It isn't just a patent on banner adds. It's a patent on banner adds that are displayed through a certain process
Yes, but that's like patenting "newspaper ads printed on printing presses using (new print process A)", when adverts have been in newspapers for years, only printed with (older print process B). The method of delivery is irrelevant, unless you're patenting a delivery process alone, which they are NOT.
Re:Not necessarily the war yet
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Hey dumbass, ever hear of something called ROTC? They promised to serve 4 years. They served 4 years. They held up their end of the agreement, now it's time the Army stuck to theirs. If the Army is so "filled with people who want to be there," why are they preventing people from leaving?
Hey dumbass, did you know that the 4 years is only the MINIMUM? The contract you sign is quite clear that you are signing up for 8 years of service, despite the fact that you'll probably only have to serve four as active duty. They make it QUITE clear that you can be held in longer in times of war, or even be CALLED BACK, even if you've already served your minimum 4 years active duty. Those guys have no legal or moral leg to stand on when they whine about not getting off easy like they expected. Next time, they should READ AND UNDERSTAND the contract they're signing.
Texas still believes that it's an independent country, and GWB think's he's the president of it. Like when he makes speeches about how you don't mess with Texas:P And, (when he was Governor of Texas) about how Texas wasn't bound by an international treaty since Texas didn't sign it:P
It may sound ridiculous, but those positions aren't as crazy as they seem. Texas has quite a number of differences from other states in regard to autonomy. Texas is the only state thate began as a sovreign country before it joined the US. As such, it was granted a number of concessions that other states weren't. For one thing, the Feds don't have actual control over the Texas national guard. It is, technically, the Texas Army. The Texas Rangers (law enforcement, not the sports team) are permitted to go into other states and arrest people who have warrants in Texas. They don't often do it, but they can. In many ways, Texas has the characteristics of an independent country. It doesn't execise them much, though, and you generally only hear about them when its politicians make reference to them.
Does anyone else use GPS guided munitions? I can't believe the Iraqis have that level of technology.
I reckon the germans, french, and a select few of our allies have it, but that's probably it. Given a cruise missile and a civilian gps, though, I bet even I could whip up a simple microcontroller setup integrating them. But with SA, such activities are discouraged.
I've never been in the military, but I would have to guess that a 100 meter error is the difference between firing artillery over your troops and onto the enemy and putting artillery into your own troops. As you said, there are older methods that worked fine. But if troops are under fire, they may not be thinking about double checking their position.
good point. when I was in the army GPS was still pretty new so all artillery fire was done the "old way": they fire a few rounds dialed in well beyond friendly positions just to be safe and the units calling for the fire would radio back corrections to adjust the fire onto the enemy. They may use GPS now to bring those first rounds in closer. I bet they still err on the side of caution though and depend on FO's calling in corrections.
Re: Not necessarily the war yet
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
I remember that at the start of Gulf War I there were some soldiers who wanted out on CO status. I wondered at the time how a CO ended up in an all-volunteer army.
In 1990 I was deploying to the Gulf area with a whole bunch of other army guys and one of them said that, in his unit, there was someone who claimed Concientious Objector and was working his way through Chapter 10 discharge (bad) and whining about how he only joined for the college money and didn't expect to be sent to war. The PFC sitting next to me shook his head and said "What did he think all the rifle, grenade, and machine gun stuff we learned was about then?"
Re:Not necessarily the war yet
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Yes, we've found it is better to pay the folks who love killing rather than forcing a bunch of reluctant civilians to do the job.
Ah yes, my favorite "counter argument": people in the military are only the evil, murdering freaks of society . Why? Because they volunteered. It's inconceivable that military people might actually philosophically agree with the notion that war is an inevitability in a world where there are more than 3 people. No, the military is full of psychotic MONSTERS! Must be hard for you to be the only one who sees things the way they REALLY are!
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
It's pretty well known that the "Smart" weapons weren't so.
I mean what was the interception rate of the Patriot missles?? Guess.
ZERO.
Incorrect, pal. I don't know the ratio of hit-vs.-miss, but it sure wasn't 0:1. The patriots worked fairly well, considering the fact that their ballistic missile interception software was a last-minute hack (in the good sense). Actually, the intercept rate for patriots vs. SCUDs wasn't the issue. The problem was the patriot warheads' proximity sensors. Patriot missiles were designed as surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles. The proximity fuses take a fraction of a second to detect the target when it comes into range. When it's a mach 4.5 missile vs. a mach 1.0 airplane (mach 5.5 closure speed), it works fine: the warhead blows up right next to the pilot. When it's a mach 4.5 missile vs. a mach 6.0 ballistic missle (mach 10.5 closure), by the time the warhead detonates, it's next to, or even slightly past, the aft section of the SCUD. Thus, the rocket motor and empty fuel tanks are pulverized, leaving the SCUD warhead unharmed. Whether Patriot-vs-SCUD was simply a morale booster is another issue entirely...
