Once again, we're talking about an NC, not signing oneself into slavery.
is defacto evidence that you have a right to choose and therefore slave contracts should be enforceable?
You would save yourself a lot of time if you just read what I wrote and stopped trying to make things up. I said nothing of the sort.
The choice to sign the contract has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is (or should be) enforceable.
What I ACTUALLY said was that being able to choose not to sign was defacto proof that you have a choice, which is what I think they call a tautology. Now, if you read the definition as presented by the person I replied to, you'll see that it requires "no choice". Therefore, if you have a choice it isn't slavery. There, that wasn't that hard to follow, was it?
The reason you can't choose to sign yourself into slavery is because it is a non-enforceable contract
I'm sorry, where did you see me trying to explain why you cannot sign yourself into slavery? I thought we were talking about non-compete agreements, which are certainly nothing like slavery.
I'm not from US and have a hard time understanding the rules.
No, I doubt that. The rules are pretty simple. At an intersection with control signals, you can enter the crosswalk when the sign says WALK. Pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way. End of rules.
If the sign says DON'T WALK, you may not legally enter the crosswalk. The "numbers" have no regulatory basis.
After the countdown, is it okay to run over pedestrians?
And that's why I doubt you actually have a hard time.
Slavery (and indentured servitude) is not the condition of working without being paid, but the condition of having no choice of employer. A contract that amounts to indentured servitude is an illegal contract.
It would be, but this is not such a case. A NC doesn't mean you have no choice of employer, only that you can't choose some employers in the future. You give up the freedom to choose in exchange for employment now at that specific company, which is also not a case of "no choice of employer". Saying "no" to a NC is expressing your right to choose, which is defacto evidence that you have a right to choose.
How much you think anon-compete looks like indentured servitude is the matter in dispute - if you can't do X, but you can still flip burgers, does that count?
By your definition, it is not even a matter to dispute. "Not being able to choose to work for employer X" is not the same as "having no choice of employer." And, of course, the difference between slavery and an NC is that you can choose not to sign an NC.
Is there any existing NC that actually says that the only choice for someone who leaves employer X is "flipping burgers"?
My question would be, why do we still have screensavers for LCD devices, and why do we have screensavers that think they need to download images from the net AT ALL? And on a portable device where a screensaver does nothing except chew through battery... The best screensaver on a mobile device is for it to simply go to sleep and display nothing.
Oh, that's right, greed.
That word has become so overused as to be meaningless. Anything that has to do with money that someone doesn't like is "greed" nowadays. What keeps being overlooked is that the companies that develop and provide the services that are being condemned for being greedy would not exist were it not for the "greed" that they are being accused of. You think prices for mobile data are the result of greed? Well, ok, but your ability to get those services in the first place is a result of the same greed.
This is almost universally not true in America. There might be extreely rural places where its true, but it sure as fuck isnt true where 99% of people live.
It is true where I live, and I don't live in some "extreely rural place". I don't know of a place where it isn't true. In those few places where it isn't true, it is because the idiots in the local government granted an exclusive franchise, which is a problem with the people who elected the local government, not the companies who took advantage of the exclusive franchise offer.
Honestly, I don't think such a convention would NECESSARILY be problematic, but there's no reason to assume it would be any more beholden to the will of the people than the existing ludicrous clown-filled House of Representatives.
I think the danger is that it would be MORE beholden to "the will of the people" than the current system of amendments. It is just how you define "the people" that matters.
It does not take a crystal ball to predict that once a constitutional convention is called, there will be people coming out of the woodwork seeking to repeal the 1st (the alleged reason for the CC in the first place) and 2nd, rewrite the fourth and fifth, and to make radical changes to the body (eliminate the electoral college, e.g.), all seeking to further their special cause.
It is never hard to find people to work hard to further a special cause. It is much harder to find people who will work hard to maintain the status quo. It is also much harder to find people who have a special cause that actually care enough about the rest of the product that they'd turn down alliances that would give them what they want. "If you vote for MY change, I'll vote for yours..." (And yes, that's a problem in congress, too. To expect it not to happen in a CC is just nuts.) In the meantime, most of "the people" with either not have the time to invest in dealing with this, or the interest, expecting, as some try telling them, that "a CC won't change much at all, just a few tweaks here and there...".
