Arguably, this is a restriction on the participants, not the content. A felon is allowed to stand in the park on his soap box. But two felons are not allowed to associate in the park. Therefore, if I planned an event for people to talk about their time in prison, it may very well be the case that I have to ensure that the participants don't fraternize while waiting to speak. I realize that, in this case, he appeared via a video-relay. So was he "using" the park? That's an interesting question, but not one that is so easily painted black and white. If it had been *pre-recorded* content, that would probably color the issue slightly differently.
The police can and are expected to know the law. However, public officials enjoy limited immunity in the case where the law was not clear at the time of the activity. Arresting you for sitting on your lawn should be pretty clear cut. Arresting you for some activity on your lawn when the law is ambiguous is a different situation. You may win your case (not guilty of anything) but the officer who thought it was illegal wan't get into trouble. Is that a perfect solution? Maybe not. But it's at least, on the face, reasonable. Standard disclaimers apply. IANAL, et cetera.
Advertising isn't worthless. Online advertising isn't worthless. Poorly targeted advertising probably has negative value. Advertising is especially valuable for things that I didn't know existed. If I'm traveling somewhere new and there's a sign for Canoe rentals, I just might decide to spend a day touring the local waterways. The first iPhone needed a lot of advertising support since it was a brand new product category. I'm waiting to see an advertisement for the latest generation of robot vacuums as I don't know when they will hit the market. I got an email today with Amazon's editors picks for children's books and responded. Downloaded the free samples. If my son likes them, I'll buy the full book. Spyware removal scams are negative value because not only will I not buy it, but the reputation of whoever runs the ad goes down.
The real answer to this is for those developing the fraudulent apps to share a portion of their revenue with you! Then everybody but the advertisers wins!
I believe what this means is that the individual users have to challenge the constitutionality themselves. And Facebook is free to pay their lawyers to do so but simply can't challenge directly. Not sure this is so terrible.
I can see the philosophical objections, but from a practical standpoint, this just makes sense. Look how many unpatched machines are out there. Microsoft is *very* good about *not* breaking things. Usually if an update *breaks* something, that thing was already broken, just not showing symptoms. Force the application and hardware developers to fix their crap. This doesn't work for business which all seem to run on broken software. They find some environment in which the broken software happens to run and then hire an army of IT guys to ensure that not the slightest thing is touched. Then they jump through hoops to attempt (usually, unsuccessfully) this Frankenstein environment from outside intruders who can exploit with the click of a button. It's inconvenient when an OS upgrade breaks something that is fun and recreational, but still better than the alternative.
Thanks for the detailed reply. So it seems that, since this is a private venture, the manufacturer may or may not turn a profit. But presumably the airlines who purchase and fly these planes will.
British Airways had a special *everything* for Concorde passengers. You weren't waiting at security. You drove up to curbside, put your car in the valet, got walked to the special Concorde lounge, and enjoyed a few drinks prior to boarding.
The Concorde did it at economically viable prices. I believe tickets were like $6k one-way. Had the airworthiness certificates not been pulled, the plane would probably still be flying. True that it never recouped development costs even at those prices. But if this plane could offer a comparable price point for tickets, it seems that there is a profit to be made. I never took a Concorde flight as it wasn't financially feasible for me. I still can't really afford it, but if this service were offered $5k one way, I would consider doing it once for the experience. Plenty of executives are paying $2k-$3k for first-class tickets across the Atlantic already. And the Concorde had no trouble selling tickets. Economics certainly doesn't seem to be the biggest impediment.
Which I believe is why, rather than banning left turns, or undertaking a social education endeavor, they are trying to have the technology subtly discourage left turns, which seems quite reasonable.
Generally people don't walk around brandishing them. But most of the urban gang members (illegally) carry concealed. Occasionally they off other gang members, which doesn't really bother me. Unfortunately, they usually aren't very good marksman and have to unload the entire magazine in order to hit their target at point blank range which means that innocent people end up getting killed. Personally I think that drug-dealer on drug-dealer violence, in it's abstract form, is great sport. But the implementation here is horrible.
