and the USA is not hte world. just like you cannot judge ancient culture by modern norms, nor can you judge all current extant cultures by the same exact norms. cultures, even modern ones, vary significantly, and react to stimuli in far different ways, so to say that "well it worked for us, it should for you too" is patently invalid and illogical.
2012 proposal was 3.7. 10% of that is 0.37. the 2013 proposal is 3.8, an increase of only 0.1, or 2.7% (not 10%). For funsies, 2011 was also 3.8, and 2010 was 3.6. By your math I guess that's a 20% increase, not 5.6% ?
also, nice topic shift / straw man. you were talking about one specific proposal, and not you shifted to a totally different topic to try and construct an argument against the original statement?
wake me when you decide to start dealing with reality.
sane, logical, and sound policy is a far far different thing from "what you can actually get 51% of the congress to vote for". acknowledging that fact is not being unrealistic; to the contrary, it's the precise definition of being realistic.
Fine talking point except for one thing: your base assumption is wrong. most of the sensor stations are NOT in the middle of towns and cities.
there are sensor there, yes. but there are many more sensors places across the country side, in rural areas, at points of interest (scientifically).
there are also many people in the countryside, farmers and the like, who send in regular reports to NOAA (they monitor local conditions anyway because it helps productivity), which they use to supplement their monitoring stations. my own grandfather has been tracking Hi/Low temperature and rainfall in his little area of north california on a daily basis for close to 40 years.
precisely. its the exact same concept behind why movie and music DRM will always fail: at some point as has to become a signal the tv/speaker can play. and as soon as it does, its "plaintext" (for lack of better word) and can be seen.
I have two replies. choose one: -That phrase. It doesnt mean what you think it means. -So then if the purpose of the gun laws is to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, but no one expects them to obey it, what is the point in having the law?
Often the owners refrained from acts of outright evil because they did not want to taint their name, and their sons and grandsons similarly restrained themselves so as not to soil their grandfather's name.
Why would he do that? That's more prank than "theft".
Besides you're approaching this the wrong way.
What you want to do is plant false positives in the police list. This way, the police themselves then committ the thefts for you by returning your "stolen" phone(s).
GPS recievers dont. But your phone does, every time it talks to a tower. And even if it doesnt transmit it position to the tower, if you're in range of more than a single cell antennae, triangulation is a simple matter.
so the fact your hpone isnt talking to the GPS satellites is largely irrelevent.
most taxi drivers/companies already do use some form f itnerent reservations or matching, or whatever.
thing is, they dont run the taxi stand at the airport.
the airport does. the guy running the stand at the airport, directing you to a cab, works for the airport.
and he ensures (usually) that everything is kept fair for the multiple cab companies with contracts to serve the airport by ensuring that passengers go to the first cab in line (first in, first out, fromt eh drivers perspective), so no one cab company (with contract) can claim favortism or unfairness (contract breach). the exception being reserved rides (calling ahead for a cab while walking through the airport), in which case you pay an extra fee anyway, to compensate the cabby for sitting there waiting on you, and letting other potential fares walk on by.
if i watch my neighbors kids when they get home from school, until the parents themselves get home from work, is it a child care? most places, no, just a helpful neighbor.
but what if i start watching everyones kids? what if they chip in a few bucks to pay for snacks I might give them?
(and this was a real case in PA, where a mother whos house was the bus stop would watch the kids while they waited for the bus in the morning, and when they got off it in the afternoon until the parents got off work; int he end the town backed of because of bad press, and the fact she wasnt doing it for money)
private land, and the owner gets paid by the taxi companies for them to operate on that land, the same as the restruants and book do for the priviledge of operating inside. this is reasonable.
the rideshares, if operated for profit, arent really rideshares, and are really unlicensed cap companies, simply using modern tech. it is reasonable to hold such a company up to the same standards and regulations then.
the sticking issue for me is two fold: 1) Enforcement. Im not sure the airport authority has the authority to be making these citations and arrests; it should be actual Law Enforcement (keeping in mind that different airports have different relations with the local city, and in some of them, it IS actual cops; in others, it isnt). The charges also I think would have to be limited to trespassing, as in most places it isnt the police that enforce cab company rules (to my knowledge), that being done by a different section of the local government. 2) Determination of sharing or unlicensed cab company. IE, you have to prove it actually is a for profit unlicensed cab company, and not just a friend helping out a friend (or freind of a friend). And given how easy the modern internet makes it to reach out and get help from random strangers, it becomes very difficult to prove it isnt legitimate ride sharing. People have posted ont hings like Yelp or Craiglist or Citypages about needing a ride from the airport for years, being willing to chip in for gas, and then people who are in teh area or live nearby or whatever, have been helping them out, again, for years. It's legitimate helping behaviour, akin to folks who run open wifi's for their neighborhood. But that also doesnt mean all the people are liek that, and there arent for profit companies or groups that are essentially unlicensed cabbies.
