The issue is, you suppose there is a free market (or that there could be one) when it comes to ISPs in the US. The ISPs have government sanctioned monopolies, or duopolies. In any area where your only options are the major providers, you'll only be able to choose between bad and also bad.
As long as there is no competition in the ISP market, they can do almost anything they want. We need them as much as they need us, but they know we don't have an alternative.
Your exaggeration is a little too so, and ruins your point. Nobody, not even rapists, would buy a phone where the main demo was rapists. Even assuming they would, investors wouldn't want to be seen supporting products for rapist. Investors, let alone the company, would be seen as supporting rape.
Except, the government is actively trying to reduce/remove regulations on emissions. They didn't pull out of the agreement to reduce emissions on our own terms, they pulled out to not have to reduce emissions.
I fail to see how that pertains to what I said. I said if quality matters, USB C has the potential for better quality than 3.5mm. My other point was that to most people the need to use a USB C to 3.5mm adapter is at most an inconvenience. I even said it was debatable whether the benefits of removing the 3.5mm was worth the inconvenience of needing the adapter. At no point did I claim anything at all about bluetooth, whether positive or negative. All I pointed out is that there are perfectly valid wired options, some of which are superior to 3.5mm.
If most people better educated than me in a given field told me that something was most likely correct, I would assume it to be accurate unless/until there was verifiable evidence strong enough to invalidate it.
Lets be honest here. If audio quality from a phone is the only concern here, then USB C provides more options for better audio output. This is only a boon for anyone trying to get the best audio possible from their phone.
In all honesty, it's less of an issue than people make it out to be. Not wanting to deal with the USB C to 3.5mm adapter is understandable. It doesn't make it some amazingly serious flaw in the phone. It's definitely debatable whether the removal is worth the inconvenience, but an inconvenience is all it is.
Homosexuals only affect each other so regardless of your perspective of them, they aren't directly affecting you (unless you are a homosexual as well, in which case they may be *very deeply* affecting you).
No, common sense would be reading the line on the card and seeing it says the card isn't valid without a signature. Anything other than that, is you deciding your way is better. It might be, but your way isn't the correct way. As for "real-looking," I doubt too many people's names are "See ID."
Just to say again, for me... I don't see the signatures on the card as necessary. I just don't think people are assholes for doing their job.
I'm guessing you're the asshole that refuses to accept unsigned cards, and that you have experience getting fired because you refused a sale over it?
Im not an asshole, I just don't see the value in providing easy access to my signature which could then be used to forge important documents where it is actually necessary.
The card isn't valid unless signed. Strictly speaking, you then have a choice to either sign the card or not use it. The AC is in the right, you're in the wrong. People aren't assholes for doing their job correctly. People are assholes for giving them grief, for doing their job correctly. That being said, you are like most people... including me. That is, except I wouldn't be a dick about it if someone said something.
I'm not going to make a judgement on merit in this particular case, but not all patents are equal. I will agree that a company, regardless of details, that owns a strong patent should be able to monetize it. That being said, a lot of these patents are the lowest of hanging fruit and shouldn't even exist. Patent trolls do exist.
I don't have an opinion on whether Microsoft removed it due to litigation, or any other reason. That being said, there have been a few times now Microsoft has been brought to court over software they bundle with Windows. WMP was specifically addressed in EU litigation.
Yes, damages would be greater if/when there is an accident. However, given the relatively less complex nature of it, it would still likely be easier to maintain a higher safety record than in other sectors. As to the savings, I would imagine there would be savings passed down. You have to entice people to change. However, I would assume most of the savings would end up in the pockets of the company/investors.
My first guess, and I'm not knocking the phone, the LG L40 is a bulkier cheap plastic phone. Most people don't care about FM radio, so why bother making room for it in the premium devices where they're striving for minimize everything but the display?
First, my point was that the summary mentioned the concern about others with iphones and not the feature on your own phone as you can disable it on your own device. I only brought up expectation of privacy because you can chose not to use it and be fine in your own home or the like. You can choose not to associate with people in private places that use the feature. The only time you don't have a choice is in public, but in public you lose an expectation of privacy. It doesn't lessen your desire to have it, but not much to do about it.
To be fair, the summary does mention the concern of your privacy being violated by another person's phone. Now, you can then get into expectation of privacy in public places.
Gotta keep the analogy in line. Google is the bakery department of your chain grocery store(s). Sure, you can find an independent bakery. However, unless it's important enough people are too lazy/indifferent to bother.
Also, for what it's worth, the comparisons aren't valid. On one hand, you have a store deciding whom they're willing to sell to. On the other, you have a store (Google) deciding what they're willing to sell. Last a checked, even major chain stores have a right to choose what they stock on their shelves.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is, you suppose there is a free market (or that there could be one) when it comes to ISPs in the US. The ISPs have government sanctioned monopolies, or duopolies. In any area where your only options are the major providers, you'll only be able to choose between bad and also bad.
As long as there is no competition in the ISP market, they can do almost anything they want. We need them as much as they need us, but they know we don't have an alternative.
