If the USPS goes away and this sector is left to two players, you can bet that there will be huge increases in consumer shipping costs, and people will have absolutely no alternative
But that's pretty much the end goal of all of these "everything must be private and for profit" things, isn't it?
As long as it's private industry screwing us over, it must be better, right?
The Postal Service inked a licensing agreement with Cleveland-based Wahconah Group, Inc. to produce the new line, which will include jackets, headgear, footwear and clothing that allows integration of modern technology devices such as iPods, according to agency spokesman Roy Betts.
What, like pockets?
I must say, after reading TFA... I have no idea of what this is or why I'd want to buy it from the USPS.
I'm more baffled by this tidbit... In 2006, Congress passed a statute requiring the Postal Service to pre-pay for 75 years worth of retiree benefits within 10 years. No other federal agency is forced to make such an investment.
Why only the Postal Service and no other agency? To make sure Fedex profits stayed high?
They directly compete with everyone who sells phones at retail
Yeah, but they're also selling the service, which means they're doing slightly different things. We'll sell you this phone cheaper if you sign a contract with us -- they're not selling you an unlocked phone cheaper than the people who sell retail phones. They're selling you a locked phone at a discount.
which is why what they are doing is illegal
Obviously not, or people wouldn't be signing a petition to make it legal to unlock a phone. Currently, what they do is completely legal, and it is illegal for you to unlock your phone.
The government is one big happy family of corporate malfeasance.
I won't disagree there -- governments are very beholden to industry, and mostly give them what they want. Even if the rest of us get screwed in the process.
"Equal protection under the law isn't a civil right?"
Only for some groups. The USA does not recognize, for example, equal protection under the law for homosexuals.
And, how exactly is it different from denying women or blacks the vote?
If I can't decide to not hire someone based on the fact that they're overtly religious, on what basis is it okay to say you can discriminate against people who are gay? Because your interpretation of god chooses to ignore the scientific facts behind sexual orientation and insists on a bronze-age interpretation of the world?
Sorry, but it's just bigotry and ignorance wrapped up like it's justified. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny any better.
Why did you feel you needed to bring up ending Don't Ask Don't Tell? How is that even a/civil/ right?
How isn't it?
They wouldn't kick someone out of the military for being black, brown, yellow, or purple... for being Catholic or Muslim. But for being homosexual? Buh bye before they repealed DADT.
One group of people passing a law saying another group of people shouldn't have a right because they say so is definitely a civil rights issue. Especially since the main objection is on religious grounds, since it uses your religion to discriminate against someone else.
If someone tried to say churches shouldn't be considered charities for tax purposes, there would be a huge amount of whinging their religious freedom is being infringed -- and yet these people are often the first in line to try to limit the rights of others. You should be free to believe what you want, but I don't see why that should give you a tax break for it.
Why is the government protecting a business model that is based on selling equipment at a loss?
In business, it's called a loss leader.
But don't worry, they'll more than make up for it with the price gouging which takes place over the term of your contract.
But, really, this comes down to "do I own the phone or does the phone company". If I own it, I should be able to do anything I want with it. If I don't own it, WTF am I doing paying for it?
Right now companies want to have this mixed model where I pay for it, but they tell me what I can and can't do with it.
But the court ruled Wednesday his rights were not breached. Had the phone been password-protected or otherwise locked to outside users, however, police would have needed a search warrant to examine its contents.
It sounds like any form of lock on the phone and they'd need a warrant for it.
Though, it is a little disappointing that if your phone isn't locked it's fair game -- I've owned phones that didn't seem to have any method of locking them.
"The definition of personal data has also been narrowed to exclude 'pseudonymous data' and suggested safeguards were ignored. This is risky because such data can easily be associated to individuals," she continued.
This amendment seems similar to a Yahoo position document, leaked on Wednesday, in which the U.S. tech giant recommends supplementing "the definition of personal data in the draft regulation by adding a distinct subset of data considered pseudonymous, which will trigger differential obligations."
Meanwhile a new website, LobbyPlag.eu, compares amendments put forward by MEPs with the text submitted by lobbyists for Amazon, eBay and the American Chamber of Commerce. Civil liberties activists are angry that European parliamentarians seem to have copied many amendments from these submissions.
