go from Verizon to ATT? like taking your TV to Japan.
It depends on the device. Some devices will work across all of the Big 4 carriers in the USA. The iPhone 5s/5c is one example. It contains all the radio equipment necessary to connect to any carrier's LTE signal frequency (3G fallback might be an issue between CDMA and GSM). I would expect these radios to become more prevalent as time progresses.
Cars are a necessity in the US. We have more room and things are much father spread out. Try getting around a typical western US city without a car.
That's not because you have more room. That's because public transportation sucks and has a social stigma.
You don't need a car in London, for example.
While I do not disagree with the social stigma associated with the use of public transit, the real problem in these Western US cities is poor urban planning. Much of the growth in the West has been over the last 20-40 years and coincides with the heyday of the automobile, unlike their Eastern counterparts, which formed before the advent of the automobile. Many of the Western cities chose to grow outward instead of upward, that is, they grew in terms of area but not density. This is due to the choice to build large tracts of single-family homes and strip malls instead of multiple-unit and mixed-use dwellings, which effectively decrease density of the region. And no public transportation infrastructure was built to accommodate the influx of new housing, instead efforts were focused on expanding and building out the existing roadway and freeway networks.
The problem then becomes that as the area a city covers expands outward and new residents populate these areas, many of them still commute back to the city center for work, clogging the highway network beyond its design capacity but with little room and money for expansion. Many people braving these commutes would not mind using public transit but it is not feasible in their area and the cost to build such a system is more than most governments can afford, especially in these economic times.
This is not intended to bash all Western cities. In some cases (see San Francisco and Portland OR), cities have implemented stricter zoning requirements and urban growth limits, forcing developers to invest in multiunit dwellings and mixed-use space. These cities have also invested greatly in a public transit system, including taking steps to reduce or eliminate much of the "social stigma" associated therewith.
Do not be so quick to fault the French. Seems to me recent stories about the US Congress show new tricks to avoid obtaining a majority of 60 votes to pass legislation increasing taxes or doing budgets because it allowed the minority party a voice. Hell even if they have to abide by their own rules they found gimmicks to get around them to include having the administrative branch issue POs
Summary, in all "Democratic" countries, democracy only works until the ruling parties figured out they were immune to the wishes of the voters and rule of law.
60 votes are not required to pass the legislation; only to end debate, and then only in the Senate. The House of Representatives has no such rule. Budget Reconciliation bills, which serve to smooth out the kinks in the House and Senate versions of the annual budget, need only 51% of the membership to vote to invoke cloture (to force a floor vote). Which at the current Senate membership is 50 votes, since one Senate seat from Minnesota is still under dispute, leaving the total membership at 99.
State hits crime lab on DNA cache, Some files improperly kept, IG says The State Police crime laboratory is storing the DNA profiles of hundreds of people whose crimes do not warrant it, according to an investigation of the historically troubled lab, raising the specter of what one civil libertarian called a "shadow DNA database."
- SR
Or in California in 2004. Stupid voters passed Prop 69!
(Winston Churchill once said that the greatest argument against democracy was "a five-minute conversation with the average voter." I could not agree more.)
Heck, you don't even have to leave the country (or even your own STATE) to have your card blocked. I live in the Bay Area and one time when I took a mini-vacation to LA, I found the card was blocked by Bank of America because I made a cash withdrawal and bought gas on my debit card. Was a real PITA to get access to my funds again or have any transactions (including deposits) post to my account.
The 2012 date is only one option of two that the cable providers have in complying with the FCC mandate. The other option is for cable companies to "carry the signal only in digital format, provided that all subscribers have the necessary equipment to view the broadcast content." http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276576A1.pdf Translated into English, this means that if cable companies provide every customer with a set-top box (STB) to view digital channels, they can switch over earlier, which is exactly what many cable systems are choosing to do. This "analog migration" or "analog recapture" is currently in progress in the cable system I work for where we are moving analog channels over to digital incrementally and analog-only customers would have to get a STB in order to view these channels.
Interesting point. But then again, like anything else in our society, if you say that you are doing something "for the children" or to "protect the children" then to oppose it means you hate children... you don't hate children do you?
Point 2: You may have the best download pipe bandwidth to my house, but you fill it up constantly with 99% of things I don't want or need at the moment! How smart it that?
While I agree with you that there is a huge amount of content provided via cable that I could care less about, this is not about what you want but what the market desires. I don't care about channels like SoapNet or Style but there is a target demographic that will shell out money for that content. I don't hear anyone complaining to Macy's because they don't carry enough of the clothing you like, they (like any other profit-motivated entity) will cater to what greatest number of people as possible while maximizing profit.
Before we get to the retort of a-la-carte offerings, it won't work. Under the current scheme, specialized niche channels are able to be offered (many times at a loss to the cable company) because they are subsidized by more popular mainstream networks. Also networks will offer discounts to the cable company by bundling cable networks together as a package.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."
In other words, since the Bill of Rights (and specifically the Fourth Amendment) was proposed by Congress, passed both houses with thr requisite supermajority and was ratified by a sufficient number of the legislatures of the states, it is valid "for all intents and purposes" as part of the Constitution -- i.e. it is the same as if it were written into the original language of the document in 1787.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand how this is technically possible. don't you need a different type of phone to go from Verizon to ATT? like taking your TV to Japan.
