Yes, but you can easily set your device to wipe after 10 incorrect passcode entries. So, what this really means (assuming that Apple's statements are true) is that, in the event the police want access to your iDevice, their only option (unless they're willing to play 1000:1 odds) is to get the passcode from you.
The reason you don't think it's even close to a two way street is precisely due to the fact that the necessities of rural living are subsidized.
If they weren't, cost of living would skyrocket... and suddenly, all natural resources would be unaffordable to most people in urban areas.
This fundamentally doesn't make any sense. Say current subsidies to rural areas are $X. Those are clearly enough to get people to live there, work in agriculture, mining, etc. If the subsidies went away, then prices for some goods would rise, but they wouldn't rise by, in aggregate, any more than $X, by definition.
Things would, overall, work themselves out, absent the subsidies. Living in rural areas would become more costly, meaning you'd have to pay people more to live there, so food prices would rise.
$60k/home, 24 people, 3 mile radius. So, that's $1.44M to build out. 3 mile radius is about 28 square miles. Even if that minimum commitment was only 10% of the homes in that area, you're talking (at about 2.5 people per home) about only roughly 21 people per square mile. That's very rural. Typical suburban density is more like 2500 people per square mile.
Google Fiber is only building in VERY specific locations, with optimal physical characteristics (either all aerial plant, or ground that's easy to trench through), with optimal density, with optimal income levels. They're cherry-picking aggressively (which is the perfectly reasonable thing to do). Google Fiber certainly isn't talking about overbuilding areas which are rural enough to qualify for USF subsidies.
Rural areas often subside things like mass transit through regional governments as well so it's a bit of a two way street.
It's not even close to a two way street. Urban areas massively subsidize rural areas, even just in transport, and even after you include the very modest subsidies for public transit. Roads are funded with gas taxes, which are related to miles driven.
Certainly - the person I was responding too said "with the exception of rural areas," so that was what I was commenting on. Rural areas are even tougher.
Fiber builds cost, in urban and suburban areas, about $600-700/home passed, plus $200 or more for each house you actually connect to it. Somewhat less, if it's all overhead plant, a LOT more if it's underground plant. In rural areas, fiber build costs can easily reach $3k per home passed.
Actually, it's more the distinction between "they broke into the bank vault and went through your safety deposit box" and "they pickpocketed you, and used your key and a fake ID to get into your safety deposit box."
For the copyright alert notices, they're just forwarding on notices from the copyright holder, when the copyright holder says "hey, IP address XYZ is downloading Captain America." Comcast just sends on the notice to whomever has IP XYZ (or had it at the time in question).
True, but it's hard to imagine the publishers will just say "hey, go ahead, make them digitally available without paying us anything - we're not in the business of selling books or anything!"
If it's to be fair, though, there needs to be a link to the inventory system, disabling digital access to any book where all the copies are checked out. Wouldn't be an issue for reference books, though.
Not true at all. If you're buying a prepaid SIM, in some cases, they'll ask, but there's no real check - I know for a fact that a carrier with a large presence in South Florida has several hundred phones registered to "Dan Marino."
No, they didn't. The total number of lanes declined. In essence, they went from having four lanes, with no dedicated turn lane, to three lanes for most of the street, expanding to four (with one being a dedicated turn lane) at every other intersection. So, for the bulk of the street, the number of lanes declined.
Four lanes with no dedicated left turn lane turns into three lanes when someone wants to turn left.
And add to that the chaos of having to do lane changes because people get stuck behind left turners (and the corresponding people who want to turn left but were in the other lanes to avoid left turners in the previous intersection) means traffic just gets all jumbled up.
Put in some proper traffic lights to help clear left turn lanes so people don't jam it when it fills up and spills into a straight through lane...
Basically all that happened was in order to build a bike lane, they had to reconfigure a bunch of intersections and in so doing also happened to improve traffic flow.