I'm a Communication Computer Operator. Basically I could work help desk, server management, account management, system administrator, those types of jobs.
Heh heh. Lucky bastard. You chose a military job with a civilian counterpart. I was a signal intelligence analyst. My first job after getting out of the army was putting handles on plastic buckets at a factory! (that'll teach me)
Re:Not necessarily the war yet
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
What if the troops stopped fighting and started protesting? I don't want to hear about innocent people dying over there, i want to hear about soldiers over there refusing to fight. That is the kind of support i want.
It'll never happen. The US military is entirely voluntary. Those unwilling to go to war are encouraged not to join. Those that join anyway are unlikely to stay, as one can leave without prejudice any time during the first 6 months of service. Those miniscule few that might remain in and then start saying "I don't wanna go to war" when called upon to do what they've been training to do for months or years-- well, there's not a lot of sympathy for those few. It ain't the 60's anymore, friend. There ain't no draft. That's one of the main reasons why the US military is effective as it is.
tossing the GI GPS units for civilian ones that use the same batteries as their headsets to reduce the different types of batteries that must be carried in the field. I'd imagine that such soldiers would be rather disappointed if they had to go back. According to the article, the Army is aware that this is happening.
I wonder if they'll actually turn of SA just for handheld GPS units. The real importance is GPS and precision guided munitions (and denying your enemy free guidance data). I don't know how much accuracy they really depend on for land navigation. When I was in the Gulf, the common perception of the GPSs seemed to be that they were handy, but nobody was positioning themselves based solely on that data. I was in the army from '87-'91 though, so they may very well have "integrated" GPS into their battle planning.
[OldManVoice}
Back in my day, we navigated the battlefield with a map and compass! Didn't need no batteries fer nuthin! 'cept maybe that dang old PRC-77, but it had batteries the size of a.50 ammo can and they weighed 40 pounds! oh, but we were THANKFUL! Our forefathers had batteries the size of a HUMMER and they weighed 200 pounds!
[/OldManVoice]
What has this done for their company, and when are they going public?
I don't understand why people equate IPO's with success. An IPO is basically floating an unsecured loan from the public at large. If they have a solid business model which doesn't require them to outlay huge wads of cash they don't have in order to expand, I'd say they're doing pretty darn well.
Over time, the pool of alternative weapons that the criminals can draw from (consider these weapons becoming a legal requirement for gun ownership) will diminish.
This is the flaw in your argument. Over how much time? How old does a gun have to be before it's unusable? My grandfather has a.45 Colt pistol that was produced sometime in the 1860's I think. Not only is it still functional, but you can still buy ammo for it! Quality firearms don't wear out very fast. Even if no "old guns" were produced from now on, it would take three or four hundred years before you saw the available pool of "old guns" shrink enough for them to be considered "unavailable".
Actually I think he was refering to the m14. The Marines at least did battle testing with the m14 a light version of the m16. The m16 was always tough as hell. The m14 (m4) took a while to work out a lot of the bugs. It jammed a lot if it got mud in it etc. That is why you hear stories about soldiers that would pick up an AK the first chance they got and use it until they ran outta ammo.
Whaaaa? You're incorrect all over the place here. The M-14 was a 7.62mm evolutionary design derived from the.30-06 M-1 Garand of WW2. The M-4 was a bizarre derivitive of the Garand that fired a tiny.30 round and was intended for "soppurt troops" who didn't need a heavy rifle. It sucked. The M-14 was a superior weapon and highly reliable. What you're thinking of, I think, is the original M-16, which later was improved to the M-16A1. The M-16 was indeed prone to jamming due to dirtier ammunition than engineers had anticipated, plus a host of other oversights.
And california circuit court has declared that the 2nd admendment does not extend to individual citizens.
Yeah, but the 9th circuit is well-known for its bizarro-liberal stances against clearly defined constitutional concepts. They are, in fact, the most overturned circuit court in the nation.
Sure, whatever. I'll bet that 50 years from now, most new handguns will come equipped with all these features, standard.
