I've heard similar calls at WalMart ("all register-trained associates to the front immediately," or something along those lines). I'm still puzzled by the OP's claim that WalMart is intentionally opening a sub-optimal number of lanes (and very specifically, three lanes too few).
Just open three more checkout lanes (real checkout lanes, self-checkout doesn't count). Walmart knows how many lanes they need open because they study customer traffic patterns, but their standard operating procedure is to open three fewer than what the data requires.
Huh? How do you determine what the data "require," and how do you know they're opening three fewer than that? There's clearly a balance for WalMart - the more lanes that are open, the higher staffing costs are, but the higher customer satisfaction is. Fewer lanes, lower costs, but lower satisfaction due to longer waits. Are you saying that the data say "the optimal balance between cost and customer satisfaction is to have 12 lanes open," and WalMart then says "OK, let's open nine"?
"Password Sharing Is a Federal Crime, Appeals Court Rules"
No, the appeals court ruled that borrowing a password to get access to a system you knew you weren't authorized to access is illegal. To use a real world analogy, if I lose my job, and the company takes away my key to the office, it's illegal for me to use a key borrowed from a colleague to get in. I don't have to pick the lock for the access to be illegal.
Well, I guess I'll burn some karma. It is still cheap garbage though. I try not to be elitist about this sort of thing but if you do your grocery shopping at Walmart you're eating the wrong stuff.
The grocery section of my closest WalMart looks pretty much identical to most grocery stores (i.e. ShopRite, Kroger, etc.), with a large produce section, etc. When it comes to organic products, they have a pretty decent array (although I don't see any reason to pay the organic tax). They don't have the wide array of excellent cheeses that my local Whole Foods offers, but that's not really their competition.
WalMart has had their Smart Shopper service around for a while - you scan in the receipt using the bar code at the bottom, and the system compares what you bought to sale prices at nearby stores, and refunds you any difference (to a WalMart gift card). It's a pretty explicit quid pro quo - they get the data on your purchases (not just one receipt, but over time, unless you're going to bother to create a new account for each shopping trip, which nobody is going to do), and you get some amount of cash back (usually works out to 2-3% of my purchase).
The payment app integrates that, automatically spending any gift card balance, and then charging your credit card.
Your analogy would only be appropriate if the network were constrained by the number of customers it can serve simultaneously, and not by the total data utilized. It's the latter that's the primary constraint.
You are absolutely wrong. RF is a shared medium, you're not going to somehow get more data by adding towers running on the same frequency bands. 1 tower or 50 towers, the bandwidth is the same.
That's completely untrue. Dividing cells, adding micro/pico/femtocells, etc., lets you increase the amount of frequency reuse.
You don't understand how the cell network works. More towers do not give you more bandwidth. More towers gives you more coverage, and more capacity. Like adding a 12 port switch to a network with a 48 port switch that is full. You're not going to see speed increases, you're going to gain the ability to connect more devices to the network.
The speed comes from the backhaul, which already exists.
So again, allowing people to use more data per month does not increase costs for a provider who doesn't pay transit. If they get an influx of customers and need to add capacity, or want to expand their coverage, that is not a factor of data usage, and they would have to build those towers anyways.
Your analogy would only be appropriate if the network were constrained by the number of customers it can serve simultaneously, and not by the total data utilized. It's the latter that's the primary constraint.
Backhaul's a constraint in some locations, but not most.
Fine, but if there are half a dozen systems that someone needs to use, each with a different login, and each with different password requirements, and each requires changing the password every month, that becomes a non-trivial problem.
"OK, this is the one where I have to use a password with at least ten characters, including two numbers, a capital letter, a symbol, and no actual words - is it W34@wqaszn? No? Maybe that was last month?"
That's pretty much it. As I read the argument, it's a bit more nuanced (more along the lines of "there are burglars constantly cruising up and down my block, and eventually they'll figure out how to pick the lock on my door"), but that's pretty much it.
No, they didn't. The court ruled that there was a warrant, but even if there hadn't been, there was no need for one, since there was no expectation of privacy on an Internet-connected computer. See the section starting at the bottom of page 47.
Read the next section of the opinion, starting toward the bottom of page 47. After writing that there's no expectation of privacy for an IP address (which is a pretty reasonable point), the judge goes on to write that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of an Internet-connected computer, because that computer "can - and eventually will - be hacked."
Gun ownership info could be gathered from a number of sources. Those response cards on warranties where people indicate their interests, subscriber lists for magazines (which you can buy), etc. etc. It wouldn't be entirely accurate (there are lots of people who own guns who subscribe to Guns & Ammo, and people who don't own guns who do subscribe), but you can get a pretty decent approximation.
Household income's not that hard to get either (although not the official numbers).
Say what? Local governments control the right-of-way that cable companies need in order to offer service. In many places, that local government has made a deal with one cable company or another granting them exclusive access.
