The US government may do as you describe. But I don't think it will matter to the drug traffickers or users! They will go about as if the restriction didn't exist.
Hopefully this reshapes our modern prohibition. Whether or not laws change, this stuff will now be manufactured in small facilities. No need to control large swaths of land. The opium farmers will go from terrorized to abandoned. Don't know whether that will be good for them or not. No more smuggling loads around the world. Just import some bacteria and start producing. Should increase competition in the market, too, and drive the price down. Less lucrative to control the inner city distribution points so those areas will go from terrorized to abandoned too. Should be interesting to see this unfold. I hope for the best.
I agree with your point. I don't think that polygraphs are good policy. It's also the case that government employees in certain situations can't have debts that exceed a certain percentage of their income. May or may not be a good policy. But if I were to help somebody try to hide their debts in this situation I would expect to face legal consequences. This doesn't seem to be about polygraphs per se but rather about the express purpose of helping people circumvent the processes that attempt to protect sensitive national information.
If I teach somebody how to drive at high speeds, I'm not looking at any difficulties. If I encourage them to violate local speed limits, I should expect a consequence. Admittedly many commercial enterprises push this limit. I've seen commercials for street vehicles where they offer two days of race school if you purchase their car even though those skills of course aren't applicable. There's a piece of text in like a 2 point font at the bottom saying not to exceed posted limits. I wouldn't mind seeing those guys get into trouble
But in this case, we are dealing with somebody who didn't even attempt to disguise his intent! In many matters of law, intent matters. And there wasn't even plausible deniability here. I'm not a lawyer and not beautiful enough to play one on TV
There may be people who will do this privately but the information can't be used in most contexts. Outside of government agencies in the US, they can't be used as a condition of employment. They can't be used as courtroom evidence. I guess my wife could think I'm cheating on her and if we wanted to spend our own resources we could pay somebody to operate a polygraph to help us settle it. And if I wanted to take a class on cheating the polygraph prior to doing this, probably nobody would care. On the other hand if I'm trying to cheat the test for purposes of circumventing a government procedure this is a different case. If he had asked all of his students to sign waivers that they wouldn't use their skillz to apply for government jobs, he may have been fine.
Seems that some metal charging contacts on the back of the devices would be the way to go. Cases could just have pass-through contacts as previously mentioned. Then you can just walk in somewhere, set your phone down on the table, and have electricity. No connectors that wear out. No crawling under tables for sockets. We managed to get all cars to have the same fuel filler holes. We got all phones to be micro-USB (thanks to European Union regulations) So this seems a logical next step. My guess is that the EU will adopt a contact charging standard that the device and case manufacturers have to use and then it will become ubiquitous
My Qi capable phones have *not* been able to charge with the cases on. At least not any reasonably substantial one. Why in the world I can't find a case that does have pass-through contacts is beyond me.
It's one small part of the background check when you apply for certain sensitive government jobs. It may not be a very effective part. However, having people take actions to compromise the background checks is a problem. Depending on what access somebody is potentially being given, these things range from almost nothing to very thorough interviews with close acquaintances. Pass and work for the government. Fail and move on. No harm no foul. But cheating is a different story.
I'm the first to stand up for first amendment rights even when the defendant isn't very sympathetic. But this isn't a case of undesirable political speech. It's a business whose only product is helping people produce altered polygraph results and polygraphs are only used by government agencies. There aren't any substantial other uses for these classes.
I don't think that the use of polygraphs in government employment is good policy. I don't think that prosecuting this guy is good policy. I'd like to see the whole ridiculous polygraph go away. If it is going to stay, I'd like to see candidates have to disclose whether or not they had researched how to beat the test. Prosecute anybody who takes his class and lies about it. Don't hire anybody who takes the class and admit it.
If somebody posted the information for free online and got prosecuted I would be concerned. But it would be ridiculous to use these tests and then just have all of the candidates take the class ahead of time. Just defeats the purpose while adding inefficiency to the process.
I'm not sure I understand your comment. If there is no consumer surplus, no transactions will occur and everybody will be out of work. Maybe you meant producer surplus but that would lead to the same thing. We need there to be both consumer and producer surplus in order to have transactions. Raising minimum wage gets rids of some very marginal transactions that have very little value in order to shift some producer surplus to workers. I consider this a good thing. Others may not. But I think the economics here are at least grossly understood. We may argue about some of the constants but I don't think there is any controversy in the formulas.