It's dead simple when competing with DSL/Cable. Fiber is cheaper,
You are seriously trying to claim that the cost of service using existing, already fully depreciated copper pairs used for cash cow POTS services is MORE than having to install the infrastructure for fiber to a home? Really? Including the fact that everything past the demarc is now the responsibility of the owner to pay for and the telco only needs to maintain things up to that point, where fiber is maintained by you to the device?
You're op-ex is about 20% lower and quality is drastically better.
Oh, you're only considering the ongoing expenses and not the installation of the currently non-existent fiber. The quality argument is irrelevant when talking costs.
So, either you would have to get people to stand behind the pole, or have them turn around and look at the number before crossing
You don't have to look at the number before crossing. The number isn't there to tell you how much longer you have to enter the crosswalk, it is there to tell people IN the crosswalk how much longer THEY have.
The thing that tells you that you can enter the crosswalk is the WALK indicator. The thing that tells you not to enter the crosswalk is the DON'T WALK indicator. The countdown doesn't start until the DON'T WALK sign lights, which means you cannot legally enter the crosswalk at that point, so the number CANNOT be telling people how much longer they have to enter it.
If you're looking at the number to decide if you can enter the crosswalk or not, you are doing it wrong.
As for the summary (and I presume the FA it was quoted from), cars can't use the number to tell when the light is going red. The light changes to yellow (amber) some time after the number hits zero. (At some intersections around here, it happens at zero. At others, a few seconds later.) It doesn't go red until well after the countdown hits zero.
And if YOUR intersections have the countdown still in progress when the light changes to yellow for the drivers, then your traffic people have it set wrong, and they're the problem, not the countdown.
So... the police handed him a computer for his leisurely pleasure while being booked / in jail and before they released him?
If by "a computer" you mean the ubiquitous "cellphone with FB app", you have a great question.
If the records show he was in custody at the time of the post then in my mind this is beyond a reasonable doubt
Cellphone. Reasonable doubt. The questions to ask are "what was the source of the posting (IP address/client) and did he have his cellphone at the time?"
particularly given the other collaborating evidence and circumstances.
"Runaway Convention" is a boogey man used by those in favor of the current corrupt big government to scare unthinking people into opposition.
If you think that a convention writ large will not echo the same kinds of actions that plague smaller scale similar activities, then you are not very observant of human behaviour.
It didn't take a Constitutional Convention to create the horrid 16th and 17th amendments.
Your opinion about and the creation of those amendments is irrelevant. I was replying specifically to a call for a convention.
No, it didn't take a convention to create some amendments, but a convention certainly is not limited to just the amendments you want it to create.
I'll also point out that the amendment system is horribly inefficient and deliberately so. Google "ERA" if you want an example.
a corporation can be stripped of any and all rights, even to exist as legal entity, just for example, and individual liberty remains.
If you think this is about removing the right of corporations to exist as legal entities, you are woefully naive.
If you remove the right of corporations to exist because they might be created as an association of like-minded people who want to pool their money to pay for political speech, that is, indeed, a restriction on both the right to free association and the right to free speech -- the very basis of the 1st Amendment. To remove those rights requires a stripping of the 1st Amendment right, and you're doing it because the people who are exercising their rights are saying something you don't like. Know how I can tell? Because you are supporting THIS PAC when they do exactly what they seek to prohibit others from doing.
And no matter how hard you argue to the contrary, the people who make up corporations cannot be stripped of their right to free speech without you being stripped of the same right.
I would not call it ironic. I would say it recognizes the fact that money is necessary for effective speech (not money==speech as many misquote the decision to mean) and this PAC is trying to do the same thing that Citizens United did -- get a bunch of people together to pool their money for effective political speech.
I would call the attempt at stripping the rights of people to that freedom of association and speech using such a group to be hypocritical, not ironic. And I say the same thing about Move To Amend, where the specific goal is to remove the right to free speech from people they disagree with using the same tactics they allegedly disagree with.
something more drastic would be needed, constitutional amendment using path of national convention and ratifying states
You should be very careful in calling for a constitutional convention. You should be aware that a call to remove the 1st Amendment (in an attempt at limiting who can speak on certain topics) opens the door to a removal of the 4th and 5th, just for starters. You may want to limit the debate to one specific topic, but you can be sure there will be others who will not.