Your exaggeration is a little too so, and ruins your point. Nobody, not even rapists, would buy a phone where the main demo was rapists. Even assuming they would, investors wouldn't want to be seen supporting products for rapist. Investors, let alone the company, would be seen as supporting rape.
I'm pretty sure kicking a passenger in the face might be a crime.
They're trying to fix that loophole already.
Except, the government is actively trying to reduce/remove regulations on emissions. They didn't pull out of the agreement to reduce emissions on our own terms, they pulled out to not have to reduce emissions.
I fail to see how that pertains to what I said. I said if quality matters, USB C has the potential for better quality than 3.5mm. My other point was that to most people the need to use a USB C to 3.5mm adapter is at most an inconvenience. I even said it was debatable whether the benefits of removing the 3.5mm was worth the inconvenience of needing the adapter. At no point did I claim anything at all about bluetooth, whether positive or negative. All I pointed out is that there are perfectly valid wired options, some of which are superior to 3.5mm.
If most people better educated than me in a given field told me that something was most likely correct, I would assume it to be accurate unless/until there was verifiable evidence strong enough to invalidate it.
Lets be honest here. If audio quality from a phone is the only concern here, then USB C provides more options for better audio output. This is only a boon for anyone trying to get the best audio possible from their phone.
In all honesty, it's less of an issue than people make it out to be. Not wanting to deal with the USB C to 3.5mm adapter is understandable. It doesn't make it some amazingly serious flaw in the phone. It's definitely debatable whether the removal is worth the inconvenience, but an inconvenience is all it is.
Homosexuals only affect each other so regardless of your perspective of them, they aren't directly affecting you (unless you are a homosexual as well, in which case they may be *very deeply* affecting you).
Well, not if you're of the opposite sex.
You'll find, in general, most people like to keep their job. If the employer says to check everyone, they'll probably check. If not, they won't.
No, common sense would be reading the line on the card and seeing it says the card isn't valid without a signature. Anything other than that, is you deciding your way is better. It might be, but your way isn't the correct way. As for "real-looking," I doubt too many people's names are "See ID."
Just to say again, for me... I don't see the signatures on the card as necessary. I just don't think people are assholes for doing their job.
I'm guessing you're the asshole that refuses to accept unsigned cards, and that you have experience getting fired because you refused a sale over it?
Im not an asshole, I just don't see the value in providing easy access to my signature which could then be used to forge important documents where it is actually necessary.
The card isn't valid unless signed. Strictly speaking, you then have a choice to either sign the card or not use it. The AC is in the right, you're in the wrong. People aren't assholes for doing their job correctly. People are assholes for giving them grief, for doing their job correctly. That being said, you are like most people... including me. That is, except I wouldn't be a dick about it if someone said something.
And what, you don't need to test quality in house either? Just because you directly employ people, doesn't mean they're never going to make mistakes.
I'm not going to make a judgement on merit in this particular case, but not all patents are equal. I will agree that a company, regardless of details, that owns a strong patent should be able to monetize it. That being said, a lot of these patents are the lowest of hanging fruit and shouldn't even exist. Patent trolls do exist.
I don't have an opinion on whether Microsoft removed it due to litigation, or any other reason. That being said, there have been a few times now Microsoft has been brought to court over software they bundle with Windows. WMP was specifically addressed in EU litigation.
Yes, damages would be greater if/when there is an accident. However, given the relatively less complex nature of it, it would still likely be easier to maintain a higher safety record than in other sectors. As to the savings, I would imagine there would be savings passed down. You have to entice people to change. However, I would assume most of the savings would end up in the pockets of the company/investors.
Interstate trucking would be the least dangerous type of self-driving vehicle usage.
That's really more of a statement. But, I think the point was unions lobbying against it.
Technically, they only have kids. It's up to their kids to follow through on the long game.
My first guess, and I'm not knocking the phone, the LG L40 is a bulkier cheap plastic phone. Most people don't care about FM radio, so why bother making room for it in the premium devices where they're striving for minimize everything but the display?
First, my point was that the summary mentioned the concern about others with iphones and not the feature on your own phone as you can disable it on your own device. I only brought up expectation of privacy because you can chose not to use it and be fine in your own home or the like. You can choose not to associate with people in private places that use the feature. The only time you don't have a choice is in public, but in public you lose an expectation of privacy. It doesn't lessen your desire to have it, but not much to do about it.
To be fair, the summary does mention the concern of your privacy being violated by another person's phone. Now, you can then get into expectation of privacy in public places.
Gotta keep the analogy in line. Google is the bakery department of your chain grocery store(s). Sure, you can find an independent bakery. However, unless it's important enough people are too lazy/indifferent to bother.
Also, for what it's worth, the comparisons aren't valid. On one hand, you have a store deciding whom they're willing to sell to. On the other, you have a store (Google) deciding what they're willing to sell. Last a checked, even major chain stores have a right to choose what they stock on their shelves.
In all fairness, as the Apple event was yesterday, you can expect "news" about it to be populous.