My wife is Taiwanese. In Taipei, at certain times of the day, not only are the lights red in all directions, but diagonal crossing is permitted. Diagonal crosswalks are painted on the streets. In Harrisburg, there are many intersections where all vehicular traffic has a red light while pedestrian crossing signals are on. The real answer does seem to be stopping the cars. Also consider mid-block crossings controlled with a light so that cars have to stop mid-block for pedestrians.
I believe that the software that UPS drivers use *does* optimize away from left turns. Not for this reason but because you wait forever to make one. Better to use a route that favors right turns. But this doesn't work on a point-to-point trip as the left turn will be faster. Works for UPS because they have many stops and can change the order of delivery.
This is a service for which you opt-in. Seems like a pretty reasonable deal to me. The terms are not part of a contract of cohesion tied to the vehicle purchase. In most cases, people *would* opt-in. When using Waze, you get information. You also contribute to Waze in that your travel time is used to help make the service better. And Google does some data mining to try to present some relevant offers to me next time I browse the web.
People almost-always opt-in. Amazon sells tablets with and without "special offers." Almost everybody takes the offers in exchange for a discount.
The only time forced opt-in makes sense is in situations where you are offering something of such low or dubious value that nobody would sign up. Hence why it triggers an emotional reaction when forced upon you.
I might be willing to spend $2 for a Coca-Cola but if somebody steals the money from my wallet and leaves me the can, I feel robbed.
Those kids at least were nice enough to play the music for everybody and share. Now people are selfish and carry around little tiny earbuds (that probably have worse audio fidelity than the old boom boxes) but only they can hear the music.
Most laptops offer a larger battery option. There are after-market cases for most phones that include a secondary battery. The Lenovo X240 has one removable battery and one permanently attached. You can carry an extra removable battery and hot swap. Really making the device lighter and thinner makes sense for phones as it's easy to combine the phone with an auxiliary battery. Harder with laptops as they are always proprietary and you have to buy them from the vendor, but still something that is generally available.
There is no such thing as "feeling cheap" though. It used to be that plastics were inferior to metal so when we felt them we thought of poorly made things designed to not last very long. High tech composites may be better materials than metal so the statement "feels cheap" doesn't seem to apply. If it's too light, you could just add a lead weight. Or as an earlier poster suggested, more battery. Most laptops by the way do offer an upgraded battery that weighs an extra half pound or so if you really want it to feel heavier.
Phones draw more power than laptops, too. At least for the interesting things. Try turning on the GPS receiver and placing a voice call at the same time. The batteries will still drain even if you have a 500mA charger connected. Laptop? Not much happening most of the time. Just the screen and WiFi radio.
Except that Uber couldn't actually make any money with this restriction. See, they are an illegal cab company that needs to have a roster of professional drivers. If you went to the Uber app and nobody was going your way, well, after a while, you probably wouldn't bother. The Uber users I know value reliability. Suddenly there wouldn't be enough drivers / customers to get a network effect. Most of us who own cars do so for the convenience. Taking somebody else with you on your trip isn't really worth the hassle. There are people from whom it would be worthwhile, those who are poorer. Unfortunately their cars won't meet the minimum Uber requirements, so they won't be able to join as drivers. There would be a market for this type of service. After all, ride sharing boards (the real kind) and employer-sponsored car pools have existed forever. Ride sharing isn't a viable business for a company with IPO dreams. Raid hailing (such as Uber does) is very profitable. It just had the minor drawback of being illegal. But as Uber has shown, that doesn't seem to be much of an impediment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At least in California, it can be enforced. Remember, to be invalid a contract must be procedurally and substantively unconscionable. I'm neither a lawyer nor a law student. Contracts of adhesion are by definition procedurally unconscionable. So you would have to argue that they are also substantively unconscionable. That's hard to do unless the contract is terribly one sided. Since this can be enforced on occasion, the contracts probably are heavy-handed but not to the level of unconscionability
Slashdot Mirror
FP is from a G+ user!
Probably a proof-of-concept exploit that causes the editors to post dupes when they receive the payload!