You should also accept that a constitution that provides protection to people in general is better than one that picks and chooses who and what it will protect, even if there are outliers that stretch the coverage. And that the 1st Amendment was created specifically to protect those outliers, not the "generally accepted appropriate speech".
Perhaps it is best to accept that protections for your rights also protect others.
Some simple epoxy around the wires and a current limiter (common in just about every usb setup anyway) will take care of conductive liquids (by preventing them from doing damage to the electronics with the limit until the liquid drains out of the port).
If you want to damage the electronics, carry a stun gun and zap the port. Or carry a portable battery powered inverter and stuff 120VAC into the system. Conductive liquids aren't going to damage the electronics, they already have current limiting. But simple salt water will turn copper conductors into green goo pretty well.
Chewing gum stuffed into the USB port is likely the most common and hardest to solve problem there.
Superglue. One quick squirt with a dollar store tube. And if someone comes along right behind you and plugs in before it sets, that's even more fun.
People are going to have to be smart (I know, it'll never happen) and use charge-only cables with the data lines physically disconnected.
It is the data lines that convey the information to the device that it is on a charger and may draw whatever current it needs. This is one of the biggest headaches of USB charging, when a company uses one method of signalling "charger" and another uses a different one. E.g., a resistor to ground or +5 on one of the data lines vs. a resistor of a certain value vs. a resistor of a different value.
Then there are oddball companies who decide they won't charge at all via USB unless they can negotiate a current from an active host (Sony, you know who you are), or won't charge if they CAN negotiate with the active host (Galaxy Tab3).
Then you'll have to trust whoever makes those.
It's pretty trivial to modify a standard USB cable to lose data connectivity. Every cable I've pulled apart, the power is red and black. Don't cut the red or black wires. Do cut the others. Then see if your device still charges before you take it to the bench to charge it there.
What will be interesting to see is if anyone comes up with a USB plug that has a 5 Ohm resistor attached between power and ground. Plug it in at dusk and the solar powered battery should be dead by the morning. (Use a cheap/dead USB stick for the connector.)
Just be aware that your job resume may be on the bottom half when you decide to change employment.
Bottom half of what? And if the place I was applying was overly worried that I had ignored a specious compiler warning when compiling a large open source project written by someone else, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to work there. Would you?
It's not a question of turning off warnings, it's a question of correcting the code to get rid of the warnings.
There are two ways of getting rid of warnings. You can either change (potentially a lot of) code, or you can turn off the warning. The fastest way to get rid of them is turn them off. Then you never have to deal with or explain them again.
If I had a boss that said I had to justify and document every warning in the code I work with, and I couldn't turn them off, I'd never get anything productive done. I'd be spending days pouring over someone else's code, making significant changes, and then have to do it all again when the next version or patch comes out. What a waste of time, for code that runs perfectly fine.
If you turn off the warnings you turn off the warnings for all occurrences in the code, and that is really a dangerous thing to do.
Why do people keep wanting to lecture me that turning off warnings is a bad thing to do when I haven't said it is a good thing to do? I think I said that I'd rather see the warnings than not. Pretty sure I said that. Yep.
Ignoring compiler warnings is stupid, dangerous and can cause serious problems to become hidden.
No, ignoring specious warnings is a reasonable thing to do, and it is turning them off that makes them become hidden, not ignoring them.
Aaaaaaah! How hard is it to include "stdio.h" from the get go?
Who cares? How is it relevant to the issue? That was an example, not an exhaustive list of all possible sources of warnings.
"Trivial" warnings are usually trivial to fix--and they should be fixed so that the serious warnings stand out.
I deal with code that has thousands of trivial warnings, and I can tell you that trying to fix them all is NOT trivial. I'm guessing that many of those warnings come from using a different compiler, but I don't know. I have enough to deal with fixing sloppy code that was written using a compiler that silently ignores some ridiculous parameter values but is now being compiled on one that doesn't validate them at all. (gfortran vs. PGI fortran. One compiler designed to support novice programmers, one designed to run as fast as possible. One ignores a -1 when told to copy a string, the other copies MAXINT characters...)