As for the cab companies being dinosaurs, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxis at the airport operate.
its important to remember that the taxi stand is not operated by the cab companies. If you've ever been to the airport, you know that the drivers show up and its a first come first serve system, regardless of company. The man at the airport who runs the stand and directs you to the next available cab doesnt work for the cab companies, but for the airport. I say it again: the cab stand (think "matchmaking" at the curb) is run by the airport itself. so its not the companies that need to modernize (many of them already DO use internet reservations, or whatever), but the airport. And because the airport has contracts with a dozen or more taxi companies, they have cabbies line up in the order they arrived at the airport, and assign passengers to them on a first in first out basis.
they are there because taxis used to be giant scams robbing people blind, driving like maniacs killing people (only the early ambulances were bigger threats on the road, and they too got regulated), dropping them at wrong location, extorting money to get to the right location, etc.
if this country stepping out into the road against the light is likely to get you killed. we dont have the same pedestrian culture over here, we drive our cars everywhere, so yes it very likely does have to do with safety. eventually people get the idea and stop stepping out into traffic.
Legal defense: he is a friend and I was giving him a ride. Prove I wasn't. Or mandate all airport customers must use taxis, effectively making the airport property line a border that only registered taxis can cross, no private citizens who aren't flying passenger*. Til then...we're "friends" and the burden of proof is on you.
*And as soon as they do, the property adjacent becomes valuable as a drop off location, and rideshare operates right up to the line, and then the Airport gets ticked and demands that property be given them and cycle repeats....
Slashdot Mirror
and the USA is not hte world. just like you cannot judge ancient culture by modern norms, nor can you judge all current extant cultures by the same exact norms. cultures, even modern ones, vary significantly, and react to stimuli in far different ways, so to say that "well it worked for us, it should for you too" is patently invalid and illogical.
because all countries and cultures are equal, and the same laws/actions always produce the exact same results.....
2012 proposal was 3.7. 10% of that is 0.37. the 2013 proposal is 3.8, an increase of only 0.1, or 2.7% (not 10%). For funsies, 2011 was also 3.8, and 2010 was 3.6. By your math I guess that's a 20% increase, not 5.6% ?
also, nice topic shift / straw man. you were talking about one specific proposal, and not you shifted to a totally different topic to try and construct an argument against the original statement?
wake me when you decide to start dealing with reality.
sane, logical, and sound policy is a far far different thing from "what you can actually get 51% of the congress to vote for". acknowledging that fact is not being unrealistic; to the contrary, it's the precise definition of being realistic.
we've debunked this BS from you several times already.
short version is this: you're an idiot and dont know what you're talking about
Fine talking point except for one thing: your base assumption is wrong.
most of the sensor stations are NOT in the middle of towns and cities.
there are sensor there, yes. but there are many more sensors places across the country side, in rural areas, at points of interest (scientifically).
there are also many people in the countryside, farmers and the like, who send in regular reports to NOAA (they monitor local conditions anyway because it helps productivity), which they use to supplement their monitoring stations. my own grandfather has been tracking Hi/Low temperature and rainfall in his little area of north california on a daily basis for close to 40 years.
but did you also search for how to make a bomb from a cooker and have recent trips to asia?
would mod up if i had points.
points C and D are the clinchers most people in this thread are ignoring.
I would except there are no such examples to be found.
no swat team has (yet) killed an entire family by mistake.
precisely. its the exact same concept behind why movie and music DRM will always fail: at some point as has to become a signal the tv/speaker can play. and as soon as it does, its "plaintext" (for lack of better word) and can be seen.
I have two replies. choose one:
-That phrase. It doesnt mean what you think it means.
-So then if the purpose of the gun laws is to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, but no one expects them to obey it, what is the point in having the law?
Often the owners refrained from acts of outright evil because they did not want to taint their name, and their sons and grandsons similarly restrained themselves so as not to soil their grandfather's name.
Bull manure.
Simple: don't carry a phone.
Kinda like the expectation that criminals would obey gun laws then?
Why would he do that? That's more prank than "theft".
Besides you're approaching this the wrong way.
What you want to do is plant false positives in the police list.
This way, the police themselves then committ the thefts for you by returning your "stolen" phone(s).
GPS recievers dont.