Arguably, this is a restriction on the participants, not the content. A felon is allowed to stand in the park on his soap box. But two felons are not allowed to associate in the park. Therefore, if I planned an event for people to talk about their time in prison, it may very well be the case that I have to ensure that the participants don't fraternize while waiting to speak. I realize that, in this case, he appeared via a video-relay. So was he "using" the park? That's an interesting question, but not one that is so easily painted black and white. If it had been *pre-recorded* content, that would probably color the issue slightly differently.
The police can and are expected to know the law. However, public officials enjoy limited immunity in the case where the law was not clear at the time of the activity. Arresting you for sitting on your lawn should be pretty clear cut. Arresting you for some activity on your lawn when the law is ambiguous is a different situation. You may win your case (not guilty of anything) but the officer who thought it was illegal wan't get into trouble. Is that a perfect solution? Maybe not. But it's at least, on the face, reasonable. Standard disclaimers apply. IANAL, et cetera.
Wouldn't the best solution just be to remove the entertainment system?
Advertising isn't worthless. Online advertising isn't worthless. Poorly targeted advertising probably has negative value. Advertising is especially valuable for things that I didn't know existed. If I'm traveling somewhere new and there's a sign for Canoe rentals, I just might decide to spend a day touring the local waterways. The first iPhone needed a lot of advertising support since it was a brand new product category. I'm waiting to see an advertisement for the latest generation of robot vacuums as I don't know when they will hit the market. I got an email today with Amazon's editors picks for children's books and responded. Downloaded the free samples. If my son likes them, I'll buy the full book. Spyware removal scams are negative value because not only will I not buy it, but the reputation of whoever runs the ad goes down.
The real answer to this is for those developing the fraudulent apps to share a portion of their revenue with you! Then everybody but the advertisers wins!
I believe what this means is that the individual users have to challenge the constitutionality themselves. And Facebook is free to pay their lawyers to do so but simply can't challenge directly. Not sure this is so terrible.
I can see the philosophical objections, but from a practical standpoint, this just makes sense. Look how many unpatched machines are out there. Microsoft is *very* good about *not* breaking things. Usually if an update *breaks* something, that thing was already broken, just not showing symptoms. Force the application and hardware developers to fix their crap. This doesn't work for business which all seem to run on broken software. They find some environment in which the broken software happens to run and then hire an army of IT guys to ensure that not the slightest thing is touched. Then they jump through hoops to attempt (usually, unsuccessfully) this Frankenstein environment from outside intruders who can exploit with the click of a button. It's inconvenient when an OS upgrade breaks something that is fun and recreational, but still better than the alternative.
Also people who prefer not to have their phone stolen!
Thanks for the detailed reply. So it seems that, since this is a private venture, the manufacturer may or may not turn a profit. But presumably the airlines who purchase and fly these planes will.
British Airways had a special *everything* for Concorde passengers. You weren't waiting at security. You drove up to curbside, put your car in the valet, got walked to the special Concorde lounge, and enjoyed a few drinks prior to boarding.
I don't know how the development costs were distributed. But that's an issue, usually, for the manufacturer, not the operator.
The Concorde did it at economically viable prices. I believe tickets were like $6k one-way. Had the airworthiness certificates not been pulled, the plane would probably still be flying. True that it never recouped development costs even at those prices. But if this plane could offer a comparable price point for tickets, it seems that there is a profit to be made. I never took a Concorde flight as it wasn't financially feasible for me. I still can't really afford it, but if this service were offered $5k one way, I would consider doing it once for the experience. Plenty of executives are paying $2k-$3k for first-class tickets across the Atlantic already. And the Concorde had no trouble selling tickets. Economics certainly doesn't seem to be the biggest impediment.
Which I believe is why, rather than banning left turns, or undertaking a social education endeavor, they are trying to have the technology subtly discourage left turns, which seems quite reasonable.
Generally people don't walk around brandishing them. But most of the urban gang members (illegally) carry concealed. Occasionally they off other gang members, which doesn't really bother me. Unfortunately, they usually aren't very good marksman and have to unload the entire magazine in order to hit their target at point blank range which means that innocent people end up getting killed. Personally I think that drug-dealer on drug-dealer violence, in it's abstract form, is great sport. But the implementation here is horrible.
