I'll take that bet. Apple has been doing this for 5 years with iMessages. The only issue they have had was with people signing into their accounts on friends or relatives machines. You can't blame them for people not understanding though. From a technical perspective, this is pretty secure.
Cars do not have all map data on a hard drive. Your boat probably has the waterways in your region downloaded, since that data is so much simpler.
A car that is FSD would plan its route, and cache the relevant data it needs (traffic light positions, speed limits, construction alerts, geo-coordinates, all kinds of metrics needed for the car to maneuver the route.
If Apple Maps were supplying the data, your car would not have been able to enter FSD, since you wouldn't have been able to find your destination. You would have had to start off going on your own.
For those who would be en-route, your route would be finished, since it would have been downloaded before you took off.
If you understand the difference, and you want to pay for a Taxi vs Uber, fine. But don't assume your value judgement is the same as everyone else's. I'd rather use Uber.
I think Tesla's storage packs and the effect they are having in Australia is a good indicator of your point.
Come to think about it, why aren't these billionaires just purchasing Tesla packs and installing them? From what I recall, they purchase energy when it is cheap, and sell when it is expensive, makes them both profitable and environmentally sound, since they reduce the utility's peak power requirement, and level out demand on power plants.
That's not always the case. How many users do you know that turn off firewalls and disable scans on their desktop because it "slows down everything"? In Corporate IT, it happens a lot. If you were right, users, not tech suppliers would be in control.
In the consumer world, we leave it to our suppliers to take those precautionary steps for us.
In Apple's case, security is equivalent to privacy, even from them.
However, if google knows where you are, or can serve up more relevant ads (and in some cases, results), and they don't see this as a security issue. After all you aren't losing anything. When you go to Google Search and you search for an error message when troubleshooting, your location doesn't matter. When you search for restaurants serving Sushi, it does. Yet every time, google ask you where you are.
Apple see this as invasion of privacy, and insecure. Google see this as better service delivery (which includes "relevant" ads).
As far as Blackberry is concerned, security is limited only by which foreign sovereign wants in to your messages and data.
A supply shortage is created when there are more buyers at a given price point than there is product to sell. In this case, rides / riders.
A demand shortage is when there is a gut in supply given a price point. You end up with unsold inventory (drivers waiting around).
You want to move the price until you find a supply/demand balance. Anything else is a shortage of one type or another. The government of Honolulu is screwing over drivers, pushing them out of the driving pool. There will be less people incentivized to drive if you if they make less money on average. Surge pricing brings up their average so they will be more willing to drive for you on any other day.
If you don't understand the economic models, go to school. Lib-tard
Any economist worth his salt knows how to create a shortage. Fix prices. If you cap surge prices, drivers won't want to deal with all the drunks at 2 am or after the game lets out. This will result in a shortage of drivers. Sure, some people would be happy to pay them more so they could have the convenience, but the government won't let them. Shitty....
Because it makes media editing easier when your eyes can focus on your work and the toolbars are dimmer. Most media workers will prefer it, as do coders who have to stare at a bright screen for hours and hours, this is much easier if the background is dark than bright for fatigue.
Xerox willingly gave the technology to Apple, not realizing how valuable it was. Just like Bill Gates got IBM to willingly let him license the OS to other computer makers. Apple did not grant Microsoft the right to clone the software it had polished.
An Apple Watch isn't handheld. It is wrist-mounted. That, and it is no different than a wrist watch. Both communicate. One communicates time, the other can communicate other things.
Oracle has some pretty draconian tactics. I used to work for an Oracle EBS customer, and let me tell you, they are just like the mob. First, their fees are partially calculated by business revenue, which is absurd. Secondly, they failed to inform us of various software licenses on the technology side we would need to acquire which was only disclosed once we were partially through implementation. Turns out some ancillary oracle software we purchased wouldn't work without yet more oracle middleware to integrate back to the EBS suite.
Then, once they purchased Sun, the performance / processor license vs the cost of said licenses basically incentivized us to invest in slower, bulkier servers through absurd processor core multipliers which differ based on the kind of CPU you used.
But the cattle industry raising corn fed beef causes climate change too. Methane is 50 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. Why aren't they suing corn farmers, or ranchers?
I'm assuming the state gave the oil companies a business license. I'm also assuming they sold the products uncombusted? Combustion causes CO2. Oil companies sell it uncombusted.
