The iCloud activation lock applies to the Apple Watch as well. In my town our state has a warehouse store where they sell government surplus to the public. They also sell items confiscated and lost at airports. Apple Watches turn up on occasion, and I purchased two. The first one was activation locked. There is nothing I can do to make use of this watch. The watch was lost, held by the airport and then the government for many months and never claimed. I bought it legitimately and legally from the government.
The most annoying part is not only can't I use it, but I also cannot contact the person who owns it. Their email address is partially displayed - you know, the k*****@gmail.com type thing. It just seems there must be some manner in which to handle these cases. It would have to be done through some organization that mediates between the owner and the person / entity that is in possession of the device (to prevent various kinds of abuse).
Why would automakers want this? This sounds like something politicians and lawmakers want and are pressuring the auto industry to implement. From a purely financial standpoint, automakers make a lot of money off of drunk drivers. All those accidents result in lots of totaled cars that are replaced with insurance money. Looking at the DUI related stats, we're talking billions of dollars in losses each year because of this (although the majority of that would have to be medical expenses and liability type payouts - still, the fact is that cars are taken off the road because of these accidents, and they are typically replaced by insurance).
It really doesn't matter what their reasons are, you just can't have cameras in a rental property or hotel room. People walk around nude, have sex, etc
Hotels most certainly have cameras all over the place - just not in private spaces. Bedrooms and bathrooms would be considered private spaces. This camera was in a main section of the building, not in a private space. So from a legal perspective they should be perfectly fine, even without disclosure (when was the last time you checked into a hotel and the desk clerk disclosed that you were already on camera, and the halls and other public spaces also had cameras?) The owner violated Airbnb policy that all such devices must be disclosed, and that was probably an acceptable risk because apparently the owner felt the camera necessary to protect the property in various ways (who was actually in the building and when, how many people in total, etc).
It's probably worth the risk for a homeowner to conceal a camera in the main area of a home to have at least some evidence in case something happens to the property. After all, the risk is "Airbbnb no longer lets you rent your property through them" which is probably an acceptable liability for having some evidence for use in legal proceedings. The "legality" of having a camera in a private residence, in a "public" space like a living room or kitchen is probably pretty sound. This is purely an Airbnb requirement that it be disclosed.
A couple more comments on this specific case... It's blatantly obvious to me that the camera shown in the FB picture is a camera or security device and not a smoke detector, as there is a detector three feet away from it. If someone would ask me what I thought that was, I would say a camera or part of a security system. So I don't think this was a *hidden* camera, but more specifically an *undisclosed* camera.
Second thought is it would be trivial to place the camera on ethernet, since it is already requiring wiring for power anyway. Then it wouldn't be as easy to sniff if. I'm surprised the homeowner didn't use a dual zone router in the first place, with a public zone for guests and the private, non-broadcast, secure zone for the various devices in the house. An Airbnb in the past I stayed at functioned in this way. The owner supposedly couldn't remember the credentials to the public router space, so I bought my own router / access point and hooked it up to an ethernet port to give us Wifi access for our stay.
You only said "bible" and not a specific religion, like Christianity or Judaism. However since you said "bible" I presume you mean the bible that most people think of, which is the Christian bible that also contains the New Testament. Christians believe that Christ (aka the New Testament) fulfills and thus overrides the Old Testament. That's why Christians are... Christians and not Jews. It is possible that a devote follower of Judaism might take the violent histories of the Old Testament at face value, or your typical crazy person looking for some justification for something they want to do. However Christians do not. Jesus taught the exact opposite of violence - turning the other cheek and all that.
So if you are trying to equate Christians and Old Testament violence to Islam (which fully follows all teachings as applying to contemporary Muslims) then you are quite wrong.
Frankenstein huh? Talk about bias in an article. So every single component in the iPad mini - the camera, CPU, battery, etc - is supposed to be custom engineered for that one device only, otherwise it gets a derogative "Frankenstein" moniker? That's pretty ridiculous. Taking the better, newer, tried-and-true components from other high-end Apple products and integrating them into the mini to refresh it is supposed to be a *good* thing.