On your traffic lights point, please do remember that these left turn lanes aren't like what you're used to, if you're not a New Yorker. These are left turn lanes coming off a one way street. In Manhattan (at least) most major arteries are one way. They're not there to facilitate turning left across oncoming traffic, but rather because turners often get held up by pedestrian traffic.
No, they didn't. The total number of lanes declined. In essence, they went from having four lanes, with no dedicated turn lane, to three lanes for most of the street, expanding to four (with one being a dedicated turn lane) at every other intersection. So, for the bulk of the street, the number of lanes declined.
Hey, it's a defense, don't get me wrong, but your categorical statement that there isn't a law requiring you to ride in the bike line was just wrong, and bad advice for other riders. You can get ticketed for riding outside the bike line, and then it's incumbent on you to make the argument that you had reasonable grounds to be outside the lane. In your case, the judge was very friendly - not all are.
"there is no law saying a bicyclist must ride in lane in NYC.. it's only recommended but up to rider's discretion."
This isn't actually true. See below. If there's a bike lane, you're required to use it, unless you're making a turn, or are reasonably trying to avoid conditions. Reasonably is the key word here. Reasonably means "what a typical person in that situation would do," the rider doesn't get to define reasonably based on his/her own standards. Clearly, if there's a car parked in the bike lane, it's reasonable to go around it. If you're still not in the bike lane two blocks later, that's going to be hard to claim.
(p) Bicycles. (1) Bicycle riders to use bicycle lanes. Whenever a usable path or lane for bicycles has been provided, bicycle riders shall use such path or lane only except under any of the following situations:
(i) When preparing for a turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(ii) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, pushcarts, animals, surface hazards) that make it unsafe to continue within such bicycle path or lane.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no natural law obligation to get consent from someone who is driving *my* car.
Next time the valet's name tag reads "John Locke," make sure you point that out.
Nah, he gets Rupert Murdoch's hand-me-downs. Murdoch long ago gave up on free-range urchin hearts - he now farms them in a huge facility under Slough.
For a few, yes, but look at the averages.
Yes, but you can easily set your device to wipe after 10 incorrect passcode entries. So, what this really means (assuming that Apple's statements are true) is that, in the event the police want access to your iDevice, their only option (unless they're willing to play 1000:1 odds) is to get the passcode from you.
The reason you don't think it's even close to a two way street is precisely due to the fact that the necessities of rural living are subsidized.
If they weren't, cost of living would skyrocket... and suddenly, all natural resources would be unaffordable to most people in urban areas.
This fundamentally doesn't make any sense. Say current subsidies to rural areas are $X. Those are clearly enough to get people to live there, work in agriculture, mining, etc. If the subsidies went away, then prices for some goods would rise, but they wouldn't rise by, in aggregate, any more than $X, by definition.
Things would, overall, work themselves out, absent the subsidies. Living in rural areas would become more costly, meaning you'd have to pay people more to live there, so food prices would rise.
$60k/home, 24 people, 3 mile radius. So, that's $1.44M to build out. 3 mile radius is about 28 square miles. Even if that minimum commitment was only 10% of the homes in that area, you're talking (at about 2.5 people per home) about only roughly 21 people per square mile. That's very rural. Typical suburban density is more like 2500 people per square mile.
Google Fiber is only building in VERY specific locations, with optimal physical characteristics (either all aerial plant, or ground that's easy to trench through), with optimal density, with optimal income levels. They're cherry-picking aggressively (which is the perfectly reasonable thing to do). Google Fiber certainly isn't talking about overbuilding areas which are rural enough to qualify for USF subsidies.
Please provide a citation, of what HHS _actually_ told him. Not Sessions's _description_ or _interpretation_ of what they told him.
No more than I'm "condemned" to substandard living by choosing to live in a city where I can't afford several acres in my backyard.
Rural areas often subside things like mass transit through regional governments as well so it's a bit of a two way street.
It's not even close to a two way street. Urban areas massively subsidize rural areas, even just in transport, and even after you include the very modest subsidies for public transit. Roads are funded with gas taxes, which are related to miles driven.