Besides, corn-fed beef that releases giant amounts of methane causes even more climate change. Why aren't they suing the corn growers in Iowa? Or the ranchers? I don't understand? Seems that their policies are contradictory and they are practicing selective enforcement. Not cool
Arbiters are selected by both parties, and typically the costs are split. Also, the arbiters do get reviewed by the American Arbitration Association. Don't talk out of your tin-foil covered conspiracy riddled ass unless you know. Clearly here, you do not.
This is exactly right. It is so fascinating to me how misinformed so many people are wrt arbitration. The arbiters are usually former judges, or law professors. These people really understand the applicable law.
It matters not. India and other countries can not compete with SpaceX, because India doesn't have a big pool of rocketry scientists who have experience developing reusable, relaunchable craft.
That is the whole point of SpaceX. Manufacturing will not be the most important thing SpaceX does, unlike all other space launch companies. They focus on efficiency, lower costs, and lower waste.
Anything India does, will come from its government, who's focus is going to be employing manufacturing labor.
You have the right idea, but the wrong implementation. Freedom of the employer and employee to enter into a contract to perform said services for said compensation is absolute freedom. The law should not bar the two parties from entering into a contract, so long as both agree to it. We have minimum wage laws and a whole host of other restrictions on what a person and an employer can and can not do.
Freedom is the ability to operate freely without harming a third party, not a first party. In employment, the employer and employee are both first parties, since they both agree to the terms of the employment contract.
Arbitration is an important tool for companies (and individuals) to utilize in dispute resolutions. Companies that treat employees as subhuman don't have to worry about employees suing them, they will be likely (especially in your example) be violating health and safety regulations. Even so, contracts are not effective against gross negligence or willful misconduct. I have to agree with the majority on this one. Lawsuits take much longer, cost much more, and usually only benefit the lawyers involved.
Lawsuits are for when you don't have a contract that someone has violated. Lawsuits are... you damaged my property.
Arbitration is for when you do have a contract, that someone feels the other violated. Employment contracts should be subject to binding arbitration.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll take that bet. Apple has been doing this for 5 years with iMessages. The only issue they have had was with people signing into their accounts on friends or relatives machines. You can't blame them for people not understanding though. From a technical perspective, this is pretty secure.
Cars do not have all map data on a hard drive. Your boat probably has the waterways in your region downloaded, since that data is so much simpler.
A car that is FSD would plan its route, and cache the relevant data it needs (traffic light positions, speed limits, construction alerts, geo-coordinates, all kinds of metrics needed for the car to maneuver the route.
If Apple Maps were supplying the data, your car would not have been able to enter FSD, since you wouldn't have been able to find your destination. You would have had to start off going on your own.
For those who would be en-route, your route would be finished, since it would have been downloaded before you took off.
Actually, I believe he was Buddhist .
If you understand the difference, and you want to pay for a Taxi vs Uber, fine. But don't assume your value judgement is the same as everyone else's. I'd rather use Uber.
I think Tesla's storage packs and the effect they are having in Australia is a good indicator of your point.
Come to think about it, why aren't these billionaires just purchasing Tesla packs and installing them? From what I recall, they purchase energy when it is cheap, and sell when it is expensive, makes them both profitable and environmentally sound, since they reduce the utility's peak power requirement, and level out demand on power plants.
Are you counting yourself too, or are you Native American?
That's not always the case. How many users do you know that turn off firewalls and disable scans on their desktop because it "slows down everything"? In Corporate IT, it happens a lot. If you were right, users, not tech suppliers would be in control.
In the consumer world, we leave it to our suppliers to take those precautionary steps for us.
In Apple's case, security is equivalent to privacy, even from them.
However, if google knows where you are, or can serve up more relevant ads (and in some cases, results), and they don't see this as a security issue. After all you aren't losing anything. When you go to Google Search and you search for an error message when troubleshooting, your location doesn't matter. When you search for restaurants serving Sushi, it does. Yet every time, google ask you where you are.
Apple see this as invasion of privacy, and insecure. Google see this as better service delivery (which includes "relevant" ads).
As far as Blackberry is concerned, security is limited only by which foreign sovereign wants in to your messages and data.
Uber's policies. Driver will be reported afterwards and be barred from driving.
A supply shortage is created when there are more buyers at a given price point than there is product to sell. In this case, rides / riders.
A demand shortage is when there is a gut in supply given a price point. You end up with unsold inventory (drivers waiting around).