Now as for the repairability, yeah, that's ridiculous on Apple's part, but the negativity over using components like a CPU or camera that is also used in other devices is about as common-sense and expected as can be.
If it "is common in the general population" then why is it considered a mutation? Mutation infers abnormality or uniqueness. At some point it has to stop being a mutation and simply be normal.
Did you not read what I wrote? With the current state of things - the current infrastructure - gas power production can literally ramp up by pressing a couple buttons and telling the plant to produce more energy. The plants are not normally running at 100% capacity. Solar and wind already produce all they are capable of producing, and that is just pumped into the grid with hopes it can be used at that exact moment. "Ramping up" means literally building and installing new solar panels and wind turbines. That cannot happen nearly as fast as gas and coal plants that already have spare production capability. My point is spot on.
The issue here is that the demand for electricity increased by a large percentage in the US, China and India. Obviously something has to ramp up to meet those demands. In the US that was primarily natural gas, the usage of which increased by 10% in 2018. China is using coal to meet their increased power demands.
So why is power consumption increasing? The article above said a significant portion was due to colder than normal winters and hotter than normal summers, thus requiring more power for heating and cooling. In the US petrochemical demand has increased due to trucking and industrial consumption. The economy is strong, growth is occurring, and that is fueled by energy.
So the FUD here is that "emissions continue to rise" is not due to a shift back to coal, but the use of fossil fuels to meet a quick increase in energy demands. Solar, nuclear, wind, etc, cannot ramp up nearly as fast as gas and coal, because those plants already have spare capacity to meet peak demands. If the higher rate consumption continues then renewable sources will continue to grow to reach at least their previous percentage share of power generation.
skewed the original ambitions for hyperlinks, who they are for and how far they can lead you
The original "ambition" for hyperlinks was always, and will always be, curtailed by the dreaded 404. The instant you are relying on resources outside of your control it is just a matter of time before they are gone. That wonderful chain of links that lead you "far" is broken by one single 404 in the chain. Search engines bypass this exact problem by allowing us to directly access the destination without having to jump "far" through many links. The internet really could never have functioned very well as originally envisioned, where it was a huge collection of documents that referenced each other and provided gateways to new things to be discovered. An endless series of rabbit holes to keep going down and down. Maybe that''s fun on some level, but the usefulness quickly diminishes with the depth. At some point someone was going to start indexing things in a single collection to allow direct access - that was inevitable and was a required optimization. Search engines became hugely popular because they are very useful, and provide a solution to a weakness and limitation of pure HTML / HTTP.
You have to be careful about these kinds of statistics. There are such a tremendous amount of uncontrolled variables that chalking this up to one single factor is probably not accurate. Fatalities per mile driven has been on a downward trend since the 1980s.
Also, the fundamental statistic here - the number of emergency room visits following an accident has decreased - does not seem appropriate for this study. Essentially this says that the rate of accidents themselves may be the same (or even have increased), it's just that the likelihood of serious injury has decreased. I'm not sure if they are implying that the accidents were going to happen regardless, and texting simply made them worse? Specifically, the quote about those 65 and older, who are the least likely to text while driving, also showed "reductions in the number of injuries following crashes". Again, it does not say they were in less crashes. It says that the crashes appeared to be less severe and thus they didn't go to the ER as often. That totally sounds like the result of better engineering so crashes result in less severe injuries.
To me, this statistic would indicate an increase in safety due to automobile engineering, or that other changes that directly impact the severity of an accident (reduced speed limits) have also taken affect.
I'm not condoning texting while driving. I just don't like to see data potentially misrepresented even if it is for the "greater good", and thus no harm / no foul if the study is inaccurate.
It's clear in the video the the Telsa is trying to take the left lane that has that strange signage showing it is closed. When the driver steers back to the right at that point it is heading towards the divider, but the car is trying to take that lane that goes to the left of the barrier. That's different than "the car is trying to steer into the lane divider".
In my 30+ years of driving I have never seen that kind of signage or markers that are apparently used to dynamically close lanes at certain times. I would wonder what I was seeing myself the first time I encountered that.
