> A real recycle program, not one where you have to pay to get the stuff taken away
Or worse, a recycle program where you have to drive somewhere to drop it off. For instance, currently in my area, although we have curbside recycling for glass and some plastics and cardboard, there's currently no way to recycle CFLs that doesn't involve driving to a recycling center. Besides wasted fuel and emissions, the collateral damage of this is that most people just throw CFLs away and the mercury ends up in landfill. And groundwater.
Yup. Given the choice of an 80 mile round trip to a location that is only open M-F during normal business hours and tossing them in the trash guess which one gets picked? Ultimately I think one solution would be to require the manufacturer to take back and arrange for recycling or proper disposal. That would add to the upfront cost but eliminate a lot of back end problems. Of course, manufacturers will whine about the cost but I think bottle deposit laws are a good example of what may happen. Bottlers complained but when states tried to take over rte program they resisted because they were taking in more deposit money than they were paying out and spending to run the program.
free software enslaves the developer by forcing them to work for someone else without any choice or compensation.
Nope; nobody is forced to write free software, and RMS wanted developers to earn good livings. RMS used to ask, at his talks, how many developers were paid based on their software being sold, and it was usually a small part of the audience. Most developers are paid to cover specific needs their employers have, and would be paid no matter what the license. We tend to forget that because the most visible software is proprietary, sold by all sorts of stores and websites, but these are the exceptions.
Correct, which is also true for proprietary software and thus points out that proprietary software "enslaves users" argument is bogus. Since just as no one forces anyone to write free software no one forces anyone to use proprietary software. The existence of both widens choice rather than limit it; which was my point and why I took the "enslaves user" argument and turned it around to "enslaves developers" to show how ridiculous it is.
A real recycle program, not one where you have to pay to get the stuff taken away, combined with more use of bioplastics might help if combined with industrial composting. Trying to make the existing stuff doesn't solve the problem; namely that we simply throw it away and bury it.
If you are sophisticated enough to intercept shipments to known addresses what is to stop you from intercepting those to unknown ones and ignoring those to good addresses. It's a bit different than saying lets get boxes to X and ignore YZ to get any not going to YZ? More labor intensive, but some cross referencing of unknown addresses and intel work could still allow an intercept operation to continue.
Alternatively, a little human engineering where a big buyer of Cisco products in the US government says "Fine. Good idea. Customers will think we can't get at the boxes. Now, let us know the drop box addresses so we can continue doing this."
Alternatively, overseas shipments to odd addresses could be delayed while Customs makes sure they don't violate any export agreements..."
Not being able to develop proprietary software means my choice to control what I create is removed from me, and thus I am less free. Being able to chose to develop proprietary software in no way limits anyone's ability to develop free software and thus the existence of both implies a greater degree of freedom than envisioned by those exposing a world with only free software.
Free software is not about freedom for the developer. It's about freedom for the user. Closed software enslaves the user. They own their device, but their device obeys the software developer, not the user.
Is a world in which you are not allowed to own slaves less free? I suppose, in a "freer," but perverse, world you'd be free to enslave others.
Bullshit. No one is forcing you to use proprietary software; the user has complete freedom to chose what type of software to use. To use your argument, free software enslaves the developer by forcing them to work for someone else without any choice or compensation. In that reverse free world yo are free to enslave others under the guise of freedom. Welcome, citizen, to the new free world. We have been at war with Eastasia forever.
It'll be interesting to see how that shakes out. I used to be medallion was a way to make a lot of money. What other asset worth hundreds of thousands could you sell to someone with virtually no credit, let alone the assets to cover a note like that? The beauty of it was the medallion was easily repossessed by prying it off the hood and was growing in value as well; and easy to resell. The borrower, OTOH, was likely to pay for the medallion first since they stood to lose everything if it was repossessed. You could get a better return than simply sticking the money in a government bond yet is was almost as risk free. If you did repossess it you were likely to get a better monthly payment than before as well since it was now worth more. As for the borrower, they medallion was a form of retirement savings. Even if yo never paid off the loan and made interest only payments, by the time you retire and resold it you had a nice profit that was your retirement fund; depending on how long you owned it you probably made more on the sale than you did in years of driving a cab. For cab company owners. it's the same deal except multiplied by numerous medallions. That's a lot of money at risk from Uber et. al.Balck Sedans were never that much of a threat because of their pricing and service model, but Uber strikes right at their customer base and is going after the next generation of customers as more and more younger people start working in cities and use cabs or Uber for rides.