Certainly - the person I was responding too said "with the exception of rural areas," so that was what I was commenting on. Rural areas are even tougher.
Fiber builds cost, in urban and suburban areas, about $600-700/home passed, plus $200 or more for each house you actually connect to it. Somewhat less, if it's all overhead plant, a LOT more if it's underground plant. In rural areas, fiber build costs can easily reach $3k per home passed.
"everywhere in the US already has fiber optic cable capable of getting gigabit speeds"
If you define "has" as "has within a mile," then you're absolutely correct. If you define it as "has passing the home," then definitely not.
Actually, it's more the distinction between "they broke into the bank vault and went through your safety deposit box" and "they pickpocketed you, and used your key and a fake ID to get into your safety deposit box."
For the copyright alert notices, they're just forwarding on notices from the copyright holder, when the copyright holder says "hey, IP address XYZ is downloading Captain America." Comcast just sends on the notice to whomever has IP XYZ (or had it at the time in question).
True, but it's hard to imagine the publishers will just say "hey, go ahead, make them digitally available without paying us anything - we're not in the business of selling books or anything!"
If it's to be fair, though, there needs to be a link to the inventory system, disabling digital access to any book where all the copies are checked out. Wouldn't be an issue for reference books, though.
Not true at all. If you're buying a prepaid SIM, in some cases, they'll ask, but there's no real check - I know for a fact that a carrier with a large presence in South Florida has several hundred phones registered to "Dan Marino."
I'm a cyclist as well, in NYC, and I certainly know this. Don't generalize.
Four lanes with no dedicated left turn lane turns into three lanes when someone wants to turn left.
And add to that the chaos of having to do lane changes because people get stuck behind left turners (and the corresponding people who want to turn left but were in the other lanes to avoid left turners in the previous intersection) means traffic just gets all jumbled up.
Put in some proper traffic lights to help clear left turn lanes so people don't jam it when it fills up and spills into a straight through lane...
Basically all that happened was in order to build a bike lane, they had to reconfigure a bunch of intersections and in so doing also happened to improve traffic flow.
On your traffic lights point, please do remember that these left turn lanes aren't like what you're used to, if you're not a New Yorker. These are left turn lanes coming off a one way street. In Manhattan (at least) most major arteries are one way. They're not there to facilitate turning left across oncoming traffic, but rather because turners often get held up by pedestrian traffic.
You're 100% correct, and I phrased that very poorly.
No, they didn't. The total number of lanes declined. In essence, they went from having four lanes, with no dedicated turn lane, to three lanes for most of the street, expanding to four (with one being a dedicated turn lane) at every other intersection. So, for the bulk of the street, the number of lanes declined.
Hey, it's a defense, don't get me wrong, but your categorical statement that there isn't a law requiring you to ride in the bike line was just wrong, and bad advice for other riders. You can get ticketed for riding outside the bike line, and then it's incumbent on you to make the argument that you had reasonable grounds to be outside the lane. In your case, the judge was very friendly - not all are.
"there is no law saying a bicyclist must ride in lane in NYC.. it's only recommended but up to rider's discretion."
This isn't actually true. See below. If there's a bike lane, you're required to use it, unless you're making a turn, or are reasonably trying to avoid conditions. Reasonably is the key word here. Reasonably means "what a typical person in that situation would do," the rider doesn't get to define reasonably based on his/her own standards. Clearly, if there's a car parked in the bike lane, it's reasonable to go around it. If you're still not in the bike lane two blocks later, that's going to be hard to claim.
(p) Bicycles. (1) Bicycle riders to use bicycle lanes. Whenever a usable path or lane for bicycles has been provided, bicycle riders shall use such path or lane only except under any of the following situations:
(i) When preparing for a turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(ii) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, pushcarts, animals, surface hazards) that make it unsafe to continue within such bicycle path or lane.
http://rules.cityofnewyork.us/...