It looks like two things are going on: 1) The visual system of the Tesla does not understand that signage meaning a lane / offramp has been closed. 2) The GPS routing shows that is a viable route when it is somehow only intermittently open.
So since all "computers" are Turing complete, they can all produce the same results - it's just a matter of processing time and having enough memory to hold the needed data. So this computer can't actually accomplish anything more than before. It can just fulfill a greater workload. Or am I mistaken?
You're missing the entire point. TikTok allows people to create 15 second videos with officially licensed music clips for the background music. People share these videos, etc. That is all legal, licensed, etc.
What the YouTube personalities / commentators are doing is creating 10-15 minute long episodes where they pick out TikToks that are somehow exceptional (good or bad) and showing them while commenting on them. In a 15 minute episode they might have a dozen TikToks they show and talk about. Sometimes not even in their entirety. The YouTuber didn't choose the music because they didn't make the TikToks in the first place, so there is no "replace it with generic public domain music". In most cases the music is key to the TikTok and is thematic to it or timed with it. So they are singing over the music but keeping the whatever aspects of the music are needed to make the TikTok make sense. It's all stupid and sure seems like fair use because it is a compendium of multiple examples of things with very short (15 second maximum) music clips.
The problem is that YouTube gives so much power to the copyright claimant, and the stakes are so low (IE the amount of money a YouTuber would make off their video in the first place) that people can't bother to fight these as an actual copyright case. So the easiest thing to do is sing over them.
It sounds familiar to me as well. Perhaps it is just totally cliche and generic...
Every drug company ever... 'A Better Future For All Humanity' Every politician ever... 'A Better Future For All Humanity' Company that manufactures toilets: 'A Better Future For All Humanity' Company that makes pimple cream: 'A Better Future For All Humanity' Adolph Hitler: 'A Better Future For All Humanity'
Those sound a lot like consumables to me. That's the question with any "breakthrough" of this sort is just how much stuff does it consume and how much does that stuff end up costing (in energy, carbon emissions and pollution as well as monetarily).
Solar panels are pretty dang amazing as they are static and essentially last forever (or at least for multiple decades), unlike pretty much every other form of energy generation we know of. So by associating the hydrogen generation with solar panels they are asserting that kind of longevity and hands-off operation.
Let's be real. The Intercept and First Look Media didn't do this for The Greater Good. They got publicity and advertising revenue for being gatekeeper of this information and first to break the stories. "major news outlets had ceased reporting on it years ago" means "no longer profitable". So why should they be paying people to dredge through it when they aren't producing juicy bits any more? The two "journalists" whose job was to find stuff in top security documents that were illegally leaked in the hopes of bringing in web traffic shouldn't be the least bit surprised that their "research" positions have come to an end.
Apple has the ability to design and manufacture their own chips - they've been ramping up on that over the last few years. This is a good way for Qualcom to not see another cent from Apple in the future. Or maybe they've already seen that writing on the wall and are just trying to get what they can while they can.
First off, it's already an "unlimited" plan, so this isn't to gain more data per month. So that just leaves speed. 4G is supposed to be 5 - 12 Mbps. So if you are "merely" getting the 4G you paid for, that is at least 5 Mbps. That's just about enough to stream 1080p video.... to a CELL phone. So what's the intention here? For people to hook their cell phone up to a 4k TV via HDMI and stream 4k video over 5G?
Yes, and they will tax EVERYTHING. The reason that private sales of used vehicles are taxed is because.... they know when the purchases happen because you have to title the vehicle with the government. So they ask you what you paid for it, and if the number you give them is too low then they use some market value for the vehicle year and mileage instead. I've always felt this is fundamentally against our rights as citizens as the vehicle was already taxed when it was sold new. A given vehicle could be taxed a dozen times if it was sold a dozen times. That is wrong.
The one and only reason the government does not tax every private sale that occurs is because they have no way of knowing when they occur. Yesterday we bought a used pair of soccer cleats off a friend for $8 for our son to play soccer this season. They will tax that too when they can track that the money has been moved.
Paramedics are majority male (slim majority, not nearly the imbalance of nurses) and there's constant pressure to "fix" the situation.
