Also, be sure to renew and get a new phone just before the change. That way when they change the contract you can break it, keep your new phone without a termination fee, and then resell it for a profit to someone who wants a Verizon phone but can't or won't sign a contract. Verizon can pay you to leave them!
But he can sell the phone for more than he paid for it, because he wasn't required to pay the early termination fee when the other party changed the terms of the contract. Some other schmuck can overpay for the phone to use on Verizon's limited network because they can't or won't sign a contract.
It doesn't really matter who decompiled the files. The point is that they were decompiled and copied.
If I hire you to go buy me a car and you do so I pay you for it. If it turns out you stole the car, should I get to keep it?
That also leaves the question of whether that contractor, or other contractors had violated Sun/Oracle copyrights in less obvious ways.
You have the analogy all messed up. Google has already stopped using this code, so in your analogy they've already stopped using the car and given it up.
Instead, what happened was Google hired Noser to buy them a car, and in the contract specified that the Noser was absolutely not allowed to steal the car. Noser stole it anyway, and when Google found out they stopped using it. Later, Google was sued by Oracle, who didn't actually own the car when it was stolen but bought it later. This suit wasn't to stop Google from using the car any longer, but to seek billions in damages for misuse of the car during a time that Google thought they owned it (due to deception by Noser) when Oracle didn't actually own it, either.*
If a company employee lets financial data slip to a non-employee (like, say, their personal stock broker), but does so on a public street, do you think any judge would then consider it public information? Just because it was briefly available to the public doesn't mean it's been published for the public to see/hear.
Wellness check copays are now $0. Specialists like those that may be required for some of these drugs are $30 I think, but people with insurance might only need to visit a doctor for a new prescription every two years. I suspect the OTC out-of-pocket expenses will be much higher than prescription prices - by much more than a few dollars a month.
>> Moreover, you cannot "donate" money to the local school district as it will be taken by the state and redistributed to areas in need, so there is no extra funding coming from the relative affluence of our area.
Go count the number of parents volunteering at the school on any given day, and what that frees the paid staff to do, and then say that again.
Parental involvement is the key, and the relative affluence of your area likely drives that. Volunteers are just one part of it, of course; what the parents in your area do at home is also critical.
When there are no parents to instill a desire to learn in kids, society has to hire extra teachers at great expense to do it for them. This means it costs more money to educate some kids than others and, while you can be mad at that, you should be mad at the parents and not the schools or the government.
I think you make a good point. When a parent instills in the child an appreciation for education, the child will do well in almost any environment.
On the other hand, when neither parent is willing or able to install such an appreciation in the child, society has to spend a lot of money to hire quality teachers that can do it for them. This is where the money comes into play. The alternatives that don't yield kids unwilling to get an education (giving the kids new parents, or preventing the kids from being born if the parents aren't able to do this) rightfully invoke lots of slippery-slope or "you've already slid all the way down the damn slope you bastard" arguments.
Please examine the California constitution (prior to last year) then come back and explain who really controls fiscal policy when Republicans have more than 1/3 of the representatives and won't vote to fund anything.
The basics for test taking are how to eliminate the obvious wrong answer(s) and then guess between the rest. I haven't even yet considered the subject matter.
I enjoy driving, too, but while I'm required to be at work during the bulk of each work day, I'm also free to get my 40 hours in by doing some work from home or elsewhere. A driverless car would allow me to do 20 minutes of that work each day in my car, and therefore I would spend 20 fewer minutes at work.
If your job doesn't allow for this, and automated cars become the norm, you could look for a different job somewhere that respects your ability to work on your own schedule.
Topology seems to be working for Google already. Some Google employee or contractor has already driven every road in the country, some of them multiple times, creating records that could be used to generate data for their cars.
Other vehicles already on the market spot and identify random animals or children. Mercedes advertises this for their night-driving heads-up display. Another vendor (I don't remember which) is right now advertising cars that will stop automatically with faster-than-human reaction time when a child runs behind the vehicle. These are going into production cars today and seem to be the same technology you think won't exist in our lifetimes.
Traffic is a result of ( volume of cars) > (capacity of road).