But your phone does, every time it talks to a tower.
And even if it doesnt transmit it position to the tower, if you're in range of more than a single cell antennae, triangulation is a simple matter.
so the fact your hpone isnt talking to the GPS satellites is largely irrelevent.
because lying is not itself illegal.
only certain kinds of lies are, and there's damned few of those.
this is a small article from just yesterday: http://www.cracked.com/article_19485_5-outrageous-lies-companies-are-legally-allowed-to-tell-you.html
most taxi drivers/companies already do use some form f itnerent reservations or matching, or whatever.
thing is, they dont run the taxi stand at the airport.
the airport does.
the guy running the stand at the airport, directing you to a cab, works for the airport.
and he ensures (usually) that everything is kept fair for the multiple cab companies with contracts to serve the airport by ensuring that passengers go to the first cab in line (first in, first out, fromt eh drivers perspective), so no one cab company (with contract) can claim favortism or unfairness (contract breach). the exception being reserved rides (calling ahead for a cab while walking through the airport), in which case you pay an extra fee anyway, to compensate the cabby for sitting there waiting on you, and letting other potential fares walk on by.
ATL has it beat.
his point was about interpretation of the laws.
if i watch my neighbors kids when they get home from school, until the parents themselves get home from work, is it a child care? most places, no, just a helpful neighbor.
but what if i start watching everyones kids?
what if they chip in a few bucks to pay for snacks I might give them?
(and this was a real case in PA, where a mother whos house was the bus stop would watch the kids while they waited for the bus in the morning, and when they got off it in the afternoon until the parents got off work; int he end the town backed of because of bad press, and the fact she wasnt doing it for money)
private land, and the owner gets paid by the taxi companies for them to operate on that land, the same as the restruants and book do for the priviledge of operating inside. this is reasonable.
the rideshares, if operated for profit, arent really rideshares, and are really unlicensed cap companies, simply using modern tech. it is reasonable to hold such a company up to the same standards and regulations then.
the sticking issue for me is two fold:
1) Enforcement. Im not sure the airport authority has the authority to be making these citations and arrests; it should be actual Law Enforcement (keeping in mind that different airports have different relations with the local city, and in some of them, it IS actual cops; in others, it isnt). The charges also I think would have to be limited to trespassing, as in most places it isnt the police that enforce cab company rules (to my knowledge), that being done by a different section of the local government.
2) Determination of sharing or unlicensed cab company. IE, you have to prove it actually is a for profit unlicensed cab company, and not just a friend helping out a friend (or freind of a friend). And given how easy the modern internet makes it to reach out and get help from random strangers, it becomes very difficult to prove it isnt legitimate ride sharing. People have posted ont hings like Yelp or Craiglist or Citypages about needing a ride from the airport for years, being willing to chip in for gas, and then people who are in teh area or live nearby or whatever, have been helping them out, again, for years. It's legitimate helping behaviour, akin to folks who run open wifi's for their neighborhood. But that also doesnt mean all the people are liek that, and there arent for profit companies or groups that are essentially unlicensed cabbies.
As for the cab companies being dinosaurs, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxis at the airport operate.
its important to remember that the taxi stand is not operated by the cab companies. If you've ever been to the airport, you know that the drivers show up and its a first come first serve system, regardless of company. The man at the airport who runs the stand and directs you to the next available cab doesnt work for the cab companies, but for the airport. I say it again: the cab stand (think "matchmaking" at the curb) is run by the airport itself. so its not the companies that need to modernize (many of them already DO use internet reservations, or whatever), but the airport. And because the airport has contracts with a dozen or more taxi companies, they have cabbies line up in the order they arrived at the airport, and assign passengers to them on a first in first out basis.
they are there because taxis used to be giant scams robbing people blind, driving like maniacs killing people (only the early ambulances were bigger threats on the road, and they too got regulated), dropping them at wrong location, extorting money to get to the right location, etc.
if this country stepping out into the road against the light is likely to get you killed. we dont have the same pedestrian culture over here, we drive our cars everywhere, so yes it very likely does have to do with safety. eventually people get the idea and stop stepping out into traffic.
The irony is killing me.
Legal defense: he is a friend and I was giving him a ride. Prove I wasn't. Or mandate all airport customers must use taxis, effectively making the airport property line a border that only registered taxis can cross, no private citizens who aren't flying passenger*. Til then...we're "friends" and the burden of proof is on you.
*And as soon as they do, the property adjacent becomes valuable as a drop off location, and rideshare operates right up to the line, and then the Airport gets ticked and demands that property be given them and cycle repeats....