So we're letting the companies who have most of our personal information rewrite the rules on how it's treated.
This is the fox guarding the hen house, and giving those entities any say into the law makes it toothless.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. What a joke -- welcome to the oligarchy kids, because we're stuck with it.
because the determining factor in excluding Pluto from the list of planets is not its size, it is that it has not cleared its orbit of other bodies.
So, would that meteor that landed in Russia mean that Earth isn't a planet? Don't pretty much all of the planets run into other things pretty constantly?
I've never fully understood why Pluto got demoted, and I'm not sure I do yet.
A commercial drone carrying cargo across the country isn't compatible with the 4th amendment?
Well, since I'm pretty sure I've yet to hear anybody talking about deploying these drones for cargo purposes, you might as well as me about how this impacts the Easter Bunny.
As an example, let's say you limit drone use to fire and ambulance services. If someone's having a heart attack,
Except of course, they aren't being introduced for those reasons.
So now we're working backwards to find uses for drones which we might be okay with, so that we can justify the use of drones for the purposes we disagree with -- all the while glossing over the fact that by all rights, this should be illegal and unconstitutional.
Sorry, but your argument boils down to "think of the children", and has nothing at all to do with how and why they're deploying drones.
but you could use the same logic regarding plenty of existing technology whose use by police is restricted
Which does nothing at all to address the fact that this is a huge 4th amendment violation... you've pulled a bait and switch. Now you're suggesting we should allow drone surveillance on the chance that while they're up there spying they could use it to call an ambulance. There's reasons why the police are prohibited from doing certain things.
I'm sorry, but drones delivering a defibrillator is not what they're going to be used for, not what they're being proposed for, and is mostly specious.
"Israel has roaming guys on motorcycles to deliver medical stuff, so therefore we should allow drones to spy on people" is a crap argument, since it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
You'd do better to focus on why the privacy and security issues cannot be similarly resolved, instead of merely mentioning them whilst waving your hands wildly about.
Because drone aircraft is wildly incompatible with the 4th amendment?
It's blanket surveillance of the citizenry without any judicial oversight, lacking any probably cause, and generally not the kind of thing a free society does.
The idea that people should become accustomed to constant surveillance is a sure sign that the terrorists are winning, and the government is taking advantage of that to make everybody into scared people who will submit to this kind of thing.
but in the US all it will take will be a few backyard hobbyists who really really really have issues with drones, and they will come up with an easy way to interfere/take over/destroy/ shoot down said drones
Which will unleash the full fury of the machine to track down these 'terrorists', because, as Bush said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists".
And clearly objecting to this kind of thing is something only a terrorist would do.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, yes.
But that's pretty much the end goal of all of these "everything must be private and for profit" things, isn't it?
As long as it's private industry screwing us over, it must be better, right?
Just because there's no adults doesn't mean it's safe for children. ;-)
Doh, I see ... UPS has a patent on smashing packages, gotcha.
This is USPS, not UPS ... different entities.
Is that why mail is so slow? They ship it around the world so cheap labour can maul the packages?
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just skip the mauling step?
What, like pockets?
I must say, after reading TFA ... I have no idea of what this is or why I'd want to buy it from the USPS.
I'm more baffled by this tidbit ... In 2006, Congress passed a statute requiring the Postal Service to pre-pay for 75 years worth of retiree benefits within 10 years. No other federal agency is forced to make such an investment.
Why only the Postal Service and no other agency? To make sure Fedex profits stayed high?
Yeah, but they're also selling the service, which means they're doing slightly different things. We'll sell you this phone cheaper if you sign a contract with us -- they're not selling you an unlocked phone cheaper than the people who sell retail phones. They're selling you a locked phone at a discount.
Obviously not, or people wouldn't be signing a petition to make it legal to unlock a phone. Currently, what they do is completely legal, and it is illegal for you to unlock your phone.
I won't disagree there -- governments are very beholden to industry, and mostly give them what they want. Even if the rest of us get screwed in the process.
And, how exactly is it different from denying women or blacks the vote?