Pfff! Doubtful. These features are all superfluous to the primary function of a firearm. None of them make it fire any faster, easier, or more reliably. Name me one mechanical device out there where every version of it comes standard with an unnecessary electronic integration that doesn't make it work better. Aside from examples that are the result of government mandate, I can think of none.
but other than for the army (set a 12 hr timeout so that the gun will work for while soldier is doing his 10 hour patrol or whatnot...)
What? That doesn't even make sense, man. You've obviously never been in the military. War doesn't stop when you come back from patrol; it goes on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week... and often you don't have to go out to find it-- it comes to YOU, sometimes even while you're SLEEPING. Are you saying no one in camp should have a working weapon? Get real. This would be a GREAT "feature"... if only we could get the enemy to adopt it!
Honestly, if there's anyone who DOESN'T need a "hold-my-hand-mommy" type safety devices on their weapons, it's the army. Really, believe it or not, they're already trained to NOT SHOOT EACH OTHER ACCIDENTALLY IN THE MESS TENT!
As the article says, they are designed to be used by government officials and the military, not necessarily by Joe Civilian.
Actually the article states: "Van Zyl says when the IFA goes into production it may well be for military applications, which saddens him a little. He's always viewed the IFA in terms of safety, specifically in cases of theft and shooting accidents involving children."
Sounds to me like they "adjusted" their marketing strategy after realizing that nobody wants an intrusive "nanny-gun", particularly when it costs %150 that of a regular firearm. Their only chance to sell such a thing is to "captive audiences" like police departments who don't CARE whether their officiers like it or not. Unfortunately for them, even the military/law-enforcement market won't go for it. As nice as it would be to have a camera on cops and soldiers guns, there's no way anyone in procurement is gonna toss out their existing inventory for something new, untested, and more expensive.
Note, however, that Roman concrete had a different composition from the concrete used in modern construction.
Actually, modern blended cement concrete (Flyash or Calcined Clay type, at least) is essentially the same as the old roman pozzolona cement concrete.
Modern concrete construction will, for the most part, not survive 2000 years.
of course, this is mostly a function of the engineering, rather than the composition of the cement. Roman construction was built without steel reinforcing, so it had to be very heavily designed. There are examples of modern concrete construction that will certainly last as long as the roman stuff, like Hoover Dam.
Easy to detect all of these items if they are always on... just kill the power for the rest of the floor minus the hub and you'll notice that your device is still active or connected to the hub.
Pfff! Yeah, that sure is easy. I'll just do a broadcast page on the phone system and say "everyone shut off every computer, networked printer, modem-pooler, server, and outside router for the next 30 minutes because I think there might be a secret spy device in the ceiling". I'd be fired so fast. And even if I wasn't, It'd take forever to find all the stuff that people forgot or weren't around to shut down. And if your network is small enough for this to be easy, it's small enough that you should just map the patch panel out and find the extraneous link that way.
"underflow is when you're trying to represent a fractional number smaller than the smallest floating point number available. ie: you went too close to zero."
Not when talking about integers smarty. No one was talking about floating point.
I thought counting too LOW with a signed integer was still (according to the error trap) an "overflow error", since the system really doesn't care about positive/negative. Probably just a semantic argument at this point...nevermind...
Actually, with an forced induction charging system the charge time is 15 minutes for a car.
Cripes, how many amps does a system like that draw? It takes 2 hours at 20 amps and 120 volts to charge a single 400 amp/hour 12v car battery. How many amps at 120v to charge 8 of them in 15 minutes? 1280!!! Seems to me you'd need to run either extremely high voltages (dangerous) or high amperage (very heavy & expensive wiring). Certainly you're not going to get this via a small unit plugged into the wall!
There is also the idea of swapping your dead battery for a fresh one like you do with propane tanks.
Argh. I can't imagine even trying to swap out 250 pounds of lead-acid batteries every 200 miles. Sounds insane.
...Parking lots a) usually don't have electricity...
Then what is powering the bloody floodlights?
Hah! You think you're going to recharge a lot full of cars off a couple of 277v 50amp lighting circuits? Think again, Batman! If you want to put charging stations in every spot of a 50-space parking lot you're looking at more than just running an extension cord from a nearby wall outlet. You're looking at installing a 1500amp service panel (at LEAST), not to mention the cost of the transformer the power company will have to install to deliver that kind of amperage. (for reference, houses/apartments usually have 100-200amp panels here in the US).
...Parking lots b)... aren't equipped to collect money from drivers who charge their cars...