A lot of software developers are doing what RMS says a lot of time. It's just that almost noone does it all the time.
It's clearly evident from the amount of GNU and GPL software out there that wasn't written by RMS that people are following his ideas. And that those ideas have succeeded, simply by the success of that same software in the marketplace.
It's not a failure of the ideal when developers of open source also write proprietary software to pay the bills.
I agree; especially if your really value freedom, i.e. the ability make your own choice about what you want to do rather than be forced to comply with one set of restrictions or another on your freedom to chose. RMS ideals, at their core, are about restricting your ability to make a choice, a more fundamental freedom, IMHO, than being free from proprietary software. Not being able to develop proprietary software means my choice to control what I create is removed from me, and thus I am less free. Being able to chose to develop proprietary software in no way limits anyone's ability to develop free software and thus the existence of both implies a greater degree of freedom than envisioned by those exposing a world with only free software.
If the same economics drove it you'd see prices converge to cab prices.
Except that the operating costs for taxi drivers are heavily driven by the cost of the medallion (at least half of the per shift lease fee for an NYC taxi goes to generate a return to the medallion holder, not cover the purchase and maintenance cost of the vehicle). Uber takes that out of the equation, so that it's feasible to see drivers making more money working the same # of hours.
Exactly, which is why I said the economics of a cab are different than Uber's. A cab has a high fixed cost and thus the driver needs to cover that cost, even if it means taking 20 short trips instead of fewer longer ones. Short trips may even be better if the driver could be assured of minimal time between them. The driver has a number they need to hit on their shift to cover costs and make money, so they have an incentive to stay as busy as possible. The Uber drive doesn't have such high fixed costs, so their incentive i.e. more likely to make a minimum amount per trip since they are trading time for money. They don't have to worry about covering the cost of a medallion so they have much more flexibility in deciding when and how much to work so Uber pays a premium, over what a cab might pay, to keep drivers available. If an Uber drive is only making say $5 a trip and has to drop everything to d a pickup blocks away they may decide it simply isn't worth it and pack it in; whereas a cab still has cost to cover even if they pack it in.
I think the real concern with cab companies is the threat Uber is to the value of a medallion. If you've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a medallion, and are counting on it going up in value over time, anything that threatens that value must be crushed. If Uber were able to significantly dent cab demand in NYC and cab drivers decided to buy their own car to drive for Uber and not lease a cab, medallions would decline in value and people who have invested in them would lose serious money. Thus, they fight Uber on every front possible to keep it from becoming a serious threat; just like they fight attempts to increase the number of medallions.
Similarly, the app that compares Uber prices to cabs is a threat to Uber. Their user base is already used to using technology and this now gives them a way to compare prices and decide which option to chose; which could limit Uber's ability to charge a premium and make their model work. I would not be surprised to see Uber try to stop the app from getting uber prices by any means possible.
The driver has no way of knowing how long of a trip you are taking until you get in their car. At that point they can't kick you out (well, they *can*, but if they make a habit of them, uber will fire them).
Besides, short fares aren't bad unless you have to drive a long way to pick them up. Like a yellow cab, there is a flag pull fee just for sitting down in the cab. A half mile ride is worth like 75% of a mile ride. Payment is instant in the app, so its not like you lose time while they fish for money, give change, etc.
While a driver may not have knowledge of a particular trip they will, over time, develop a picture of what trips are likely to be and use that to base a decision on wether to be available for assignment. If they do not think they will make enough on trips they simply will not make themselves available; thus Uber, in order to have sufficient drivers, charges more in order to make taking trips, which may be short trips, attractive enough for drivers.If Uber paid drivers closer to what taxi drivers make on a trip it would be a lot harder to get and keep Uber drivers because after some number of low paid trips they would decide it's not worth it.
Huh? How can Uber drivers self-select out of short trips if they don't know where the trip is going? Also, the system doesn't work that was, as I understand it. Drivers hit the on duty button on the app, then they're available, until they hit off duty. If they get an assignment, they can in theory turn it down, but do that more than a few times, and you'll be dropped off the system.