If I can't decide to not hire someone based on the fact that they're overtly religious, on what basis is it okay to say you can discriminate against people who are gay? Because your interpretation of god chooses to ignore the scientific facts behind sexual orientation and insists on a bronze-age interpretation of the world?
Sorry, but it's just bigotry and ignorance wrapped up like it's justified. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny any better.
How isn't it?
They wouldn't kick someone out of the military for being black, brown, yellow, or purple ... for being Catholic or Muslim. But for being homosexual? Buh bye before they repealed DADT.
One group of people passing a law saying another group of people shouldn't have a right because they say so is definitely a civil rights issue. Especially since the main objection is on religious grounds, since it uses your religion to discriminate against someone else.
If someone tried to say churches shouldn't be considered charities for tax purposes, there would be a huge amount of whinging their religious freedom is being infringed -- and yet these people are often the first in line to try to limit the rights of others. You should be free to believe what you want, but I don't see why that should give you a tax break for it.
Yeah, but that's only if you're undercutting your competition.
Since the carriers are all doing the same thing, it's more like collusion.
In business, it's called a loss leader.
But don't worry, they'll more than make up for it with the price gouging which takes place over the term of your contract.
But, really, this comes down to "do I own the phone or does the phone company". If I own it, I should be able to do anything I want with it. If I don't own it, WTF am I doing paying for it?
Right now companies want to have this mixed model where I pay for it, but they tell me what I can and can't do with it.
Well, according to The Fine Article:
It sounds like any form of lock on the phone and they'd need a warrant for it.
Though, it is a little disappointing that if your phone isn't locked it's fair game -- I've owned phones that didn't seem to have any method of locking them.
So we're letting the companies who have most of our personal information rewrite the rules on how it's treated.
This is the fox guarding the hen house, and giving those entities any say into the law makes it toothless.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. What a joke -- welcome to the oligarchy kids, because we're stuck with it.
13/7. :-P
Do you seriously need to ask this?
Have you seen any evidence anywhere that the local police are knowledgeable or interested in such things? If so, where?
So, would that meteor that landed in Russia mean that Earth isn't a planet? Don't pretty much all of the planets run into other things pretty constantly?
I've never fully understood why Pluto got demoted, and I'm not sure I do yet.
Shhh ... people might hear you and think you're making sense.
We can't have that.
Smoking bong hits, laughing hysterically, and trying to figure out how else to fuck with us. ;-)
Well, since I'm pretty sure I've yet to hear anybody talking about deploying these drones for cargo purposes, you might as well as me about how this impacts the Easter Bunny.
So far it's just law enforcement.
Wait, since when do they answer for it here?
You know, I bet that would be a fascinating story involving large quantities of alcohol and stupidity.
Except of course, they aren't being introduced for those reasons.
So now we're working backwards to find uses for drones which we might be okay with, so that we can justify the use of drones for the purposes we disagree with -- all the while glossing over the fact that by all rights, this should be illegal and unconstitutional.
Sorry, but your argument boils down to "think of the children", and has nothing at all to do with how and why they're deploying drones.
Which does nothing at all to address the fact that this is a huge 4th amendment violation ... you've pulled a bait and switch. Now you're suggesting we should allow drone surveillance on the chance that while they're up there spying they could use it to call an ambulance. There's reasons why the police are prohibited from doing certain things.
I'm sorry, but drones delivering a defibrillator is not what they're going to be used for, not what they're being proposed for, and is mostly specious.
"Israel has roaming guys on motorcycles to deliver medical stuff, so therefore we should allow drones to spy on people" is a crap argument, since it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Because drone aircraft is wildly incompatible with the 4th amendment?
It's blanket surveillance of the citizenry without any judicial oversight, lacking any probably cause, and generally not the kind of thing a free society does.
The idea that people should become accustomed to constant surveillance is a sure sign that the terrorists are winning, and the government is taking advantage of that to make everybody into scared people who will submit to this kind of thing.
Which will unleash the full fury of the machine to track down these 'terrorists', because, as Bush said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists".
And clearly objecting to this kind of thing is something only a terrorist would do.