Nope, but at least around here they are sure equipped to collect money from the people who park there. I live downtown, mind you. Given what they charge for just occupying space, I think the notion of ALSO charging you for a commodity item like electricity would give most lot owners a woody.
Until they see the cost of installing charging systems equipped with appropriate meters and the difficulty of getting that money back because no one will pay 75 cents per kilowatt hour at a parking lot when they can plug in at home for 10 cents/kWhr.
Look, no matter how you torture your arguments, the infrastructure for fueling pure-electric cars isn't there and isn't all that easily added. Liquid fuels are simply better suited because they can be pre-positioned at distribution points. You can't hold electricity in a stainless steel tank underground and pump it out as necessary!
Filling stations already have electricity running to them. What's the distribution problem?
You're kidding, right? You can't "fill up" an electric car the way you fill a gas tank. Electric cars require charging stations at their parking spots because it takes HOURS to recharge them, not minutes. Parking lots a) usually don't have electricity, and b) aren't equipped to collect money from drivers who charge their cars. You think the charging should be free?
I worked for a research company in the US. We really did generate random phone numbers on the spot. We couldn't check everyone against a giant government database every time we dial the phone. It is not possible. But the idea in the research community really is that you must randomly generate the numbers. Our computers would randomly pick the last 4 digits of every number we called.
"but we can't check-- the last 4 are randomly generated" is a bogus argument. If you have the area code and the prefix, It's a simple matter to get the "do not call" numbers from the Giant Database. What you mean is that y'all are too [lazy/cheap/uncaring] to modify the software to check if the randomly generated numbers are OK, yes?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but that's like patenting "newspaper ads printed on printing presses using (new print process A)", when adverts have been in newspapers for years, only printed with (older print process B). The method of delivery is irrelevant, unless you're patenting a delivery process alone, which they are NOT.
Hey dumbass, did you know that the 4 years is only the MINIMUM? The contract you sign is quite clear that you are signing up for 8 years of service, despite the fact that you'll probably only have to serve four as active duty. They make it QUITE clear that you can be held in longer in times of war, or even be CALLED BACK, even if you've already served your minimum 4 years active duty. Those guys have no legal or moral leg to stand on when they whine about not getting off easy like they expected. Next time, they should READ AND UNDERSTAND the contract they're signing.
It may sound ridiculous, but those positions aren't as crazy as they seem. Texas has quite a number of differences from other states in regard to autonomy. Texas is the only state thate began as a sovreign country before it joined the US. As such, it was granted a number of concessions that other states weren't. For one thing, the Feds don't have actual control over the Texas national guard. It is, technically, the Texas Army. The Texas Rangers (law enforcement, not the sports team) are permitted to go into other states and arrest people who have warrants in Texas. They don't often do it, but they can. In many ways, Texas has the characteristics of an independent country. It doesn't execise them much, though, and you generally only hear about them when its politicians make reference to them.
I reckon the germans, french, and a select few of our allies have it, but that's probably it. Given a cruise missile and a civilian gps, though, I bet even I could whip up a simple microcontroller setup integrating them. But with SA, such activities are discouraged.
I've never been in the military, but I would have to guess that a 100 meter error is the difference between firing artillery over your troops and onto the enemy and putting artillery into your own troops. As you said, there are older methods that worked fine. But if troops are under fire, they may not be thinking about double checking their position.
good point. when I was in the army GPS was still pretty new so all artillery fire was done the "old way": they fire a few rounds dialed in well beyond friendly positions just to be safe and the units calling for the fire would radio back corrections to adjust the fire onto the enemy. They may use GPS now to bring those first rounds in closer. I bet they still err on the side of caution though and depend on FO's calling in corrections.
In 1990 I was deploying to the Gulf area with a whole bunch of other army guys and one of them said that, in his unit, there was someone who claimed Concientious Objector and was working his way through Chapter 10 discharge (bad) and whining about how he only joined for the college money and didn't expect to be sent to war. The PFC sitting next to me shook his head and said "What did he think all the rifle, grenade, and machine gun stuff we learned was about then?"
Ah yes, my favorite "counter argument": people in the military are only the evil, murdering freaks of society . Why? Because they volunteered. It's inconceivable that military people might actually philosophically agree with the notion that war is an inevitability in a world where there are more than 3 people. No, the military is full of psychotic MONSTERS!
Must be hard for you to be the only one who sees things the way they REALLY are!