It's not so much short trips as low paying trips, which normally would be a short trip. If Uber charged near what a cab would for trips they probably would not get many drivers as they pay would be relatively low and thus drivers would simply not make themselves available. I think it has much to do with the business model. Uber bills itself, to drivers, as a way to make money with their car. The drivers are already paying for it and use it for more than making money and thus need a higher level of payment to driver for Uber than a cab driver; who is usually renting th vehicle at a fixed price for a fixed period and thus wants as much traffic as possible so he can cover his cost and make some money. The cab driver is out cash when turning down trips but the Uber driver isn't since they lack the same sense of "this is costing me x dollars per shift" mentality.
Fair enough. However, in such cases the Uber driver has the ability not to be available and thus Uber must raises prices to the point drivers are willing to pickup fares; so drivers self select out of the short trips or they cost a lot more.
Cab fares are regulated and based on distance traveled; at least for most trips. Uber drivers are unlikely to want to drive to pick somebody up for a $5 fare while a cab that drive by will pickup the passenger since they are there anyway. It's an opportunistic transaction for the cabby, that unless they have a more valuable fare they think they will get before dropping off the short trip, it makes sense for them to take the trip even if it is only a $5 fare. In auditor, unlike an Uber driver the cab driver has no way, in advance, of knowing where a fare is going, unless it is a call in, while the Uber driver does. Thus, with more information the Uber driver can eliminate fares a cab cannot; or can charge more in order to be willing to take the fare.
"... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- Amendment IV
Our very Constitution says quite explicitly they aren't allowed to issue warrants for "unknown" locations.
That's a very interesting question. Is place equal to location? You could argue it isn't, since a warrant to search a vehicle or ship; eighth if which could be in multiple locations over time, or even have an unknown location, yet still be a specific place to be searched. In a computer warrant, you could conceivably identify the computer to be searched without identifying its physical location. If you require a geographical location to issue a warrant you would not be able to search a laptop, for example, once it is moved from the location, for example. So, while removing jurisdictional limits has problems violating the Constitution probably is not one of them.
Aren't regulations great? When they're no longer convenient they can just *Poof!* make them disappear. When it is convenient to have a new regulation, *Poof!* it appears just as easily.
We need less regulatory fiat in our government. This is the kind of stuff that should be codified into law.
It is. Congress authorizes and agency to exercise certain powers and to use regulation to carry out that authorization. If they overstep their power then the courts get to decide what they can and can't do; or Congress changes the law.
"but I voted independant!" you say. yeah, how much good did that do? seriously? what did it accomplish?
The problem is that not enough people are voting for third parties. As I understand it, if at least 15% (I think) of the vote goes to a third party, suddenly things change, as that party becomes eligible for federal campaign financing, a spot in the debates, and other perks. Basically the system shuts out anyone that's too small, meaning too little of the vote. So if enough people would actually start voting for third parties, then we might start seeing some change. But no one wants to bother.
Most people who lend some vocal support say they don't vote third party because they don't want their vote "wasted", or to effectively count for "the other guy", who's even worse, so they're "voting for the lesser of two evils". The problem is, in most states, the outcome is already predetermined at the general election. Most states are not swing states. So if you're in a non-swing state, you can safely vote third party without worrying that you're helping the worse of two evils get elected. For instance, if you live in Arizona or Alabama or Oklahoma and you think Dems are the lesser evil, you're really wasting your vote on a Democrat presidential candidate because there's zero chance those states will turn blue. If half the Dem voters in those states voted for, say, the Green Party, we'd really start seeing some interesting politics.
You're focusing on the wrong arena to affect change. Sure, a 3rd party president would deb ground breaking; but the odds are stacked against such an outcome. At the local level, however, things are different.You can elect council members, state representatives, Congressional representatives,and maybe the odd Senator. Do that, and you get noticed. Elect enough and you can hold enough power to decide which party becomes the majority party. Then you can affect change.