Everyone is saying that non-competes aren't enforceable in California (and many other places) But non-solicitation is enforceable almost everywhere. If Apple were to hire people improperly solicited, it would be along the lines of tortious interference. I am not a lawyer and I'm not beautiful enough to play one on TV.
Right now if you follow a new source on FB you get a little summary in your news feed. Then you click to the publisher's web site to read the story. In the new system, the content will be served up by Facebook without you actually visiting the third-party web site. From a user standpoint there may not be a big difference here. The/. crowd worries abut things like FB taking over the world. There's probably a legitimate concern with that. From a UI standpoint, an update by the New York Times isn't any different than an update from my nephew. From a security standpoint, it seems good that entire pages are served from the same domain and that the links point back to that same server. Less concern about a link to NewYorkT1mes leading me to trouble. You can still go to the publisher sites directly to read their stories but if you like using FB as a news aggregator this is an improvement. It's not a very *good* news aggregator but sounds like this is an attempt to change that. I'd love something that serves up news that I *care* about or, more specifically, news in proportion to how much I care about it. I might read one paragraph on what's happening in Yemen (seems to be an intractable problem where tactical updates don't really change the fundamentals) a sentence on DeflateGate but an entire long-format story on how school lunches affect education.
Most $8/hr workers generate well more than $15/hr in value to their employers. An increase in minimum wage would let them have things like dental care. There are some businesses that have almost no margin and would be damaged by this. Another way of describing those businesses is that they aren't adding much economic value. Value - Price = benefit to consumer. Price - Cost = benefit to producer. If value and price are very close, not much consumer surplus is being generated.
It is true that many poor people today are better off in some regards than years ago. You have a mobile phone and an iPad and we live in an era of cheap food. But you're also cut off from our shared culture. So it creates two separate societies which is corrosive.
I guess some people don't care, but I find it hard to enjoy things knowing that it comes at the expense of people not being able to provide healthcare for their children. That doesn't mean to feel guilty for being successful but rather having the willingness to give back.
Are you really saying that children with learning disabilities or special needs should be denied an education? The costs per pupil may be high but there's a relatively small number of them. How you got modded anything but Troll is shocking to me. What do you want to do with these kids? Not give them an education and institutionalize them their whole lives? Let them starve in gutters. Really?
Have the password manager generate multiple passwords for each site. Associate each one with a randomly selected image. When the user wants to retrieve the password from the password manager, show all of the images and associated passwords. User will know which password is the correct one and which are equally-random gibberish. However, anybody cracking the database has a set of key-value pairs. The user would know which image is correct. An attacker not so much. The database doesn't know which one is correct, so cracking it doesn't add much value. You have to try the passwords at random and risk getting locked out. Would probably make hacking the password manager uneconomical unless you are a *very* high value target.
In summary, Amazon has created demand for more housing. That housing has appeared. Maybe the city didn't control growth well, but I don't see how that's Amazon's fault. The alternative would be a housing shortage where prices are insane, some people being pushed to homelessness and others having two hour commutes and all of the pollution that entails.
In short, if an area does well economically there are some challenges that are probably well worth the rewards. Not everybody will like it. They are free to move to an area with a weaker economy and make a profit on their housing in the process. Thanks for the insightful new information.
There seems to b general hate for subscription models here on./ but they actually make sense. When selling software a single purchase, the maintenance of that becomes a pure cost so there isn't incentive to do things like fix security holes (see the recent discussion on Android fragmentation). I know, for-profit companies should do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Single-purchase also facilitates piracy. Whether we like it or not, piracy is problematic exactly because those systems don't get updates and serve as launching pads for other malware. With subscription services, you either pay your bill to stay up-to-date, stop using the insecure computer, or switch to a free OS like say Linux. Some people will still find a way to pirate Windows, but overall we are way better off. The reality is that software needs huge amount of maintenance. It's not a capital asset and shouldn't be priced that way.