Incorrect, pal. I don't know the ratio of hit-vs.-miss, but it sure wasn't 0:1. The patriots worked fairly well, considering the fact that their ballistic missile interception software was a last-minute hack (in the good sense). Actually, the intercept rate for patriots vs. SCUDs wasn't the issue. The problem was the patriot warheads' proximity sensors. Patriot missiles were designed as surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles. The proximity fuses take a fraction of a second to detect the target when it comes into range. When it's a mach 4.5 missile vs. a mach 1.0 airplane (mach 5.5 closure speed), it works fine: the warhead blows up right next to the pilot. When it's a mach 4.5 missile vs. a mach 6.0 ballistic missle (mach 10.5 closure), by the time the warhead detonates, it's next to, or even slightly past, the aft section of the SCUD. Thus, the rocket motor and empty fuel tanks are pulverized, leaving the SCUD warhead unharmed. Whether Patriot-vs-SCUD was simply a morale booster is another issue entirely...
Heh heh. Lucky bastard. You chose a military job with a civilian counterpart. I was a signal intelligence analyst. My first job after getting out of the army was putting handles on plastic buckets at a factory! (that'll teach me)
It'll never happen. The US military is entirely voluntary. Those unwilling to go to war are encouraged not to join. Those that join anyway are unlikely to stay, as one can leave without prejudice any time during the first 6 months of service. Those miniscule few that might remain in and then start saying "I don't wanna go to war" when called upon to do what they've been training to do for months or years-- well, there's not a lot of sympathy for those few. It ain't the 60's anymore, friend. There ain't no draft. That's one of the main reasons why the US military is effective as it is.
I wonder if they'll actually turn of SA just for handheld GPS units. The real importance is GPS and precision guided munitions (and denying your enemy free guidance data). I don't know how much accuracy they really depend on for land navigation. When I was in the Gulf, the common perception of the GPSs seemed to be that they were handy, but nobody was positioning themselves based solely on that data. I was in the army from '87-'91 though, so they may very well have "integrated" GPS into their battle planning. .50 ammo can and they weighed 40 pounds! oh, but we were THANKFUL! Our forefathers had batteries the size of a HUMMER and they weighed 200 pounds!
[OldManVoice}
Back in my day, we navigated the battlefield with a map and compass! Didn't need no batteries fer nuthin! 'cept maybe that dang old PRC-77, but it had batteries the size of a
[/OldManVoice]
I don't understand why people equate IPO's with success. An IPO is basically floating an unsecured loan from the public at large. If they have a solid business model which doesn't require them to outlay huge wads of cash they don't have in order to expand, I'd say they're doing pretty darn well.
Yeah, ozone eats rubber like nobody's business. He must have meant nitrogen.
This is the flaw in your argument. Over how much time? How old does a gun have to be before it's unusable? My grandfather has a .45 Colt pistol that was produced sometime in the 1860's I think. Not only is it still functional, but you can still buy ammo for it! Quality firearms don't wear out very fast. Even if no "old guns" were produced from now on, it would take three or four hundred years before you saw the available pool of "old guns" shrink enough for them to be considered "unavailable".
Whaaaa? You're incorrect all over the place here. The M-14 was a 7.62mm evolutionary design derived from the .30-06 M-1 Garand of WW2. The M-4 was a bizarre derivitive of the Garand that fired a tiny .30 round and was intended for "soppurt troops" who didn't need a heavy rifle. It sucked. The M-14 was a superior weapon and highly reliable. What you're thinking of, I think, is the original M-16, which later was improved to the M-16A1. The M-16 was indeed prone to jamming due to dirtier ammunition than engineers had anticipated, plus a host of other oversights.
Yeah, but the 9th circuit is well-known for its bizarro-liberal stances against clearly defined constitutional concepts. They are, in fact, the most overturned circuit court in the nation.
Pfff! Doubtful. These features are all superfluous to the primary function of a firearm. None of them make it fire any faster, easier, or more reliably. Name me one mechanical device out there where every version of it comes standard with an unnecessary electronic integration that doesn't make it work better. Aside from examples that are the result of government mandate, I can think of none.
What? That doesn't even make sense, man. You've obviously never been in the military. War doesn't stop when you come back from patrol; it goes on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week... and often you don't have to go out to find it-- it comes to YOU, sometimes even while you're SLEEPING. Are you saying no one in camp should have a working weapon? Get real. This would be a GREAT "feature"... if only we could get the enemy to adopt it!