This is exactly what it is. Already compromised cards being added as payment token. Banks are supposed to follow a protocol called "Yellow path" to prevent this fraud, but since everyone wants their ApplePay to work right away without having to call a call center, a lot of banks are lenient on the security checks. This is not a problem with Apple's technology, or the secure element on the phone, or the fingerprint reader. This is a bank allowing a card to be added to an ewallet, presumably because the party adding the card has all the relevant info (stolen identity) to make it work.
Here's what I don't understand. ApplePay is tied to a specific phone and has, or should have, access to user specific identification that it can share with the bank. If that doesn't match with the banks info, such as phone number on the account, then they could refuse ApplePay. They could send an email to the card holder or call an alternate phone number to verify the card is not compromised, or refuse to activate the card if a second phone with a spoofed phone number attempts to activate. They also have access to location data and use that to refuse ApplePay; in fact with the iPhone they can get data real time on card use and location
It seems they have more, not less, information available to validate a card is in fact being used by the cardholder. If ease of use is so important than they'll have to live with a higher fraud rate.
See there's a not often remembered problem with horses and population density.
Shit. Yes, that's the problem, not just me being rude.
Exactly. It's also the reason some US east coast cities, such as New York, have high stoops on their homes; it elevate 2015-03-16eh entrance above the piles of horse manure on the street. Cars were seen as a non-polluting alternative to horses and an answer to grid lock; as well as safer since getting run over by a horse was a not uncommon occurrence.
People are surprised that their are two many studies when when we keep pumping out academics who need to publish in the field lest they perish? That's like saying we're installing too many toilets because most only get used a handful of times.
You might as well try to stop the tide from coming in. The case in question was a tweet after the test was taken; not during the test. If Pearson is so worried about the test integrity and question confidentiality then completely re-write all the questions so they are new, vet the instrument to be sure it measures what you claim it measures (which is a whole argument in and of itself), and administer a new test every time. Of course, that costs a lot of money so it's easier, and much cheaper, to raise a "Priority 1 Alert" (Danger Danger Will Robinson) and put the onus on the school and student.
It's just another symptom of a badly broken, but financially lucrative, testing system out of control. It's not no child left behind but no teacher left standing.
One of the key parts of the story point out one of the realities of engineering; many engineers work in jobs that are outside of their degree field:P>
Electrical engineers have likely moved into other fields, such as software engineering, or to other engineering areas such as aerospace, or to Wall Street, among other occupations.
While it goes on to say some are no longer employed; with a 2% unemployment rate chances are if you are an EE, looking for an EE job, you have a job.
One of the challenges firms looking to hire engineers, at least a few years back, was competing with non-engineering firms for workers. I remember engineering companies complaining about Wall Street hiring engineers (and scientists) and how horrible that was; well pay salaries like on the Street and you can get all the engineers you want. Shortages of employees is usually from an unwillingness to pay what it takes to get the employees you want rather than a true shortage. That's not always the case but withe employees having had a buyer's market over the last fews years it's usually a safe bet that it is the case.
Seems the solution for Vietnam would be all to easy: Simply remind the US that you kicked their asses and took that base fair and square and that if they have a problem with it, they are free to come back over and have their "operation freedom" shoved up their ass all over again because they are allied with both Russia and China and the party raising most of the tensions in the "region" is the US who keeps demanding that the world do as it says or "else".
Sure, and Vietnam could give up about 20 billion in export surplus with the US. We are #2 in trade behind china and Vietnam has a trade surplus with us, unlike with China. They, unfortunately, are the little guy stuck between three powers.
Maybe it is just that people are for freedom on things that know about and for control on things they -don't- know about?
Possibly, o more about freedom on things they value or think is right while controlling others on things they don't think are valuable or that are bad. For example, people value free speech when what they agree with is said by want to stop others from saying things they disagree with or think is bad speech. Or, they are all for property rights and should be allowed to do what they want on or with their property until someone wants to build a strip club next door. They want the government's broadsword to be a fine rapier that only cuts others but not them when it is swung.
Slashdot Mirror
> A real recycle program, not one where you have to pay to get the stuff taken away
Or worse, a recycle program where you have to drive somewhere to drop it off. For instance, currently in my area, although we have curbside recycling for glass and some plastics and cardboard, there's currently no way to recycle CFLs that doesn't involve driving to a recycling center. Besides wasted fuel and emissions, the collateral damage of this is that most people just throw CFLs away and the mercury ends up in landfill. And groundwater.