It depends on the device. Some devices will work across all of the Big 4 carriers in the USA. The iPhone 5s/5c is one example. It contains all the radio equipment necessary to connect to any carrier's LTE signal frequency (3G fallback might be an issue between CDMA and GSM). I would expect these radios to become more prevalent as time progresses.
Well stated sir. Wish I could mod this higher than +5.
Cars are a necessity in the US. We have more room and things are much father spread out. Try getting around a typical western US city without a car.
That's not because you have more room. That's because public transportation sucks and has a social stigma.
You don't need a car in London, for example.
While I do not disagree with the social stigma associated with the use of public transit, the real problem in these Western US cities is poor urban planning. Much of the growth in the West has been over the last 20-40 years and coincides with the heyday of the automobile, unlike their Eastern counterparts, which formed before the advent of the automobile. Many of the Western cities chose to grow outward instead of upward, that is, they grew in terms of area but not density. This is due to the choice to build large tracts of single-family homes and strip malls instead of multiple-unit and mixed-use dwellings, which effectively decrease density of the region. And no public transportation infrastructure was built to accommodate the influx of new housing, instead efforts were focused on expanding and building out the existing roadway and freeway networks.
The problem then becomes that as the area a city covers expands outward and new residents populate these areas, many of them still commute back to the city center for work, clogging the highway network beyond its design capacity but with little room and money for expansion. Many people braving these commutes would not mind using public transit but it is not feasible in their area and the cost to build such a system is more than most governments can afford, especially in these economic times.
This is not intended to bash all Western cities. In some cases (see San Francisco and Portland OR), cities have implemented stricter zoning requirements and urban growth limits, forcing developers to invest in multiunit dwellings and mixed-use space. These cities have also invested greatly in a public transit system, including taking steps to reduce or eliminate much of the "social stigma" associated therewith.
Do not be so quick to fault the French. Seems to me recent stories about the US Congress show new tricks to avoid obtaining a majority of 60 votes to pass legislation increasing taxes or doing budgets because it allowed the minority party a voice. Hell even if they have to abide by their own rules they found gimmicks to get around them to include having the administrative branch issue POs
Summary, in all "Democratic" countries, democracy only works until the ruling parties figured out they were immune to the wishes of the voters and rule of law.
60 votes are not required to pass the legislation; only to end debate, and then only in the Senate. The House of Representatives has no such rule. Budget Reconciliation bills, which serve to smooth out the kinks in the House and Senate versions of the annual budget, need only 51% of the membership to vote to invoke cloture (to force a floor vote). Which at the current Senate membership is 50 votes, since one Senate seat from Minnesota is still under dispute, leaving the total membership at 99.
Yup, just like they did in Massachusetts
State hits crime lab on DNA cache, Some files improperly kept, IG says
The State Police crime laboratory is storing the DNA profiles of hundreds of people whose crimes do not warrant it, according to an investigation of the historically troubled lab, raising the specter of what one civil libertarian called a "shadow DNA database."
- SR
Or in California in 2004. Stupid voters passed Prop 69!
(Winston Churchill once said that the greatest argument against democracy was "a five-minute conversation with the average voter." I could not agree more.)
Heck, you don't even have to leave the country (or even your own STATE) to have your card blocked. I live in the Bay Area and one time when I took a mini-vacation to LA, I found the card was blocked by Bank of America because I made a cash withdrawal and bought gas on my debit card. Was a real PITA to get access to my funds again or have any transactions (including deposits) post to my account.
The 2012 date is only one option of two that the cable providers have in complying with the FCC mandate. The other option is for cable companies to "carry the signal only in digital format, provided that all subscribers have the necessary equipment to view the broadcast content." http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276576A1.pdf Translated into English, this means that if cable companies provide every customer with a set-top box (STB) to view digital channels, they can switch over earlier, which is exactly what many cable systems are choosing to do. This "analog migration" or "analog recapture" is currently in progress in the cable system I work for where we are moving analog channels over to digital incrementally and analog-only customers would have to get a STB in order to view these channels.
Interesting point. But then again, like anything else in our society, if you say that you are doing something "for the children" or to "protect the children" then to oppose it means you hate children... you don't hate children do you?
Point 2: You may have the best download pipe bandwidth to my house, but you fill it up constantly with 99% of things I don't want or need at the moment! How smart it that?
While I agree with you that there is a huge amount of content provided via cable that I could care less about, this is not about what you want but what the market desires. I don't care about channels like SoapNet or Style but there is a target demographic that will shell out money for that content. I don't hear anyone complaining to Macy's because they don't carry enough of the clothing you like, they (like any other profit-motivated entity) will cater to what greatest number of people as possible while maximizing profit.
Before we get to the retort of a-la-carte offerings, it won't work. Under the current scheme, specialized niche channels are able to be offered (many times at a loss to the cable company) because they are subsidized by more popular mainstream networks. Also networks will offer discounts to the cable company by bundling cable networks together as a package.
Yes, the Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, so are the rest of the first ten amendments to the Constitution (as was the 27th Amendment, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendm ent_to_the_United_States_Constitution). But by Article V of the Constitution:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."
In other words, since the Bill of Rights (and specifically the Fourth Amendment) was proposed by Congress, passed both houses with thr requisite supermajority and was ratified by a sufficient number of the legislatures of the states, it is valid "for all intents and purposes" as part of the Constitution -- i.e. it is the same as if it were written into the original language of the document in 1787.