Honestly, if there's anyone who DOESN'T need a "hold-my-hand-mommy" type safety devices on their weapons, it's the army. Really, believe it or not, they're already trained to NOT SHOOT EACH OTHER ACCIDENTALLY IN THE MESS TENT!
Actually the article states: "Van Zyl says when the IFA goes into production it may well be for military applications, which saddens him a little. He's always viewed the IFA in terms of safety, specifically in cases of theft and shooting accidents involving children."
Sounds to me like they "adjusted" their marketing strategy after realizing that nobody wants an intrusive "nanny-gun", particularly when it costs %150 that of a regular firearm. Their only chance to sell such a thing is to "captive audiences" like police departments who don't CARE whether their officiers like it or not. Unfortunately for them, even the military/law-enforcement market won't go for it. As nice as it would be to have a camera on cops and soldiers guns, there's no way anyone in procurement is gonna toss out their existing inventory for something new, untested, and more expensive.
Actually, modern blended cement concrete (Flyash or Calcined Clay type, at least) is essentially the same as the old roman pozzolona cement concrete.
Modern concrete construction will, for the most part, not survive 2000 years.
of course, this is mostly a function of the engineering, rather than the composition of the cement. Roman construction was built without steel reinforcing, so it had to be very heavily designed. There are examples of modern concrete construction that will certainly last as long as the roman stuff, like Hoover Dam.
Pfff! Yeah, that sure is easy. I'll just do a broadcast page on the phone system and say "everyone shut off every computer, networked printer, modem-pooler, server, and outside router for the next 30 minutes because I think there might be a secret spy device in the ceiling". I'd be fired so fast. And even if I wasn't, It'd take forever to find all the stuff that people forgot or weren't around to shut down. And if your network is small enough for this to be easy, it's small enough that you should just map the patch panel out and find the extraneous link that way.
Not when talking about integers smarty. No one was talking about floating point.
I thought counting too LOW with a signed integer was still (according to the error trap) an "overflow error", since the system really doesn't care about positive/negative. Probably just a semantic argument at this point...nevermind...
Sheesh. Transmeta has had code-morphing processors programmed for x86-64 for a while. You don't NEED to have the Real Thing to develop for it anymore.
Cripes, how many amps does a system like that draw? It takes 2 hours at 20 amps and 120 volts to charge a single 400 amp/hour 12v car battery. How many amps at 120v to charge 8 of them in 15 minutes? 1280!!! Seems to me you'd need to run either extremely high voltages (dangerous) or high amperage (very heavy & expensive wiring). Certainly you're not going to get this via a small unit plugged into the wall!
There is also the idea of swapping your dead battery for a fresh one like you do with propane tanks.
Argh. I can't imagine even trying to swap out 250 pounds of lead-acid batteries every 200 miles. Sounds insane.
Then what is powering the bloody floodlights?
Hah! You think you're going to recharge a lot full of cars off a couple of 277v 50amp lighting circuits? Think again, Batman! If you want to put charging stations in every spot of a 50-space parking lot you're looking at more than just running an extension cord from a nearby wall outlet. You're looking at installing a 1500amp service panel (at LEAST), not to mention the cost of the transformer the power company will have to install to deliver that kind of amperage. (for reference, houses/apartments usually have 100-200amp panels here in the US).
Nope, but at least around here they are sure equipped to collect money from the people who park there. I live downtown, mind you. Given what they charge for just occupying space, I think the notion of ALSO charging you for a commodity item like electricity would give most lot owners a woody.
Until they see the cost of installing charging systems equipped with appropriate meters and the difficulty of getting that money back because no one will pay 75 cents per kilowatt hour at a parking lot when they can plug in at home for 10 cents/kWhr.
Look, no matter how you torture your arguments, the infrastructure for fueling pure-electric cars isn't there and isn't all that easily added. Liquid fuels are simply better suited because they can be pre-positioned at distribution points. You can't hold electricity in a stainless steel tank underground and pump it out as necessary!
You're kidding, right? You can't "fill up" an electric car the way you fill a gas tank. Electric cars require charging stations at their parking spots because it takes HOURS to recharge them, not minutes. Parking lots a) usually don't have electricity, and b) aren't equipped to collect money from drivers who charge their cars. You think the charging should be free?
"but we can't check-- the last 4 are randomly generated" is a bogus argument. If you have the area code and the prefix, It's a simple matter to get the "do not call" numbers from the Giant Database. What you mean is that y'all are too [lazy/cheap/uncaring] to modify the software to check if the randomly generated numbers are OK, yes?