you are quite mistaken... the speeding tickets are not there to discourage illegal activity, they are there to make money. if it had anything to do with illegal activity at all, there would be no places where the speed limit decreases for a quarter mile for no reason whatsoever other than to catch people before they manage to slow down.
i would much rather they just sell us a license to speed for 100-200$ a year, and we have to take a special driving test to qualify. Either that or actually come up with a speed limit that makes sense. if i can safely drive 60 on a road or 100 on a highway, why should the limit be 30 for the road or 60 on the highway?
instead of coming up with some arbitrary speed at which it is safe for the average user to drive, and force people who suck at driving to drive at that speed(because going below the speed limit is dangerous), they should simply let people drive as quickly as they want to and then charge them out the wazoo when they do something stupid and injure someone. I would also love to see multi lane roads actually have variable limits based on your lane... so slow traffic is in one lane and fast traffic is in another.
maybe at one point in time... the point of them now as posted before is monetary income. this is why wealthier cities do not have nearly as many cops pulling people over for speeding as poorer cities. you can drive 100 down 30s all day in houston and noone will ever pull you over... but if you drive 70 in a 60 on the highway through ennis, you will get pulled over every time.
speed limits have been proven to have absolutely nothing to do with safety, and the speeding tickets are even worse.
the only punishment that would actually work is one that is actually reasonable... how about, you get caught, you have to pay 5x the price of the item you pirated? people might actually stop pirating. the issue with these ridiculous punishments is that the only people you could reasonably go after for are the outliers who are the ones uploading tons and tons of content and profiting off them. if you attempted to put the average joe in jail for 10 years for piracy, first of all, there would be riots on your hands, second, you would have to put 9/10 of the US in jail... and we dont have enough prisons for that, we are already letting murderers loose because we dont have room for ppl who smoke pot.
it isnt a mistake... it is called investing. they can afford to throw tons of ideas out and hope one sticks. this is how the world works when you have billions of dollars of cash lying around.
if they fail to do real net neutrality, then we can point at them and say 'do you really want to be like india?' and hope that the fcc actually realizes how much we need net neutrality
if there were worried about bandwidth constraints, then they would simply decrease the speed of everyone's data (except emergency) whenever they run into their bandwidth cap. (oh wait... THEY ALREADY DO THAT. ) it is clearly just about the money because stopping people from using more than 5gb of data is totally irrelevant to their one limiting factor. it isnt like they have a cap with their internet provider.
you think they put in the caps because they dont have enough bandwidth coming from their towers? you, sir, are sadly mistaken. they do it for one reason. PROFIT. if they cap your data at 5gb and you need to use 5.1 gb, you will totally spend double the amount to get up to 10gb.
no, because they arent a big enough step up from the previous generation. it is essentially like having HD. anything between 480p and 4k resolution are technically HD. but only 4k resolution gets the 'ultra hd' tag.
this is absolutely ridiculous. there are so many things out there being sold with the name 'gnome'. there is no possible way that this new point of sale system will hurt the trademark of gnome, and therefore it is impossible for them to win this case. if they were making a desktop operating system, sure i would agree... but this is just dumb.
P.S. fix the bugs in your operating system before going after people for stupid-ass reasons.
the issue here is that they took the api and changed the code in the background. the api itself is nothing but a bunch of method names. the code in the back is obviously patentable. the question is whether a bunch of method names are, and i would say no... but the supreme court is made of a bunch of old people who dont even know how to use phones.
if you have an incredibly creative C student who will "go on to dream up blockbuster films like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg" who cares if they go to college? it isnt like you need a degree to be creative.