Quantitatively define "capacity of road" and "volume of cars". Consider the portions of a fast-moving road not occupied by cars at any given time, and whether all-automated cars could fill those portions without lowering each cars' speed. Consider the reaction time of a chain of cars on a slow-moving road and whether coordinated all-automated cars could mitigate random slow-down spots.
The biggest problem with buses IMO is the long potential delay switching between them. "Take the 3 bus to 5th and MLK, exit bus, walk two blocks, catch the Crosstown bus to destination" is a stupid process when it's raining, or when you watch the Crosstown bus drive past you while you run the two blocks in vain.
I don't mind the wait for a vehicle to turn up (if it's reasonably short) if said vehicle can then take me immediately and expeditiously to my destination.
Then services will spring up that operate fleets of vehicles (taking advantage of economy of scale for maintenance). Then people will realize that owning a vehicle is more way expensive than using a fleet service and doesn't add much, if any, convenience.
Car2Go and ZipCar. Already exist. The problem is that they only work in areas dense enough to make it likely that you can find an available car within walking distance whenever you need one. Car2Go, at least, let's you schedule a car and an employee will drop one off near you. Automatic cars that can drive themselves to you solve this without the need for the employee and (hopefully) with a shorter turn time.
It's a good thing Google thought about that and made their car with sensors and systems able to react to unexpected events from the cars around them. Because otherwise that would an interesting experiment that would have never been qualified for use on real roads.
Will driverless cars magically create more capacity on the roads so that there is enough space for all the cars that want to drive on the same road at the same time? Because that would be a neat trick.
Yes. Yes they would. Automatic cars can drive at high speeds in close proximity to each other, so the same road that can safely handle cars going 50MPH with two car lengths between each one can now handle cars going 50MPH with just one car length between each one, assuming all the cars in the herd were automated and coordinated. That is exactly creating "more capacity on the roads so that there is enough space for all the cars that want to drive on the same road at the same time." And if it's sufficiently advanced, it might also be indistinguishable from magic.
Also, automatic cars wouldn't slow down to rubberneck and can merge like a zipper, which IMO are the two primary causes of congestion on all of the major roads in my town.
No it's not. Efficiency as a metric in city planning fails if the result isn't appealing to residents (present and potential). I thought we learned that when we stopped making concrete jungles and urban housing blocks and turning our cities into inert wastelands.
TFA mentions the impact on Medicare for prescription drug costs, but it doesn't discuss the impact for non-seniors. My prescription drug plan doesn't cover over-the-counter medication. As of last year my flex pay plan won't let me buy over-the-counter medication with pre-tax dollars. Together, both of those mean that moving all these drugs to non-prescription will make them significantly more expensive to me and all the millions of other people who pay for them now through their insurance.
Now, of course, you might think that insurance providers would be happy to fund these drugs even while over-the-counter, since it's far cheaper to subsidize (for example) blood pressure or cholesterol-lowering medication for life than cover one emergency trip to the hospital and bypass surgery, but I really don't think most insurance providers think that way.
I'd reply a different way to see if it could make sense to you.. but you're just not going to understand.
Let's say I won't underwrite all the stupid things some politicians make the government spend money on unless everyone else of my income level helps underwrite the things I care about, too. In the absense of that mutual support, my money is better served donated to a private nonprofit who can direct it better.
I don't think "social acceptability" means "homogeneity" unless you consider "putting thought into one's decisions" to be a homogeneity to frown upon.
There are plenty of individual styles that work for unique individuals, based on their personalities, body shape, and mannerisms, to forever preclude a homogenous society where there is free will to make one's own clothing choices. And honestly, I'm happy that people are willing to put that much careful considering into something, as it shows the general public can when sufficiently interested. Now they just need to become interested in privacy or freedom or responsible politics or something else besides (or in addition to) fashion - which is a much smaller leap than generating interest in someone who has none at all.
I think they should ban "hits" - any tackles that lead with the outside of the shoulder - as they already have with tackles that lead with the helmet. Tackles should only be allowed if they lead with hands and the center of the chest.
Sure, that means no one will be able to tackle anyone for a few years, until NFL defenders focus more on hand and lower arm strength, but I think that would mitigate the jarring hits that lead to concussions.
Slashdot Mirror
woosh
Also, be sure to renew and get a new phone just before the change. That way when they change the contract you can break it, keep your new phone without a termination fee, and then resell it for a profit to someone who wants a Verizon phone but can't or won't sign a contract. Verizon can pay you to leave them!