It's not common in the slightest - exclusive deals haven't been legal for over twenty years. Cable companies are natural monopolies, but a new entrant can get pole attachment and RoW usage rights on comparable terms to the incumbent anywhere they want. Of course, they have to agree to the same deal (i.e. pay franchise fee, etc.), but there's no significant legal barrier to cable overbuild. It's an economic barrier.
Most people live someplace that the cable is provided by a cable company with a government-granted monopoly. I was talking about cable companies. What are you talking about?
There are (virtually) no "government-granted monopolies" for US cable companies (there may be a very few for developments where the HOA is a quasi-gov't).
If Comcast wanted to start building cable plant in New York City, or Time Warner Cable wanted to build plant and deploy service in Chicago, there's no legal barrier to doing it. There are several providers (RCN being the best known) that have had this (overbuilding) as their business model. It proved to be a terrible business model, but there's no legal barrier to it.
as allowed by city ordinance, were ADSL (128kbit) from a single company allowed to operate phone lines in the area, or cable service from a single company allowed to operate in the area.
Monopoly franchises haven't been legal since 1992. If another provider wanted to enter your market, it certainly would be allowed to (subject to reasonable requirements that they show sufficient financing to actually build the network, and agree to the same buildout requirements as the incumbents, i.e. not cream skim only rich areas).
Charter management said they'd be doing this back in April. The broadband upgrades are part of a general system upgrade, which includes going all digital for video (freeing up the spectrum that was used for analog video), which requires putting some sort of box on every TV. Time Warner Cable had been using very simple digital-to-analog adapters for this. Charter's being putting a full-fledged digital set top on every TV. So, they're putting the Time Warner rollouts on hold until they can restart the process using the full set tops (i.e. the Charter model).
"because most towns grant the franchise to dig up streets / string cable to one company only"
This hasn't been true since the early 1990s. There may not be an _economic_ incentive for a new provider to enter a market, but exclusive franchises have been banned for well over 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard similar calls at WalMart ("all register-trained associates to the front immediately," or something along those lines). I'm still puzzled by the OP's claim that WalMart is intentionally opening a sub-optimal number of lanes (and very specifically, three lanes too few).
Just open three more checkout lanes (real checkout lanes, self-checkout doesn't count). Walmart knows how many lanes they need open because they study customer traffic patterns, but their standard operating procedure is to open three fewer than what the data requires.
Huh? How do you determine what the data "require," and how do you know they're opening three fewer than that? There's clearly a balance for WalMart - the more lanes that are open, the higher staffing costs are, but the higher customer satisfaction is. Fewer lanes, lower costs, but lower satisfaction due to longer waits. Are you saying that the data say "the optimal balance between cost and customer satisfaction is to have 12 lanes open," and WalMart then says "OK, let's open nine"?
I should have known better- I came here about to get all upset. Good thing I read the summary before commenting...
Doesn't this also put the current employee who shared the password in hot water too?
Certainly with the employer - I don't know if someone could be indicted as an accessory to violation of the statute.
"Password Sharing Is a Federal Crime, Appeals Court Rules"
No, the appeals court ruled that borrowing a password to get access to a system you knew you weren't authorized to access is illegal. To use a real world analogy, if I lose my job, and the company takes away my key to the office, it's illegal for me to use a key borrowed from a colleague to get in. I don't have to pick the lock for the access to be illegal.
How would this reduce their credit card fees? You're still paying with a credit or debit card...
Why would you want to link a bank account to this app, or any app? Just use a credit card.
Well, I guess I'll burn some karma. It is still cheap garbage though. I try not to be elitist about this sort of thing but if you do your grocery shopping at Walmart you're eating the wrong stuff.
The grocery section of my closest WalMart looks pretty much identical to most grocery stores (i.e. ShopRite, Kroger, etc.), with a large produce section, etc. When it comes to organic products, they have a pretty decent array (although I don't see any reason to pay the organic tax). They don't have the wide array of excellent cheeses that my local Whole Foods offers, but that's not really their competition.
WalMart has had their Smart Shopper service around for a while - you scan in the receipt using the bar code at the bottom, and the system compares what you bought to sale prices at nearby stores, and refunds you any difference (to a WalMart gift card). It's a pretty explicit quid pro quo - they get the data on your purchases (not just one receipt, but over time, unless you're going to bother to create a new account for each shopping trip, which nobody is going to do), and you get some amount of cash back (usually works out to 2-3% of my purchase).
The payment app integrates that, automatically spending any gift card balance, and then charging your credit card.
Your analogy would only be appropriate if the network were constrained by the number of customers it can serve simultaneously, and not by the total data utilized. It's the latter that's the primary constraint.
You are absolutely wrong. RF is a shared medium, you're not going to somehow get more data by adding towers running on the same frequency bands. 1 tower or 50 towers, the bandwidth is the same.