It's not that people *like* commuting it's that life's circumstances tend to force them into it. When you or your wife gets offered a promotion or big pay increase that requires you two to commute in opposite directions, it's likely that you will find yourself in a situation where you are a two-car household. Or perhaps you will have a kid. And one of you will take paternity/maternity leave. Is the non-working parent going to stay home with no transportation whatsoever? It *could* be done but most likely not. I'm not saying that *you* will end up in the typical situation, but that *most* people end up in two-car households. And in this scenario, having one of them as a Tesla would be just fine. You can actually commute the full-range of the Tesla if you can charge at the other end. Not *every* household will be a good potential customer for this vehicle. But that's not necessary. The point is that the target market is sufficiently large for this to be a practical item not a niche product.
Fair enough. There is a period of life between when the marriage happens and the kids come. You can still live in single people housing like condominiums. Once the kids come, though, its two cars and the suburbs. I realize not for everybody, but it generally happens, partially for the reasons that you cite. Not being able to park a second car doesn't work well when somebody switches jobs and they are in the opposite direction. Or when its necessary to drop the kids off at school. Or one parent takes maternity/paternity leave, etc. At some point, life's challenges make people two-car owners. And having one of them be an electric makes a lot of sense.
No, Amazon survives by evading paying sales tax. The difference, of course, is that Amazon actively evades collecting sales tax. Although Tesla takes advantage of the ZEV tax credits, they didn't lobby for them. California originally *required* all car companies to sell a certain % of zero-emission vehicles. A tax credit was provided to make it easy and encourage technology development. None of the exting car manufacturers could achieve that goal. Tesla rose to the challenge. So the law achieved exactly it's purpose. Whether that was a good idea or not is up for debate, but the California legislature set out to create a subsidy that would encourage ZEV sales and the law achieved its purpose. I don't see how we can fault anybody for that. I remember years ago people complaining that they couldn't buy California PZEVs if they didn't live in California. Duh!
Which is why we are all so interested. It's way less fun to watch the movie if you already know the ending. Of course, most movies are so predictable you might as well know what happens. Here is a story where we have to keep guessing. But as people interested in technology, we see the benefits that a mass-market electric vehicle will bring and hence the interest.
Slashdot Mirror
The US government may do as you describe. But I don't think it will matter to the drug traffickers or users! They will go about as if the restriction didn't exist.
Hopefully this reshapes our modern prohibition. Whether or not laws change, this stuff will now be manufactured in small facilities. No need to control large swaths of land. The opium farmers will go from terrorized to abandoned. Don't know whether that will be good for them or not. No more smuggling loads around the world. Just import some bacteria and start producing. Should increase competition in the market, too, and drive the price down. Less lucrative to control the inner city distribution points so those areas will go from terrorized to abandoned too. Should be interesting to see this unfold. I hope for the best.
I agree with your point. I don't think that polygraphs are good policy. It's also the case that government employees in certain situations can't have debts that exceed a certain percentage of their income. May or may not be a good policy. But if I were to help somebody try to hide their debts in this situation I would expect to face legal consequences. This doesn't seem to be about polygraphs per se but rather about the express purpose of helping people circumvent the processes that attempt to protect sensitive national information. If I teach somebody how to drive at high speeds, I'm not looking at any difficulties. If I encourage them to violate local speed limits, I should expect a consequence. Admittedly many commercial enterprises push this limit. I've seen commercials for street vehicles where they offer two days of race school if you purchase their car even though those skills of course aren't applicable. There's a piece of text in like a 2 point font at the bottom saying not to exceed posted limits. I wouldn't mind seeing those guys get into trouble But in this case, we are dealing with somebody who didn't even attempt to disguise his intent! In many matters of law, intent matters. And there wasn't even plausible deniability here. I'm not a lawyer and not beautiful enough to play one on TV
There may be people who will do this privately but the information can't be used in most contexts. Outside of government agencies in the US, they can't be used as a condition of employment. They can't be used as courtroom evidence. I guess my wife could think I'm cheating on her and if we wanted to spend our own resources we could pay somebody to operate a polygraph to help us settle it. And if I wanted to take a class on cheating the polygraph prior to doing this, probably nobody would care. On the other hand if I'm trying to cheat the test for purposes of circumventing a government procedure this is a different case. If he had asked all of his students to sign waivers that they wouldn't use their skillz to apply for government jobs, he may have been fine.