Sprint lets you roam free on Verizon's network, so you theoretically get the same great coverage but don't have to (directly) pay Verizon anything.
But he can sell the phone for more than he paid for it, because he wasn't required to pay the early termination fee when the other party changed the terms of the contract. Some other schmuck can overpay for the phone to use on Verizon's limited network because they can't or won't sign a contract.
It doesn't really matter who decompiled the files. The point is that they were decompiled and copied.
If I hire you to go buy me a car and you do so I pay you for it. If it turns out you stole the car, should I get to keep it?
That also leaves the question of whether that contractor, or other contractors had violated Sun/Oracle copyrights in less obvious ways.
You have the analogy all messed up. Google has already stopped using this code, so in your analogy they've already stopped using the car and given it up.
Instead, what happened was Google hired Noser to buy them a car, and in the contract specified that the Noser was absolutely not allowed to steal the car. Noser stole it anyway, and when Google found out they stopped using it. Later, Google was sued by Oracle, who didn't actually own the car when it was stolen but bought it later. This suit wasn't to stop Google from using the car any longer, but to seek billions in damages for misuse of the car during a time that Google thought they owned it (due to deception by Noser) when Oracle didn't actually own it, either.*
If a company employee lets financial data slip to a non-employee (like, say, their personal stock broker), but does so on a public street, do you think any judge would then consider it public information? Just because it was briefly available to the public doesn't mean it's been published for the public to see/hear.
Wellness check copays are now $0. Specialists like those that may be required for some of these drugs are $30 I think, but people with insurance might only need to visit a doctor for a new prescription every two years. I suspect the OTC out-of-pocket expenses will be much higher than prescription prices - by much more than a few dollars a month.
>> Moreover, you cannot "donate" money to the local school district as it will be taken by the state and redistributed to areas in need, so there is no extra funding coming from the relative affluence of our area.
Go count the number of parents volunteering at the school on any given day, and what that frees the paid staff to do, and then say that again.
Parental involvement is the key, and the relative affluence of your area likely drives that. Volunteers are just one part of it, of course; what the parents in your area do at home is also critical.
When there are no parents to instill a desire to learn in kids, society has to hire extra teachers at great expense to do it for them. This means it costs more money to educate some kids than others and, while you can be mad at that, you should be mad at the parents and not the schools or the government.
I think you make a good point. When a parent instills in the child an appreciation for education, the child will do well in almost any environment.
On the other hand, when neither parent is willing or able to install such an appreciation in the child, society has to spend a lot of money to hire quality teachers that can do it for them. This is where the money comes into play. The alternatives that don't yield kids unwilling to get an education (giving the kids new parents, or preventing the kids from being born if the parents aren't able to do this) rightfully invoke lots of slippery-slope or "you've already slid all the way down the damn slope you bastard" arguments.
Please examine the California constitution (prior to last year) then come back and explain who really controls fiscal policy when Republicans have more than 1/3 of the representatives and won't vote to fund anything.
When did the GOP have more than 1/3 of the seats? That would be when they controlled it in this regard.
Please explain how "majority" equals "two-thirds majority".
The basics for test taking are how to eliminate the obvious wrong answer(s) and then guess between the rest. I haven't even yet considered the subject matter.
I enjoy driving, too, but while I'm required to be at work during the bulk of each work day, I'm also free to get my 40 hours in by doing some work from home or elsewhere. A driverless car would allow me to do 20 minutes of that work each day in my car, and therefore I would spend 20 fewer minutes at work.
If your job doesn't allow for this, and automated cars become the norm, you could look for a different job somewhere that respects your ability to work on your own schedule.
Topology seems to be working for Google already. Some Google employee or contractor has already driven every road in the country, some of them multiple times, creating records that could be used to generate data for their cars.
Other vehicles already on the market spot and identify random animals or children. Mercedes advertises this for their night-driving heads-up display. Another vendor (I don't remember which) is right now advertising cars that will stop automatically with faster-than-human reaction time when a child runs behind the vehicle. These are going into production cars today and seem to be the same technology you think won't exist in our lifetimes.
Traffic is a result of ( volume of cars) > (capacity of road).