The difficulty, or ease, of changing code to remove a warning message has nothing to do with the fact that it is a warning and not an error for a reason.
If you let your code develop with all warnings suppressed, than I can see how you can end up in the position where turning them on leads to hundreds of "insignificant" warnings appearing. Don't let that happen.
So don't create an environment where is it beneficial to disable warnings. If you notice, I'm arguing against the disabling of warnings. I said it was worse than leaving them.
You can add "at any given time" to that to make the statement an accurate model.
I'm sorry, but a statement regarding a long term condition doesn't apply "at any given time". It's a statement that, over a full day, each space is used multiple times. Saying "each space will be used multiple times a day at any given time" is just nonsense. "A day" and "at any given time" are mutually exclusive measurements.
When you say "lost ten percent of your users", do you mean that if we randomly sample the number of spaces occupied, we'll find 10% of them empty?
If that's what I meant, that is what I would have said. I did not. You keep making things up and then expecting me to defend them.
What's the "correct" number of occupied spaces,
A meaningless question.
This, I think is where your model breaks. You've just described a market in which raising the price increases the amount of the resource a consumer is willing to consume.
Another example of making things up. I said nothing of the sort. Raising prices will have at least two effects. One is to keep people from trying to park there, reducing the demand. Opposite of what you claim I said. The second effect is that people who have paid a high cost for an hour of time will use the hour of time they've paid for. That's not increasing the amount he's willing to consume, it is consuming the entire amount he's paid for. They're not going to feed the meter for another hour unless they really need it, and at that point effect 1 comes into play.
Your error was in thinking that lower prices increase parking space turnover.
If I have paid an extreme amount (in my opinion) for a certain time on a meter, then I am less willing to just walk away from that investment. If I pay a quarter for an hour at a meter and my business is done in ten minutes, then I don't feel bad about just leaving, opening up the space for the next user. If I pay a dollar for the same amount of time, I'm more likely to see 50 minutes left on the meter when I get done and think "I'm already here, I might as well do something else." While in some cases that might mean I make purchases from another business, often it will mean I stay longer browsing where I already was, or I visit a store to see what something looks like for when I buy it cheaper online.
And when the rate goes to $10 for an hour, you would be foolish to think that there won't be people who decide that $10 to conduct ten minutes worth of business is insane and they'll go somewhere else altogether.
It is simply absurd to price something to deliberately reduce demand and then deny that you've reduced demand, or at least tried to.
The very existence of that auction is due to the fact that SF is underpricing its parking spaces.
No, it exists because there are people who want to make money by selling a limited public resource. In fact, if you overprice the parking space, people would be more likely to try selling them because they want to recoup some of the money they spent in the first place. For a quarter, I'll walk away. For $10 I might try selling it to the next guy.
Your assumption seems to be that a public resource must be priced at a rate to limit demand to what is available, thus optimizing return on investment, not just to cover the costs of providing that service. That's a goal of a for-profit corporation, of course, but a city government should not be trying to make a profit on the services it provides to the citizens. The city government should also consider in the pricing the benefits of the service to the local economy and the return from that. I know that some have denied that public parking is a benefit to the economy of a city, but in fact it is.
Is that better or worse than teaching someone to leave warnings on for those operations and then not noticing when a really significant one appears because it's buried in an avalanche of other output?
Worse, because when the significant one appears the code will be non-functional and there will be no compiler warning to help figure out why. It is harder to remember to go back and change the makefile (or other build script) to turn the warnings back on and then see a large number of irrelevant warnings appear (which you may think are relevant and waste time fixing without actually fixing the broken code). If you inherited the build from someone else (not a good idea in a programming class necessarily) you might not KNOW you need to go turn the warnings back on, you might just have a broken program and no warnings to tell you where to look.