Yup. Given the choice of an 80 mile round trip to a location that is only open M-F during normal business hours and tossing them in the trash guess which one gets picked? Ultimately I think one solution would be to require the manufacturer to take back and arrange for recycling or proper disposal. That would add to the upfront cost but eliminate a lot of back end problems. Of course, manufacturers will whine about the cost but I think bottle deposit laws are a good example of what may happen. Bottlers complained but when states tried to take over rte program they resisted because they were taking in more deposit money than they were paying out and spending to run the program.
Nope; nobody is forced to write free software, and RMS wanted developers to earn good livings. RMS used to ask, at his talks, how many developers were paid based on their software being sold, and it was usually a small part of the audience. Most developers are paid to cover specific needs their employers have, and would be paid no matter what the license. We tend to forget that because the most visible software is proprietary, sold by all sorts of stores and websites, but these are the exceptions.
Correct, which is also true for proprietary software and thus points out that proprietary software "enslaves users" argument is bogus. Since just as no one forces anyone to write free software no one forces anyone to use proprietary software. The existence of both widens choice rather than limit it; which was my point and why I took the "enslaves user" argument and turned it around to "enslaves developers" to show how ridiculous it is.
A real recycle program, not one where you have to pay to get the stuff taken away, combined with more use of bioplastics might help if combined with industrial composting. Trying to make the existing stuff doesn't solve the problem; namely that we simply throw it away and bury it.
If you are sophisticated enough to intercept shipments to known addresses what is to stop you from intercepting those to unknown ones and ignoring those to good addresses. It's a bit different than saying lets get boxes to X and ignore YZ to get any not going to YZ? More labor intensive, but some cross referencing of unknown addresses and intel work could still allow an intercept operation to continue.
Alternatively, a little human engineering where a big buyer of Cisco products in the US government says "Fine. Good idea. Customers will think we can't get at the boxes. Now, let us know the drop box addresses so we can continue doing this."
Alternatively, overseas shipments to odd addresses could be delayed while Customs makes sure they don't violate any export agreements..."
Wrong. The software developer is not forced to develop software at all.
and users aren't forced to use proprietary software either...
Not being able to develop proprietary software means my choice to control what I create is removed from me, and thus I am less free. Being able to chose to develop proprietary software in no way limits anyone's ability to develop free software and thus the existence of both implies a greater degree of freedom than envisioned by those exposing a world with only free software.
Free software is not about freedom for the developer. It's about freedom for the user. Closed software enslaves the user. They own their device, but their device obeys the software developer, not the user.
Is a world in which you are not allowed to own slaves less free? I suppose, in a "freer," but perverse, world you'd be free to enslave others.
Bullshit. No one is forcing you to use proprietary software; the user has complete freedom to chose what type of software to use. To use your argument, free software enslaves the developer by forcing them to work for someone else without any choice or compensation. In that reverse free world yo are free to enslave others under the guise of freedom. Welcome, citizen, to the new free world. We have been at war with Eastasia forever.
I think the real concern with cab companies is the threat Uber is to the value of a medallion.
100% agree, and it looks like this is already happening.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...
It'll be interesting to see how that shakes out. I used to be medallion was a way to make a lot of money. What other asset worth hundreds of thousands could you sell to someone with virtually no credit, let alone the assets to cover a note like that? The beauty of it was the medallion was easily repossessed by prying it off the hood and was growing in value as well; and easy to resell. The borrower, OTOH, was likely to pay for the medallion first since they stood to lose everything if it was repossessed. You could get a better return than simply sticking the money in a government bond yet is was almost as risk free. If you did repossess it you were likely to get a better monthly payment than before as well since it was now worth more. As for the borrower, they medallion was a form of retirement savings. Even if yo never paid off the loan and made interest only payments, by the time you retire and resold it you had a nice profit that was your retirement fund; depending on how long you owned it you probably made more on the sale than you did in years of driving a cab. For cab company owners. it's the same deal except multiplied by numerous medallions. That's a lot of money at risk from Uber et. al.Balck Sedans were never that much of a threat because of their pricing and service model, but Uber strikes right at their customer base and is going after the next generation of customers as more and more younger people start working in cities and use cabs or Uber for rides.