Seems that some metal charging contacts on the back of the devices would be the way to go. Cases could just have pass-through contacts as previously mentioned. Then you can just walk in somewhere, set your phone down on the table, and have electricity. No connectors that wear out. No crawling under tables for sockets. We managed to get all cars to have the same fuel filler holes. We got all phones to be micro-USB (thanks to European Union regulations) So this seems a logical next step. My guess is that the EU will adopt a contact charging standard that the device and case manufacturers have to use and then it will become ubiquitous
My Qi capable phones have *not* been able to charge with the cases on. At least not any reasonably substantial one. Why in the world I can't find a case that does have pass-through contacts is beyond me.
It's one small part of the background check when you apply for certain sensitive government jobs. It may not be a very effective part. However, having people take actions to compromise the background checks is a problem. Depending on what access somebody is potentially being given, these things range from almost nothing to very thorough interviews with close acquaintances. Pass and work for the government. Fail and move on. No harm no foul. But cheating is a different story.
I'm the first to stand up for first amendment rights even when the defendant isn't very sympathetic. But this isn't a case of undesirable political speech. It's a business whose only product is helping people produce altered polygraph results and polygraphs are only used by government agencies. There aren't any substantial other uses for these classes. I don't think that the use of polygraphs in government employment is good policy. I don't think that prosecuting this guy is good policy. I'd like to see the whole ridiculous polygraph go away. If it is going to stay, I'd like to see candidates have to disclose whether or not they had researched how to beat the test. Prosecute anybody who takes his class and lies about it. Don't hire anybody who takes the class and admit it. If somebody posted the information for free online and got prosecuted I would be concerned. But it would be ridiculous to use these tests and then just have all of the candidates take the class ahead of time. Just defeats the purpose while adding inefficiency to the process.
I'm not sure I understand your comment. If there is no consumer surplus, no transactions will occur and everybody will be out of work. Maybe you meant producer surplus but that would lead to the same thing. We need there to be both consumer and producer surplus in order to have transactions. Raising minimum wage gets rids of some very marginal transactions that have very little value in order to shift some producer surplus to workers. I consider this a good thing. Others may not. But I think the economics here are at least grossly understood. We may argue about some of the constants but I don't think there is any controversy in the formulas.
No compete is not the same as no-solicitation. Looks like I will have to copy and paste this all around the discussion.
Everyone is saying that non-competes aren't enforceable in California (and many other places) But non-solicitation is enforceable almost everywhere. If Apple were to hire people improperly solicited, it would be along the lines of tortious interference. I am not a lawyer and I'm not beautiful enough to play one on TV.
My guess is that the turnover in these places is so high that the trainees aren't much behind the regulars. I've never called Comcast.
Right now if you follow a new source on FB you get a little summary in your news feed. Then you click to the publisher's web site to read the story. In the new system, the content will be served up by Facebook without you actually visiting the third-party web site. From a user standpoint there may not be a big difference here. The /. crowd worries abut things like FB taking over the world. There's probably a legitimate concern with that. From a UI standpoint, an update by the New York Times isn't any different than an update from my nephew. From a security standpoint, it seems good that entire pages are served from the same domain and that the links point back to that same server. Less concern about a link to NewYorkT1mes leading me to trouble. You can still go to the publisher sites directly to read their stories but if you like using FB as a news aggregator this is an improvement. It's not a very *good* news aggregator but sounds like this is an attempt to change that. I'd love something that serves up news that I *care* about or, more specifically, news in proportion to how much I care about it. I might read one paragraph on what's happening in Yemen (seems to be an intractable problem where tactical updates don't really change the fundamentals) a sentence on DeflateGate but an entire long-format story on how school lunches affect education.
For some pilots, it's part of the job description! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
Most $8/hr workers generate well more than $15/hr in value to their employers. An increase in minimum wage would let them have things like dental care. There are some businesses that have almost no margin and would be damaged by this. Another way of describing those businesses is that they aren't adding much economic value. Value - Price = benefit to consumer. Price - Cost = benefit to producer. If value and price are very close, not much consumer surplus is being generated. It is true that many poor people today are better off in some regards than years ago. You have a mobile phone and an iPad and we live in an era of cheap food. But you're also cut off from our shared culture. So it creates two separate societies which is corrosive. I guess some people don't care, but I find it hard to enjoy things knowing that it comes at the expense of people not being able to provide healthcare for their children. That doesn't mean to feel guilty for being successful but rather having the willingness to give back.