That's completely untrue. Dividing cells, adding micro/pico/femtocells, etc., lets you increase the amount of frequency reuse.
You don't understand how the cell network works. More towers do not give you more bandwidth. More towers gives you more coverage, and more capacity. Like adding a 12 port switch to a network with a 48 port switch that is full. You're not going to see speed increases, you're going to gain the ability to connect more devices to the network.
The speed comes from the backhaul, which already exists.
So again, allowing people to use more data per month does not increase costs for a provider who doesn't pay transit. If they get an influx of customers and need to add capacity, or want to expand their coverage, that is not a factor of data usage, and they would have to build those towers anyways.
Your analogy would only be appropriate if the network were constrained by the number of customers it can serve simultaneously, and not by the total data utilized. It's the latter that's the primary constraint.
Backhaul's a constraint in some locations, but not most.
Meaning that looking at a GB of usage as having no cost ignores the fact that it does in fact have a real cost.
Data is not a finite resource, and therefore whether Joe Blow uses 3 or 4GB of data a month, it doesn't cost Verizon any differently.
Um, you are aware that wireless networks don't build themselves, right?
Fine, but if there are half a dozen systems that someone needs to use, each with a different login, and each with different password requirements, and each requires changing the password every month, that becomes a non-trivial problem.
"OK, this is the one where I have to use a password with at least ten characters, including two numbers, a capital letter, a symbol, and no actual words - is it W34@wqaszn? No? Maybe that was last month?"
That's pretty much it. As I read the argument, it's a bit more nuanced (more along the lines of "there are burglars constantly cruising up and down my block, and eventually they'll figure out how to pick the lock on my door"), but that's pretty much it.
Legally, it's non-binding. In practice, it's REALLY hard to see any government deciding to just ignore it.
No, they didn't. The court ruled that there was a warrant, but even if there hadn't been, there was no need for one, since there was no expectation of privacy on an Internet-connected computer. See the section starting at the bottom of page 47.
Read the next section of the opinion, starting toward the bottom of page 47. After writing that there's no expectation of privacy for an IP address (which is a pretty reasonable point), the judge goes on to write that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy for the contents of an Internet-connected computer, because that computer "can - and eventually will - be hacked."
Gun ownership info could be gathered from a number of sources. Those response cards on warranties where people indicate their interests, subscriber lists for magazines (which you can buy), etc. etc. It wouldn't be entirely accurate (there are lots of people who own guns who subscribe to Guns & Ammo, and people who don't own guns who do subscribe), but you can get a pretty decent approximation.
Household income's not that hard to get either (although not the official numbers).
...dozens of people rejoice!
Say what? Local governments control the right-of-way that cable companies need in order to offer service. In many places, that local government has made a deal with one cable company or another granting them exclusive access.
It's not common in the slightest - exclusive deals haven't been legal for over twenty years. Cable companies are natural monopolies, but a new entrant can get pole attachment and RoW usage rights on comparable terms to the incumbent anywhere they want. Of course, they have to agree to the same deal (i.e. pay franchise fee, etc.), but there's no significant legal barrier to cable overbuild. It's an economic barrier.
Most people live someplace that the cable is provided by a cable company with a government-granted monopoly. I was talking about cable companies. What are you talking about?
There are (virtually) no "government-granted monopolies" for US cable companies (there may be a very few for developments where the HOA is a quasi-gov't).
If Comcast wanted to start building cable plant in New York City, or Time Warner Cable wanted to build plant and deploy service in Chicago, there's no legal barrier to doing it. There are several providers (RCN being the best known) that have had this (overbuilding) as their business model. It proved to be a terrible business model, but there's no legal barrier to it.
as allowed by city ordinance, were ADSL (128kbit) from a single company allowed to operate phone lines in the area, or cable service from a single company allowed to operate in the area.
Monopoly franchises haven't been legal since 1992. If another provider wanted to enter your market, it certainly would be allowed to (subject to reasonable requirements that they show sufficient financing to actually build the network, and agree to the same buildout requirements as the incumbents, i.e. not cream skim only rich areas).
You know that none of these companies have a government granted monopoly, right?
Charter management said they'd be doing this back in April. The broadband upgrades are part of a general system upgrade, which includes going all digital for video (freeing up the spectrum that was used for analog video), which requires putting some sort of box on every TV. Time Warner Cable had been using very simple digital-to-analog adapters for this. Charter's being putting a full-fledged digital set top on every TV. So, they're putting the Time Warner rollouts on hold until they can restart the process using the full set tops (i.e. the Charter model).
"because most towns grant the franchise to dig up streets / string cable to one company only"
This hasn't been true since the early 1990s. There may not be an _economic_ incentive for a new provider to enter a market, but exclusive franchises have been banned for well over 20 years.