I wouldn't call it a slim majority - 2/3 of those obtaining paramedic education are male, and of those remaining 33% even less follow through and stick with the career very long.
As someone who has worked in EMS, including with many women, I will tell you why there are more male paramedics. Try carrying a 300 pound dude out of a house on a stretcher once. Heck, try it with just a 200 pound dude. It's hard, and no, backup options are typically not available (try to call the fire department to send assistance every time you have to load a patient and see just how far that goes).
Am I generalizing? Of course, that's what this whole story is about - generalizing. Sure there are women way stronger than me, and that love EMS and handle it just fine. But on average, women would not find the physical demands of lifting and loading patients something that they can do reasonably day in and day out.
That leaves two options. Try to go beyond your physical limits on regular basis, which can lead to strain and injury (and possible risk to others), or have others carry your load. Do either of those sound appealing or very satisfying? As someone who took EMT classes 25 years ago, even that far back there was zero barrier for women to be in EMS - it was encouraged. I'd say nearly half the class was women. But when one of your classmates weighs 115 pounds soaking wet and they realize part of the literal job description is to have to pick people up and move them around, well, that doesn't sound very fun. They tend to quickly migrate to other healthcare related positions that are more enjoyable and rewarding to them.
And, having said all that, in this particular field there are very few people that work in the EMS (talking about in the field, clinical patient care at that level) paramedic role long. I just googled it and the average career length is 3.5 to 5 years. Ridiculously short. It's just that women are smart enough to move on sooner, while men can handle the physical demands a bit easier so they stick with it longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because now that people have heard of "Pepsi" they will go out and buy one, since, you know, they never heard of Pepsi before.
The iCloud activation lock applies to the Apple Watch as well. In my town our state has a warehouse store where they sell government surplus to the public. They also sell items confiscated and lost at airports. Apple Watches turn up on occasion, and I purchased two. The first one was activation locked. There is nothing I can do to make use of this watch. The watch was lost, held by the airport and then the government for many months and never claimed. I bought it legitimately and legally from the government.
The most annoying part is not only can't I use it, but I also cannot contact the person who owns it. Their email address is partially displayed - you know, the k*****@gmail.com type thing. It just seems there must be some manner in which to handle these cases. It would have to be done through some organization that mediates between the owner and the person / entity that is in possession of the device (to prevent various kinds of abuse).
Finally, a third stage typically uses the Dirty COW exploit (CVE20165195) to obtain root privileges on a targeted device
What does that have to do with iOS? That's a Linux kernel vulnerability. The summary is totally mashing up the iOS and Android aspects into one glob.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why would automakers want this? This sounds like something politicians and lawmakers want and are pressuring the auto industry to implement. From a purely financial standpoint, automakers make a lot of money off of drunk drivers. All those accidents result in lots of totaled cars that are replaced with insurance money. Looking at the DUI related stats, we're talking billions of dollars in losses each year because of this (although the majority of that would have to be medical expenses and liability type payouts - still, the fact is that cars are taken off the road because of these accidents, and they are typically replaced by insurance).
It really doesn't matter what their reasons are, you just can't have cameras in a rental property or hotel room. People walk around nude, have sex, etc
Hotels most certainly have cameras all over the place - just not in private spaces. Bedrooms and bathrooms would be considered private spaces. This camera was in a main section of the building, not in a private space. So from a legal perspective they should be perfectly fine, even without disclosure (when was the last time you checked into a hotel and the desk clerk disclosed that you were already on camera, and the halls and other public spaces also had cameras?) The owner violated Airbnb policy that all such devices must be disclosed, and that was probably an acceptable risk because apparently the owner felt the camera necessary to protect the property in various ways (who was actually in the building and when, how many people in total, etc).
It's probably worth the risk for a homeowner to conceal a camera in the main area of a home to have at least some evidence in case something happens to the property. After all, the risk is "Airbbnb no longer lets you rent your property through them" which is probably an acceptable liability for having some evidence for use in legal proceedings. The "legality" of having a camera in a private residence, in a "public" space like a living room or kitchen is probably pretty sound. This is purely an Airbnb requirement that it be disclosed.