Are you really saying that children with learning disabilities or special needs should be denied an education? The costs per pupil may be high but there's a relatively small number of them. How you got modded anything but Troll is shocking to me. What do you want to do with these kids? Not give them an education and institutionalize them their whole lives? Let them starve in gutters. Really?
Have the password manager generate multiple passwords for each site. Associate each one with a randomly selected image. When the user wants to retrieve the password from the password manager, show all of the images and associated passwords. User will know which password is the correct one and which are equally-random gibberish. However, anybody cracking the database has a set of key-value pairs. The user would know which image is correct. An attacker not so much. The database doesn't know which one is correct, so cracking it doesn't add much value. You have to try the passwords at random and risk getting locked out. Would probably make hacking the password manager uneconomical unless you are a *very* high value target.
In summary, Amazon has created demand for more housing. That housing has appeared. Maybe the city didn't control growth well, but I don't see how that's Amazon's fault. The alternative would be a housing shortage where prices are insane, some people being pushed to homelessness and others having two hour commutes and all of the pollution that entails. In short, if an area does well economically there are some challenges that are probably well worth the rewards. Not everybody will like it. They are free to move to an area with a weaker economy and make a profit on their housing in the process. Thanks for the insightful new information.
There seems to b general hate for subscription models here on ./ but they actually make sense. When selling software a single purchase, the maintenance of that becomes a pure cost so there isn't incentive to do things like fix security holes (see the recent discussion on Android fragmentation). I know, for-profit companies should do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Single-purchase also facilitates piracy. Whether we like it or not, piracy is problematic exactly because those systems don't get updates and serve as launching pads for other malware. With subscription services, you either pay your bill to stay up-to-date, stop using the insecure computer, or switch to a free OS like say Linux. Some people will still find a way to pirate Windows, but overall we are way better off. The reality is that software needs huge amount of maintenance. It's not a capital asset and shouldn't be priced that way.
Microsoft Windows OS X! Then they can have versions 10.1, 10.2, et cetera. Maybe name the releases after animals!
It's not that people *like* commuting it's that life's circumstances tend to force them into it. When you or your wife gets offered a promotion or big pay increase that requires you two to commute in opposite directions, it's likely that you will find yourself in a situation where you are a two-car household. Or perhaps you will have a kid. And one of you will take paternity/maternity leave. Is the non-working parent going to stay home with no transportation whatsoever? It *could* be done but most likely not. I'm not saying that *you* will end up in the typical situation, but that *most* people end up in two-car households. And in this scenario, having one of them as a Tesla would be just fine. You can actually commute the full-range of the Tesla if you can charge at the other end. Not *every* household will be a good potential customer for this vehicle. But that's not necessary. The point is that the target market is sufficiently large for this to be a practical item not a niche product.
Fair enough. There is a period of life between when the marriage happens and the kids come. You can still live in single people housing like condominiums. Once the kids come, though, its two cars and the suburbs. I realize not for everybody, but it generally happens, partially for the reasons that you cite. Not being able to park a second car doesn't work well when somebody switches jobs and they are in the opposite direction. Or when its necessary to drop the kids off at school. Or one parent takes maternity/paternity leave, etc. At some point, life's challenges make people two-car owners. And having one of them be an electric makes a lot of sense.
That's less than 50%. All of the other retailers their size collect in all 50 states where they do business.
No, Amazon survives by evading paying sales tax. The difference, of course, is that Amazon actively evades collecting sales tax. Although Tesla takes advantage of the ZEV tax credits, they didn't lobby for them. California originally *required* all car companies to sell a certain % of zero-emission vehicles. A tax credit was provided to make it easy and encourage technology development. None of the exting car manufacturers could achieve that goal. Tesla rose to the challenge. So the law achieved exactly it's purpose. Whether that was a good idea or not is up for debate, but the California legislature set out to create a subsidy that would encourage ZEV sales and the law achieved its purpose. I don't see how we can fault anybody for that. I remember years ago people complaining that they couldn't buy California PZEVs if they didn't live in California. Duh!
Which is why we are all so interested. It's way less fun to watch the movie if you already know the ending. Of course, most movies are so predictable you might as well know what happens. Here is a story where we have to keep guessing. But as people interested in technology, we see the benefits that a mass-market electric vehicle will bring and hence the interest.