A lot of software developers are doing what RMS says a lot of time. It's just that almost noone does it all the time.
It's clearly evident from the amount of GNU and GPL software out there that wasn't written by RMS that people are following his ideas. And that those ideas have succeeded, simply by the success of that same software in the marketplace.
It's not a failure of the ideal when developers of open source also write proprietary software to pay the bills.
I agree; especially if your really value freedom, i.e. the ability make your own choice about what you want to do rather than be forced to comply with one set of restrictions or another on your freedom to chose. RMS ideals, at their core, are about restricting your ability to make a choice, a more fundamental freedom, IMHO, than being free from proprietary software. Not being able to develop proprietary software means my choice to control what I create is removed from me, and thus I am less free. Being able to chose to develop proprietary software in no way limits anyone's ability to develop free software and thus the existence of both implies a greater degree of freedom than envisioned by those exposing a world with only free software.
If the same economics drove it you'd see prices converge to cab prices.
Except that the operating costs for taxi drivers are heavily driven by the cost of the medallion (at least half of the per shift lease fee for an NYC taxi goes to generate a return to the medallion holder, not cover the purchase and maintenance cost of the vehicle). Uber takes that out of the equation, so that it's feasible to see drivers making more money working the same # of hours.
Exactly, which is why I said the economics of a cab are different than Uber's. A cab has a high fixed cost and thus the driver needs to cover that cost, even if it means taking 20 short trips instead of fewer longer ones. Short trips may even be better if the driver could be assured of minimal time between them. The driver has a number they need to hit on their shift to cover costs and make money, so they have an incentive to stay as busy as possible. The Uber drive doesn't have such high fixed costs, so their incentive i.e. more likely to make a minimum amount per trip since they are trading time for money. They don't have to worry about covering the cost of a medallion so they have much more flexibility in deciding when and how much to work so Uber pays a premium, over what a cab might pay, to keep drivers available. If an Uber drive is only making say $5 a trip and has to drop everything to d a pickup blocks away they may decide it simply isn't worth it and pack it in; whereas a cab still has cost to cover even if they pack it in.
I think the real concern with cab companies is the threat Uber is to the value of a medallion. If you've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a medallion, and are counting on it going up in value over time, anything that threatens that value must be crushed. If Uber were able to significantly dent cab demand in NYC and cab drivers decided to buy their own car to drive for Uber and not lease a cab, medallions would decline in value and people who have invested in them would lose serious money. Thus, they fight Uber on every front possible to keep it from becoming a serious threat; just like they fight attempts to increase the number of medallions.
Similarly, the app that compares Uber prices to cabs is a threat to Uber. Their user base is already used to using technology and this now gives them a way to compare prices and decide which option to chose; which could limit Uber's ability to charge a premium and make their model work. I would not be surprised to see Uber try to stop the app from getting uber prices by any means possible.
What?
The driver has no way of knowing how long of a trip you are taking until you get in their car. At that point they can't kick you out (well, they *can*, but if they make a habit of them, uber will fire them).
Besides, short fares aren't bad unless you have to drive a long way to pick them up. Like a yellow cab, there is a flag pull fee just for sitting down in the cab. A half mile ride is worth like 75% of a mile ride. Payment is instant in the app, so its not like you lose time while they fish for money, give change, etc.
While a driver may not have knowledge of a particular trip they will, over time, develop a picture of what trips are likely to be and use that to base a decision on wether to be available for assignment. If they do not think they will make enough on trips they simply will not make themselves available; thus Uber, in order to have sufficient drivers, charges more in order to make taking trips, which may be short trips, attractive enough for drivers.If Uber paid drivers closer to what taxi drivers make on a trip it would be a lot harder to get and keep Uber drivers because after some number of low paid trips they would decide it's not worth it.
Again, in NYC, all Uber cars (including UberX) are commercial vehicles with drivers who have TLC licenses.
Which is irrelevent to the underlying economic decision making process. If the same economics drove it you'd see prices converge to cab prices.