You want to move the price until you find a supply/demand balance. Anything else is a shortage of one type or another. The government of Honolulu is screwing over drivers, pushing them out of the driving pool. There will be less people incentivized to drive if you if they make less money on average. Surge pricing brings up their average so they will be more willing to drive for you on any other day.
If you don't understand the economic models, go to school. Lib-tard
No so. Labor demand is high, so salary is how the companies will compete for labor.
Any economist worth his salt knows how to create a shortage. Fix prices. If you cap surge prices, drivers won't want to deal with all the drunks at 2 am or after the game lets out. This will result in a shortage of drivers. Sure, some people would be happy to pay them more so they could have the convenience, but the government won't let them. Shitty....
Forever, unless stated otherwise.
Because it makes media editing easier when your eyes can focus on your work and the toolbars are dimmer. Most media workers will prefer it, as do coders who have to stare at a bright screen for hours and hours, this is much easier if the background is dark than bright for fatigue.
Xerox willingly gave the technology to Apple, not realizing how valuable it was. Just like Bill Gates got IBM to willingly let him license the OS to other computer makers. Apple did not grant Microsoft the right to clone the software it had polished.
An Apple Watch isn't handheld. It is wrist-mounted. That, and it is no different than a wrist watch. Both communicate. One communicates time, the other can communicate other things.
Yeah, I'm sure thats how it went. Douche.
Oracle has some pretty draconian tactics. I used to work for an Oracle EBS customer, and let me tell you, they are just like the mob. First, their fees are partially calculated by business revenue, which is absurd. Secondly, they failed to inform us of various software licenses on the technology side we would need to acquire which was only disclosed once we were partially through implementation. Turns out some ancillary oracle software we purchased wouldn't work without yet more oracle middleware to integrate back to the EBS suite.
Then, once they purchased Sun, the performance / processor license vs the cost of said licenses basically incentivized us to invest in slower, bulkier servers through absurd processor core multipliers which differ based on the kind of CPU you used.
Oracle sales are the mob, for sure!
But the cattle industry raising corn fed beef causes climate change too. Methane is 50 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. Why aren't they suing corn farmers, or ranchers?
I'm assuming the state gave the oil companies a business license. I'm also assuming they sold the products uncombusted? Combustion causes CO2. Oil companies sell it uncombusted.
Besides, corn-fed beef that releases giant amounts of methane causes even more climate change. Why aren't they suing the corn growers in Iowa? Or the ranchers? I don't understand? Seems that their policies are contradictory and they are practicing selective enforcement. Not cool
Arbiters are selected by both parties, and typically the costs are split. Also, the arbiters do get reviewed by the American Arbitration Association. Don't talk out of your tin-foil covered conspiracy riddled ass unless you know. Clearly here, you do not.
This is exactly right. It is so fascinating to me how misinformed so many people are wrt arbitration. The arbiters are usually former judges, or law professors. These people really understand the applicable law.
A hero implies courage. She didn't volunteer to test it. More like a martyr if you ask me.
It matters not. India and other countries can not compete with SpaceX, because India doesn't have a big pool of rocketry scientists who have experience developing reusable, relaunchable craft.
That is the whole point of SpaceX. Manufacturing will not be the most important thing SpaceX does, unlike all other space launch companies. They focus on efficiency, lower costs, and lower waste.
Anything India does, will come from its government, who's focus is going to be employing manufacturing labor.
You have the right idea, but the wrong implementation. Freedom of the employer and employee to enter into a contract to perform said services for said compensation is absolute freedom. The law should not bar the two parties from entering into a contract, so long as both agree to it. We have minimum wage laws and a whole host of other restrictions on what a person and an employer can and can not do.
Freedom is the ability to operate freely without harming a third party, not a first party. In employment, the employer and employee are both first parties, since they both agree to the terms of the employment contract.
Arbitration is an important tool for companies (and individuals) to utilize in dispute resolutions. Companies that treat employees as subhuman don't have to worry about employees suing them, they will be likely (especially in your example) be violating health and safety regulations. Even so, contracts are not effective against gross negligence or willful misconduct. I have to agree with the majority on this one. Lawsuits take much longer, cost much more, and usually only benefit the lawyers involved.
Lawsuits are for when you don't have a contract that someone has violated. Lawsuits are... you damaged my property.
Arbitration is for when you do have a contract, that someone feels the other violated. Employment contracts should be subject to binding arbitration.