A couple more comments on this specific case... It's blatantly obvious to me that the camera shown in the FB picture is a camera or security device and not a smoke detector, as there is a detector three feet away from it. If someone would ask me what I thought that was, I would say a camera or part of a security system. So I don't think this was a *hidden* camera, but more specifically an *undisclosed* camera.
Second thought is it would be trivial to place the camera on ethernet, since it is already requiring wiring for power anyway. Then it wouldn't be as easy to sniff if. I'm surprised the homeowner didn't use a dual zone router in the first place, with a public zone for guests and the private, non-broadcast, secure zone for the various devices in the house. An Airbnb in the past I stayed at functioned in this way. The owner supposedly couldn't remember the credentials to the public router space, so I bought my own router / access point and hooked it up to an ethernet port to give us Wifi access for our stay.
You only said "bible" and not a specific religion, like Christianity or Judaism. However since you said "bible" I presume you mean the bible that most people think of, which is the Christian bible that also contains the New Testament. Christians believe that Christ (aka the New Testament) fulfills and thus overrides the Old Testament. That's why Christians are... Christians and not Jews. It is possible that a devote follower of Judaism might take the violent histories of the Old Testament at face value, or your typical crazy person looking for some justification for something they want to do. However Christians do not. Jesus taught the exact opposite of violence - turning the other cheek and all that.
So if you are trying to equate Christians and Old Testament violence to Islam (which fully follows all teachings as applying to contemporary Muslims) then you are quite wrong.
Frankenstein huh? Talk about bias in an article. So every single component in the iPad mini - the camera, CPU, battery, etc - is supposed to be custom engineered for that one device only, otherwise it gets a derogative "Frankenstein" moniker? That's pretty ridiculous. Taking the better, newer, tried-and-true components from other high-end Apple products and integrating them into the mini to refresh it is supposed to be a *good* thing.
Now as for the repairability, yeah, that's ridiculous on Apple's part, but the negativity over using components like a CPU or camera that is also used in other devices is about as common-sense and expected as can be.
If it "is common in the general population" then why is it considered a mutation? Mutation infers abnormality or uniqueness. At some point it has to stop being a mutation and simply be normal.
^ Is complete bullshit, you just have to invest in the infrastructure to comparable levels. https://www.clf.org/blog/doe-e...
Did you not read what I wrote? With the current state of things - the current infrastructure - gas power production can literally ramp up by pressing a couple buttons and telling the plant to produce more energy. The plants are not normally running at 100% capacity. Solar and wind already produce all they are capable of producing, and that is just pumped into the grid with hopes it can be used at that exact moment. "Ramping up" means literally building and installing new solar panels and wind turbines. That cannot happen nearly as fast as gas and coal plants that already have spare production capability. My point is spot on.
The lightweight article referred to above has links to a more thorough article that gets to the important details (https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/march/global-energy-demand-rose-by-23-in-2018-its-fastest-pace-in-the-last-decade.html)
The issue here is that the demand for electricity increased by a large percentage in the US, China and India. Obviously something has to ramp up to meet those demands. In the US that was primarily natural gas, the usage of which increased by 10% in 2018. China is using coal to meet their increased power demands.
So why is power consumption increasing? The article above said a significant portion was due to colder than normal winters and hotter than normal summers, thus requiring more power for heating and cooling. In the US petrochemical demand has increased due to trucking and industrial consumption. The economy is strong, growth is occurring, and that is fueled by energy.
So the FUD here is that "emissions continue to rise" is not due to a shift back to coal, but the use of fossil fuels to meet a quick increase in energy demands. Solar, nuclear, wind, etc, cannot ramp up nearly as fast as gas and coal, because those plants already have spare capacity to meet peak demands. If the higher rate consumption continues then renewable sources will continue to grow to reach at least their previous percentage share of power generation.
skewed the original ambitions for hyperlinks, who they are for and how far they can lead you
The original "ambition" for hyperlinks was always, and will always be, curtailed by the dreaded 404. The instant you are relying on resources outside of your control it is just a matter of time before they are gone. That wonderful chain of links that lead you "far" is broken by one single 404 in the chain. Search engines bypass this exact problem by allowing us to directly access the destination without having to jump "far" through many links. The internet really could never have functioned very well as originally envisioned, where it was a huge collection of documents that referenced each other and provided gateways to new things to be discovered. An endless series of rabbit holes to keep going down and down. Maybe that''s fun on some level, but the usefulness quickly diminishes with the depth. At some point someone was going to start indexing things in a single collection to allow direct access - that was inevitable and was a required optimization. Search engines became hugely popular because they are very useful, and provide a solution to a weakness and limitation of pure HTML / HTTP.