Huh? How can Uber drivers self-select out of short trips if they don't know where the trip is going? Also, the system doesn't work that was, as I understand it. Drivers hit the on duty button on the app, then they're available, until they hit off duty. If they get an assignment, they can in theory turn it down, but do that more than a few times, and you'll be dropped off the system.
It's not so much short trips as low paying trips, which normally would be a short trip. If Uber charged near what a cab would for trips they probably would not get many drivers as they pay would be relatively low and thus drivers would simply not make themselves available. I think it has much to do with the business model. Uber bills itself, to drivers, as a way to make money with their car. The drivers are already paying for it and use it for more than making money and thus need a higher level of payment to driver for Uber than a cab driver; who is usually renting th vehicle at a fixed price for a fixed period and thus wants as much traffic as possible so he can cover his cost and make some money. The cab driver is out cash when turning down trips but the Uber driver isn't since they lack the same sense of "this is costing me x dollars per shift" mentality.
Fair enough. However, in such cases the Uber driver has the ability not to be available and thus Uber must raises prices to the point drivers are willing to pickup fares; so drivers self select out of the short trips or they cost a lot more.
Cab fares are regulated and based on distance traveled; at least for most trips. Uber drivers are unlikely to want to drive to pick somebody up for a $5 fare while a cab that drive by will pickup the passenger since they are there anyway. It's an opportunistic transaction for the cabby, that unless they have a more valuable fare they think they will get before dropping off the short trip, it makes sense for them to take the trip even if it is only a $5 fare. In auditor, unlike an Uber driver the cab driver has no way, in advance, of knowing where a fare is going, unless it is a call in, while the Uber driver does. Thus, with more information the Uber driver can eliminate fares a cab cannot; or can charge more in order to be willing to take the fare.
"... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." -- Amendment IV
Our very Constitution says quite explicitly they aren't allowed to issue warrants for "unknown" locations.
That's a very interesting question. Is place equal to location? You could argue it isn't, since a warrant to search a vehicle or ship; eighth if which could be in multiple locations over time, or even have an unknown location, yet still be a specific place to be searched. In a computer warrant, you could conceivably identify the computer to be searched without identifying its physical location. If you require a geographical location to issue a warrant you would not be able to search a laptop, for example, once it is moved from the location, for example. So, while removing jurisdictional limits has problems violating the Constitution probably is not one of them.
Aren't regulations great? When they're no longer convenient they can just *Poof!* make them disappear. When it is convenient to have a new regulation, *Poof!* it appears just as easily.
We need less regulatory fiat in our government. This is the kind of stuff that should be codified into law.
It is. Congress authorizes and agency to exercise certain powers and to use regulation to carry out that authorization. If they overstep their power then the courts get to decide what they can and can't do; or Congress changes the law.
"but I voted independant!" you say. yeah, how much good did that do? seriously? what did it accomplish?
The problem is that not enough people are voting for third parties. As I understand it, if at least 15% (I think) of the vote goes to a third party, suddenly things change, as that party becomes eligible for federal campaign financing, a spot in the debates, and other perks. Basically the system shuts out anyone that's too small, meaning too little of the vote. So if enough people would actually start voting for third parties, then we might start seeing some change. But no one wants to bother.
Most people who lend some vocal support say they don't vote third party because they don't want their vote "wasted", or to effectively count for "the other guy", who's even worse, so they're "voting for the lesser of two evils". The problem is, in most states, the outcome is already predetermined at the general election. Most states are not swing states. So if you're in a non-swing state, you can safely vote third party without worrying that you're helping the worse of two evils get elected. For instance, if you live in Arizona or Alabama or Oklahoma and you think Dems are the lesser evil, you're really wasting your vote on a Democrat presidential candidate because there's zero chance those states will turn blue. If half the Dem voters in those states voted for, say, the Green Party, we'd really start seeing some interesting politics.
You're focusing on the wrong arena to affect change. Sure, a 3rd party president would deb ground breaking; but the odds are stacked against such an outcome. At the local level, however, things are different.You can elect council members, state representatives, Congressional representatives,and maybe the odd Senator. Do that, and you get noticed. Elect enough and you can hold enough power to decide which party becomes the majority party. Then you can affect change.