I graduated with a CS degree (undergrad) and got so many job offers that i had to keep turning them down (even after i chose a job). i think it really comes down to what kind of projects you've done and how good you are at interviews. The issue i see is that for CS, a phd really doesnt do you any good at all. people without a phd can do just as much in this field as those who do, so know that when you go into interviews so you dont come off like a prick.
the building of infrastructure isnt the problem. with the exception of rural areas, everywhere in the US already has fiber optic cable capable of getting gigabit speeds. the issue we have is that each ISP has its own little area with no competition.. why would they charge 70$ per month for gigabit(like google) when they can charge 50$ a month for 20Mbit
because we dont care about them. also... because we are essentially just giving internet companies subsidies. this doesnt actually mean that the end user is recieving ANY of this discount.
studies have shown time and time again that just the act of being distracted from the road is bad. if you are talking to someone on the phone, or even in the car with you... or if you are even listening to the radio, these are all equally distracting. it is entirely possible to text while driving safely so long as you are not moving while you are texting or if you are using a hands free device.
the real issue at hand is that dumbasses have decided that they can take their eyes off the road while they are moving to type a text. people also take their eyes off the road to talk with people next to them... or behind them. is it really a good idea to ban everyone from texting while in the car because a few people are dumbasses? i text only when i'm stopped at a light, technically that is illegal, despite the fact that there is absolutely no way it can affect my driving..
if every second was.0864 of the current time of a second, then we could have a day with 100 seconds per minute, 100 minutes per hour and 100 hours per day.
the real question is 'why does anyone measure time in seconds?' the whole 60 thing is incredibly innaccurate and ultimately annoying to use. wouldnt you rather change the scale so that there are 100 seconds in a minute, 100 minutes in an hour and 10 or 100 hours in a day? obviously the exact time of a day is set due to the rotation of the earth, but any of the time measurement we use up to that point could be changed to something less old-fashioned (ancient sumerian).
Slashdot Mirror
you are quite mistaken... the speeding tickets are not there to discourage illegal activity, they are there to make money. if it had anything to do with illegal activity at all, there would be no places where the speed limit decreases for a quarter mile for no reason whatsoever other than to catch people before they manage to slow down.
i would much rather they just sell us a license to speed for 100-200$ a year, and we have to take a special driving test to qualify. Either that or actually come up with a speed limit that makes sense. if i can safely drive 60 on a road or 100 on a highway, why should the limit be 30 for the road or 60 on the highway?
instead of coming up with some arbitrary speed at which it is safe for the average user to drive, and force people who suck at driving to drive at that speed(because going below the speed limit is dangerous), they should simply let people drive as quickly as they want to and then charge them out the wazoo when they do something stupid and injure someone. I would also love to see multi lane roads actually have variable limits based on your lane... so slow traffic is in one lane and fast traffic is in another.
maybe at one point in time... the point of them now as posted before is monetary income. this is why wealthier cities do not have nearly as many cops pulling people over for speeding as poorer cities. you can drive 100 down 30s all day in houston and noone will ever pull you over... but if you drive 70 in a 60 on the highway through ennis, you will get pulled over every time.
speed limits have been proven to have absolutely nothing to do with safety, and the speeding tickets are even worse.
the only punishment that would actually work is one that is actually reasonable... how about, you get caught, you have to pay 5x the price of the item you pirated? people might actually stop pirating. the issue with these ridiculous punishments is that the only people you could reasonably go after for are the outliers who are the ones uploading tons and tons of content and profiting off them. if you attempted to put the average joe in jail for 10 years for piracy, first of all, there would be riots on your hands, second, you would have to put 9/10 of the US in jail... and we dont have enough prisons for that, we are already letting murderers loose because we dont have room for ppl who smoke pot.
you are talking about the government here... all they would have to do is strong-arm the carrier to add their towers to the list.
it isnt a mistake... it is called investing. they can afford to throw tons of ideas out and hope one sticks. this is how the world works when you have billions of dollars of cash lying around.