You have to be careful about these kinds of statistics. There are such a tremendous amount of uncontrolled variables that chalking this up to one single factor is probably not accurate. Fatalities per mile driven has been on a downward trend since the 1980s.
Also, the fundamental statistic here - the number of emergency room visits following an accident has decreased - does not seem appropriate for this study. Essentially this says that the rate of accidents themselves may be the same (or even have increased), it's just that the likelihood of serious injury has decreased. I'm not sure if they are implying that the accidents were going to happen regardless, and texting simply made them worse? Specifically, the quote about those 65 and older, who are the least likely to text while driving, also showed "reductions in the number of injuries following crashes". Again, it does not say they were in less crashes. It says that the crashes appeared to be less severe and thus they didn't go to the ER as often. That totally sounds like the result of better engineering so crashes result in less severe injuries.
To me, this statistic would indicate an increase in safety due to automobile engineering, or that other changes that directly impact the severity of an accident (reduced speed limits) have also taken affect.
I'm not condoning texting while driving. I just don't like to see data potentially misrepresented even if it is for the "greater good", and thus no harm / no foul if the study is inaccurate.
It's clear in the video the the Telsa is trying to take the left lane that has that strange signage showing it is closed. When the driver steers back to the right at that point it is heading towards the divider, but the car is trying to take that lane that goes to the left of the barrier. That's different than "the car is trying to steer into the lane divider".
In my 30+ years of driving I have never seen that kind of signage or markers that are apparently used to dynamically close lanes at certain times. I would wonder what I was seeing myself the first time I encountered that.
It looks like two things are going on:
1) The visual system of the Tesla does not understand that signage meaning a lane / offramp has been closed.
2) The GPS routing shows that is a viable route when it is somehow only intermittently open.
So since all "computers" are Turing complete, they can all produce the same results - it's just a matter of processing time and having enough memory to hold the needed data. So this computer can't actually accomplish anything more than before. It can just fulfill a greater workload. Or am I mistaken?
You're missing the entire point. TikTok allows people to create 15 second videos with officially licensed music clips for the background music. People share these videos, etc. That is all legal, licensed, etc.
What the YouTube personalities / commentators are doing is creating 10-15 minute long episodes where they pick out TikToks that are somehow exceptional (good or bad) and showing them while commenting on them. In a 15 minute episode they might have a dozen TikToks they show and talk about. Sometimes not even in their entirety. The YouTuber didn't choose the music because they didn't make the TikToks in the first place, so there is no "replace it with generic public domain music". In most cases the music is key to the TikTok and is thematic to it or timed with it. So they are singing over the music but keeping the whatever aspects of the music are needed to make the TikTok make sense. It's all stupid and sure seems like fair use because it is a compendium of multiple examples of things with very short (15 second maximum) music clips.
The problem is that YouTube gives so much power to the copyright claimant, and the stakes are so low (IE the amount of money a YouTuber would make off their video in the first place) that people can't bother to fight these as an actual copyright case. So the easiest thing to do is sing over them.
It sounds familiar to me as well. Perhaps it is just totally cliche and generic...
Every drug company ever... 'A Better Future For All Humanity'
Every politician ever... 'A Better Future For All Humanity'
Company that manufactures toilets: 'A Better Future For All Humanity'
Company that makes pimple cream: 'A Better Future For All Humanity'
Adolph Hitler: 'A Better Future For All Humanity'
You get the point. Cliche. Overreaching. Smug.