Quantitatively define "capacity of road" and "volume of cars". Consider the portions of a fast-moving road not occupied by cars at any given time, and whether all-automated cars could fill those portions without lowering each cars' speed. Consider the reaction time of a chain of cars on a slow-moving road and whether coordinated all-automated cars could mitigate random slow-down spots.
The biggest problem with buses IMO is the long potential delay switching between them. "Take the 3 bus to 5th and MLK, exit bus, walk two blocks, catch the Crosstown bus to destination" is a stupid process when it's raining, or when you watch the Crosstown bus drive past you while you run the two blocks in vain.
I don't mind the wait for a vehicle to turn up (if it's reasonably short) if said vehicle can then take me immediately and expeditiously to my destination.
Then services will spring up that operate fleets of vehicles (taking advantage of economy of scale for maintenance). Then people will realize that owning a vehicle is more way expensive than using a fleet service and doesn't add much, if any, convenience.
Car2Go and ZipCar. Already exist. The problem is that they only work in areas dense enough to make it likely that you can find an available car within walking distance whenever you need one. Car2Go, at least, let's you schedule a car and an employee will drop one off near you. Automatic cars that can drive themselves to you solve this without the need for the employee and (hopefully) with a shorter turn time.
It's a good thing Google thought about that and made their car with sensors and systems able to react to unexpected events from the cars around them. Because otherwise that would an interesting experiment that would have never been qualified for use on real roads.
Ending Congestion? Seriously?
Will driverless cars magically create more capacity on the roads so that there is enough space for all the cars that want to drive on the same road at the same time? Because that would be a neat trick.
Yes. Yes they would. Automatic cars can drive at high speeds in close proximity to each other, so the same road that can safely handle cars going 50MPH with two car lengths between each one can now handle cars going 50MPH with just one car length between each one, assuming all the cars in the herd were automated and coordinated. That is exactly creating "more capacity on the roads so that there is enough space for all the cars that want to drive on the same road at the same time." And if it's sufficiently advanced, it might also be indistinguishable from magic.
Also, automatic cars wouldn't slow down to rubberneck and can merge like a zipper, which IMO are the two primary causes of congestion on all of the major roads in my town.
No it's not. Efficiency as a metric in city planning fails if the result isn't appealing to residents (present and potential). I thought we learned that when we stopped making concrete jungles and urban housing blocks and turning our cities into inert wastelands.
TFA mentions the impact on Medicare for prescription drug costs, but it doesn't discuss the impact for non-seniors. My prescription drug plan doesn't cover over-the-counter medication. As of last year my flex pay plan won't let me buy over-the-counter medication with pre-tax dollars. Together, both of those mean that moving all these drugs to non-prescription will make them significantly more expensive to me and all the millions of other people who pay for them now through their insurance.
Now, of course, you might think that insurance providers would be happy to fund these drugs even while over-the-counter, since it's far cheaper to subsidize (for example) blood pressure or cholesterol-lowering medication for life than cover one emergency trip to the hospital and bypass surgery, but I really don't think most insurance providers think that way.
I'd reply a different way to see if it could make sense to you.. but you're just not going to understand.
Let's say I won't underwrite all the stupid things some politicians make the government spend money on unless everyone else of my income level helps underwrite the things I care about, too. In the absense of that mutual support, my money is better served donated to a private nonprofit who can direct it better.
I don't think "social acceptability" means "homogeneity" unless you consider "putting thought into one's decisions" to be a homogeneity to frown upon.
There are plenty of individual styles that work for unique individuals, based on their personalities, body shape, and mannerisms, to forever preclude a homogenous society where there is free will to make one's own clothing choices. And honestly, I'm happy that people are willing to put that much careful considering into something, as it shows the general public can when sufficiently interested. Now they just need to become interested in privacy or freedom or responsible politics or something else besides (or in addition to) fashion - which is a much smaller leap than generating interest in someone who has none at all.
I think they should ban "hits" - any tackles that lead with the outside of the shoulder - as they already have with tackles that lead with the helmet. Tackles should only be allowed if they lead with hands and the center of the chest.
Sure, that means no one will be able to tackle anyone for a few years, until NFL defenders focus more on hand and lower arm strength, but I think that would mitigate the jarring hits that lead to concussions.