if they fail to do real net neutrality, then we can point at them and say 'do you really want to be like india?' and hope that the fcc actually realizes how much we need net neutrality
if there were worried about bandwidth constraints, then they would simply decrease the speed of everyone's data (except emergency) whenever they run into their bandwidth cap. (oh wait... THEY ALREADY DO THAT. ) it is clearly just about the money because stopping people from using more than 5gb of data is totally irrelevant to their one limiting factor. it isnt like they have a cap with their internet provider.
you think they put in the caps because they dont have enough bandwidth coming from their towers? you, sir, are sadly mistaken. they do it for one reason. PROFIT. if they cap your data at 5gb and you need to use 5.1 gb, you will totally spend double the amount to get up to 10gb.
no, because they arent a big enough step up from the previous generation. it is essentially like having HD. anything between 480p and 4k resolution are technically HD. but only 4k resolution gets the 'ultra hd' tag.
yea, you can totally download a single hd movie in that second before they cap your speed at 3g.
this is absolutely ridiculous. there are so many things out there being sold with the name 'gnome'. there is no possible way that this new point of sale system will hurt the trademark of gnome, and therefore it is impossible for them to win this case. if they were making a desktop operating system, sure i would agree... but this is just dumb.
P.S. fix the bugs in your operating system before going after people for stupid-ass reasons.
i think you are off by a factor of 10. i have LTE as well and my max speed is maybe 35mbit
the issue here is that they took the api and changed the code in the background. the api itself is nothing but a bunch of method names. the code in the back is obviously patentable. the question is whether a bunch of method names are, and i would say no... but the supreme court is made of a bunch of old people who dont even know how to use phones.
in case you didnt know this... most of the super high-tech companies were either founded by or run by someone who did not have acollege degree.
if you have an incredibly creative C student who will "go on to dream up blockbuster films like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg" who cares if they go to college? it isnt like you need a degree to be creative.
i like this idea, but your signature bothered me. the phrase is 'for all intents and purposes', not 'for all intensive purposes'
I graduated with a CS degree (undergrad) and got so many job offers that i had to keep turning them down (even after i chose a job). i think it really comes down to what kind of projects you've done and how good you are at interviews. The issue i see is that for CS, a phd really doesnt do you any good at all. people without a phd can do just as much in this field as those who do, so know that when you go into interviews so you dont come off like a prick.
The EU is much less lenient on monopolies.
the building of infrastructure isnt the problem. with the exception of rural areas, everywhere in the US already has fiber optic cable capable of getting gigabit speeds. the issue we have is that each ISP has its own little area with no competition.. why would they charge 70$ per month for gigabit(like google) when they can charge 50$ a month for 20Mbit
this is because over half of ATT's internet service plans are below 10Mbps and they charge like 30$ for them per month
because we dont care about them. also... because we are essentially just giving internet companies subsidies. this doesnt actually mean that the end user is recieving ANY of this discount.
studies have shown time and time again that just the act of being distracted from the road is bad. if you are talking to someone on the phone, or even in the car with you... or if you are even listening to the radio, these are all equally distracting. it is entirely possible to text while driving safely so long as you are not moving while you are texting or if you are using a hands free device.
the real issue at hand is that dumbasses have decided that they can take their eyes off the road while they are moving to type a text. people also take their eyes off the road to talk with people next to them... or behind them. is it really a good idea to ban everyone from texting while in the car because a few people are dumbasses? i text only when i'm stopped at a light, technically that is illegal, despite the fact that there is absolutely no way it can affect my driving..
if every second was .0864 of the current time of a second, then we could have a day with 100 seconds per minute, 100 minutes per hour and 100 hours per day.
the real question is 'why does anyone measure time in seconds?' the whole 60 thing is incredibly innaccurate and ultimately annoying to use. wouldnt you rather change the scale so that there are 100 seconds in a minute, 100 minutes in an hour and 10 or 100 hours in a day? obviously the exact time of a day is set due to the rotation of the earth, but any of the time measurement we use up to that point could be changed to something less old-fashioned (ancient sumerian).
they are slowly deploying. we will see it across the country by 2020