The panel uses
catalysts, membranes, and adsorbents
Those sound a lot like consumables to me. That's the question with any "breakthrough" of this sort is just how much stuff does it consume and how much does that stuff end up costing (in energy, carbon emissions and pollution as well as monetarily).
Solar panels are pretty dang amazing as they are static and essentially last forever (or at least for multiple decades), unlike pretty much every other form of energy generation we know of. So by associating the hydrogen generation with solar panels they are asserting that kind of longevity and hands-off operation.
Let's be real. The Intercept and First Look Media didn't do this for The Greater Good. They got publicity and advertising revenue for being gatekeeper of this information and first to break the stories. "major news outlets had ceased reporting on it years ago" means "no longer profitable". So why should they be paying people to dredge through it when they aren't producing juicy bits any more? The two "journalists" whose job was to find stuff in top security documents that were illegally leaked in the hopes of bringing in web traffic shouldn't be the least bit surprised that their "research" positions have come to an end.
Apple has the ability to design and manufacture their own chips - they've been ramping up on that over the last few years. This is a good way for Qualcom to not see another cent from Apple in the future. Or maybe they've already seen that writing on the wall and are just trying to get what they can while they can.
Move to California! It's always nice and sunny!
OMG we have drought because it hasn't rained enough!
First off, it's already an "unlimited" plan, so this isn't to gain more data per month. So that just leaves speed. 4G is supposed to be 5 - 12 Mbps. So if you are "merely" getting the 4G you paid for, that is at least 5 Mbps. That's just about enough to stream 1080p video.... to a CELL phone. So what's the intention here? For people to hook their cell phone up to a 4k TV via HDMI and stream 4k video over 5G?
Yes, and they will tax EVERYTHING. The reason that private sales of used vehicles are taxed is because.... they know when the purchases happen because you have to title the vehicle with the government. So they ask you what you paid for it, and if the number you give them is too low then they use some market value for the vehicle year and mileage instead. I've always felt this is fundamentally against our rights as citizens as the vehicle was already taxed when it was sold new. A given vehicle could be taxed a dozen times if it was sold a dozen times. That is wrong.
The one and only reason the government does not tax every private sale that occurs is because they have no way of knowing when they occur. Yesterday we bought a used pair of soccer cleats off a friend for $8 for our son to play soccer this season. They will tax that too when they can track that the money has been moved.
This should scare the hell out of everyone.
They're retrieving the data bits from the digital books. The robots have a little EPROM flasher and it wipes the bits off of the reader devices.
Paramedics are majority male (slim majority, not nearly the imbalance of nurses) and there's constant pressure to "fix" the situation.
I wouldn't call it a slim majority - 2/3 of those obtaining paramedic education are male, and of those remaining 33% even less follow through and stick with the career very long.
As someone who has worked in EMS, including with many women, I will tell you why there are more male paramedics. Try carrying a 300 pound dude out of a house on a stretcher once. Heck, try it with just a 200 pound dude. It's hard, and no, backup options are typically not available (try to call the fire department to send assistance every time you have to load a patient and see just how far that goes).
Am I generalizing? Of course, that's what this whole story is about - generalizing. Sure there are women way stronger than me, and that love EMS and handle it just fine. But on average, women would not find the physical demands of lifting and loading patients something that they can do reasonably day in and day out.
That leaves two options. Try to go beyond your physical limits on regular basis, which can lead to strain and injury (and possible risk to others), or have others carry your load. Do either of those sound appealing or very satisfying? As someone who took EMT classes 25 years ago, even that far back there was zero barrier for women to be in EMS - it was encouraged. I'd say nearly half the class was women. But when one of your classmates weighs 115 pounds soaking wet and they realize part of the literal job description is to have to pick people up and move them around, well, that doesn't sound very fun. They tend to quickly migrate to other healthcare related positions that are more enjoyable and rewarding to them.
And, having said all that, in this particular field there are very few people that work in the EMS (talking about in the field, clinical patient care at that level) paramedic role long. I just googled it and the average career length is 3.5 to 5 years. Ridiculously short. It's just that women are smart enough to move on sooner, while men can handle the physical demands a bit easier so they stick with it longer.