My wife is Taiwanese. In Taipei, at certain times of the day, not only are the lights red in all directions, but diagonal crossing is permitted. Diagonal crosswalks are painted on the streets. In Harrisburg, there are many intersections where all vehicular traffic has a red light while pedestrian crossing signals are on. The real answer does seem to be stopping the cars. Also consider mid-block crossings controlled with a light so that cars have to stop mid-block for pedestrians.
I believe that the software that UPS drivers use *does* optimize away from left turns. Not for this reason but because you wait forever to make one. Better to use a route that favors right turns. But this doesn't work on a point-to-point trip as the left turn will be faster. Works for UPS because they have many stops and can change the order of delivery.
This is a service for which you opt-in. Seems like a pretty reasonable deal to me. The terms are not part of a contract of cohesion tied to the vehicle purchase. In most cases, people *would* opt-in. When using Waze, you get information. You also contribute to Waze in that your travel time is used to help make the service better. And Google does some data mining to try to present some relevant offers to me next time I browse the web. People almost-always opt-in. Amazon sells tablets with and without "special offers." Almost everybody takes the offers in exchange for a discount. The only time forced opt-in makes sense is in situations where you are offering something of such low or dubious value that nobody would sign up. Hence why it triggers an emotional reaction when forced upon you. I might be willing to spend $2 for a Coca-Cola but if somebody steals the money from my wallet and leaves me the can, I feel robbed.
Those kids at least were nice enough to play the music for everybody and share. Now people are selfish and carry around little tiny earbuds (that probably have worse audio fidelity than the old boom boxes) but only they can hear the music.
Most laptops offer a larger battery option. There are after-market cases for most phones that include a secondary battery. The Lenovo X240 has one removable battery and one permanently attached. You can carry an extra removable battery and hot swap. Really making the device lighter and thinner makes sense for phones as it's easy to combine the phone with an auxiliary battery. Harder with laptops as they are always proprietary and you have to buy them from the vendor, but still something that is generally available.
There is no such thing as "feeling cheap" though. It used to be that plastics were inferior to metal so when we felt them we thought of poorly made things designed to not last very long. High tech composites may be better materials than metal so the statement "feels cheap" doesn't seem to apply. If it's too light, you could just add a lead weight. Or as an earlier poster suggested, more battery. Most laptops by the way do offer an upgraded battery that weighs an extra half pound or so if you really want it to feel heavier.
Phones draw more power than laptops, too. At least for the interesting things. Try turning on the GPS receiver and placing a voice call at the same time. The batteries will still drain even if you have a 500mA charger connected. Laptop? Not much happening most of the time. Just the screen and WiFi radio.
Except that Uber couldn't actually make any money with this restriction. See, they are an illegal cab company that needs to have a roster of professional drivers. If you went to the Uber app and nobody was going your way, well, after a while, you probably wouldn't bother. The Uber users I know value reliability. Suddenly there wouldn't be enough drivers / customers to get a network effect. Most of us who own cars do so for the convenience. Taking somebody else with you on your trip isn't really worth the hassle. There are people from whom it would be worthwhile, those who are poorer. Unfortunately their cars won't meet the minimum Uber requirements, so they won't be able to join as drivers. There would be a market for this type of service. After all, ride sharing boards (the real kind) and employer-sponsored car pools have existed forever. Ride sharing isn't a viable business for a company with IPO dreams. Raid hailing (such as Uber does) is very profitable. It just had the minor drawback of being illegal. But as Uber has shown, that doesn't seem to be much of an impediment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... At least in California, it can be enforced. Remember, to be invalid a contract must be procedurally and substantively unconscionable. I'm neither a lawyer nor a law student. Contracts of adhesion are by definition procedurally unconscionable. So you would have to argue that they are also substantively unconscionable. That's hard to do unless the contract is terribly one sided. Since this can be enforced on occasion, the contracts probably are heavy-handed but not to the level of unconscionability