This is exactly what it is. Already compromised cards being added as payment token. Banks are supposed to follow a protocol called "Yellow path" to prevent this fraud, but since everyone wants their ApplePay to work right away without having to call a call center, a lot of banks are lenient on the security checks. This is not a problem with Apple's technology, or the secure element on the phone, or the fingerprint reader. This is a bank allowing a card to be added to an ewallet, presumably because the party adding the card has all the relevant info (stolen identity) to make it work.
Here's what I don't understand. ApplePay is tied to a specific phone and has, or should have, access to user specific identification that it can share with the bank. If that doesn't match with the banks info, such as phone number on the account, then they could refuse ApplePay. They could send an email to the card holder or call an alternate phone number to verify the card is not compromised, or refuse to activate the card if a second phone with a spoofed phone number attempts to activate. They also have access to location data and use that to refuse ApplePay; in fact with the iPhone they can get data real time on card use and location
It seems they have more, not less, information available to validate a card is in fact being used by the cardholder. If ease of use is so important than they'll have to live with a higher fraud rate.
it elevate 2015-03-16eh entrance above the piles of horse manure on the street.
*blink* I think I still understood what you were saying, I just don't understand what happened there.
Auto correct took a misspelling and decided I was trying to enter a date and I missed it. I really should proofread...
It's called a horse.
See there's a not often remembered problem with horses and population density.
Shit. Yes, that's the problem, not just me being rude.
Exactly. It's also the reason some US east coast cities, such as New York, have high stoops on their homes; it elevate 2015-03-16eh entrance above the piles of horse manure on the street. Cars were seen as a non-polluting alternative to horses and an answer to grid lock; as well as safer since getting run over by a horse was a not uncommon occurrence.
People are surprised that their are two many studies when when we keep pumping out academics who need to publish in the field lest they perish? That's like saying we're installing too many toilets because most only get used a handful of times.
You might as well try to stop the tide from coming in. The case in question was a tweet after the test was taken; not during the test. If Pearson is so worried about the test integrity and question confidentiality then completely re-write all the questions so they are new, vet the instrument to be sure it measures what you claim it measures (which is a whole argument in and of itself), and administer a new test every time. Of course, that costs a lot of money so it's easier, and much cheaper, to raise a "Priority 1 Alert" (Danger Danger Will Robinson) and put the onus on the school and student.
It's just another symptom of a badly broken, but financially lucrative, testing system out of control. It's not no child left behind but no teacher left standing.
One of the key parts of the story point out one of the realities of engineering; many engineers work in jobs that are outside of their degree field:P>
Electrical engineers have likely moved into other fields, such as software engineering, or to other engineering areas such as aerospace, or to Wall Street, among other occupations.
While it goes on to say some are no longer employed; with a 2% unemployment rate chances are if you are an EE, looking for an EE job, you have a job.
One of the challenges firms looking to hire engineers, at least a few years back, was competing with non-engineering firms for workers. I remember engineering companies complaining about Wall Street hiring engineers (and scientists) and how horrible that was; well pay salaries like on the Street and you can get all the engineers you want. Shortages of employees is usually from an unwillingness to pay what it takes to get the employees you want rather than a true shortage. That's not always the case but withe employees having had a buyer's market over the last fews years it's usually a safe bet that it is the case.
Seems the solution for Vietnam would be all to easy: Simply remind the US that you kicked their asses and took that base fair and square and that if they have a problem with it, they are free to come back over and have their "operation freedom" shoved up their ass all over again because they are allied with both Russia and China and the party raising most of the tensions in the "region" is the US who keeps demanding that the world do as it says or "else".
Sure, and Vietnam could give up about 20 billion in export surplus with the US. We are #2 in trade behind china and Vietnam has a trade surplus with us, unlike with China. They, unfortunately, are the little guy stuck between three powers.
Maybe it is just that people are for freedom on things that know about and for control on things they -don't- know about?
Possibly, o more about freedom on things they value or think is right while controlling others on things they don't think are valuable or that are bad. For example, people value free speech when what they agree with is said by want to stop others from saying things they disagree with or think is bad speech. Or, they are all for property rights and should be allowed to do what they want on or with their property until someone wants to build a strip club next door. They want the government's broadsword to be a fine rapier that only cuts others but not them when it is swung.