By the way, I define "significant warning" to mean "actually reports something that is going to make the program malfunction". For example, "incompatible declaration of function printf" when I forget to include stdio.h is not a significant warning because I don't care what printf returns and nothing depends on it. Should I decide to turn that one off, and then do something that actually does depend on the return value and it doesn't work, it becomes a significant warning and I want to see it. I'm reasonably competent, so I can recognize a warning that refers to a line of code I've just changed, even if there are other warnings.
I get to deal with lots of code that has lots of warnings. I can handle it.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying "no" to signing yourself into slavery
Once again, we're talking about an NC, not signing oneself into slavery.
is defacto evidence that you have a right to choose and therefore slave contracts should be enforceable?
You would save yourself a lot of time if you just read what I wrote and stopped trying to make things up. I said nothing of the sort.
The choice to sign the contract has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is (or should be) enforceable.
What I ACTUALLY said was that being able to choose not to sign was defacto proof that you have a choice, which is what I think they call a tautology. Now, if you read the definition as presented by the person I replied to, you'll see that it requires "no choice". Therefore, if you have a choice it isn't slavery. There, that wasn't that hard to follow, was it?
The reason you can't choose to sign yourself into slavery is because it is a non-enforceable contract
I'm sorry, where did you see me trying to explain why you cannot sign yourself into slavery? I thought we were talking about non-compete agreements, which are certainly nothing like slavery.
I'm not from US and have a hard time understanding the rules.
No, I doubt that. The rules are pretty simple. At an intersection with control signals, you can enter the crosswalk when the sign says WALK. Pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way. End of rules.
If the sign says DON'T WALK, you may not legally enter the crosswalk. The "numbers" have no regulatory basis.
After the countdown, is it okay to run over pedestrians?
And that's why I doubt you actually have a hard time.
Slavery (and indentured servitude) is not the condition of working without being paid, but the condition of having no choice of employer. A contract that amounts to indentured servitude is an illegal contract.
It would be, but this is not such a case. A NC doesn't mean you have no choice of employer, only that you can't choose some employers in the future. You give up the freedom to choose in exchange for employment now at that specific company, which is also not a case of "no choice of employer". Saying "no" to a NC is expressing your right to choose, which is defacto evidence that you have a right to choose.
How much you think anon-compete looks like indentured servitude is the matter in dispute - if you can't do X, but you can still flip burgers, does that count?
By your definition, it is not even a matter to dispute. "Not being able to choose to work for employer X" is not the same as "having no choice of employer." And, of course, the difference between slavery and an NC is that you can choose not to sign an NC.
Is there any existing NC that actually says that the only choice for someone who leaves employer X is "flipping burgers"?
Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?
My question would be, why do we still have screensavers for LCD devices, and why do we have screensavers that think they need to download images from the net AT ALL? And on a portable device where a screensaver does nothing except chew through battery ... The best screensaver on a mobile device is for it to simply go to sleep and display nothing.
Oh, that's right, greed.
That word has become so overused as to be meaningless. Anything that has to do with money that someone doesn't like is "greed" nowadays. What keeps being overlooked is that the companies that develop and provide the services that are being condemned for being greedy would not exist were it not for the "greed" that they are being accused of. You think prices for mobile data are the result of greed? Well, ok, but your ability to get those services in the first place is a result of the same greed.
This is almost universally not true in America. There might be extreely rural places where its true, but it sure as fuck isnt true where 99% of people live.
It is true where I live, and I don't live in some "extreely rural place". I don't know of a place where it isn't true. In those few places where it isn't true, it is because the idiots in the local government granted an exclusive franchise, which is a problem with the people who elected the local government, not the companies who took advantage of the exclusive franchise offer.
Honestly, I don't think such a convention would NECESSARILY be problematic, but there's no reason to assume it would be any more beholden to the will of the people than the existing ludicrous clown-filled House of Representatives.
I think the danger is that it would be MORE beholden to "the will of the people" than the current system of amendments. It is just how you define "the people" that matters.
It does not take a crystal ball to predict that once a constitutional convention is called, there will be people coming out of the woodwork seeking to repeal the 1st (the alleged reason for the CC in the first place) and 2nd, rewrite the fourth and fifth, and to make radical changes to the body (eliminate the electoral college, e.g.), all seeking to further their special cause.
It is never hard to find people to work hard to further a special cause. It is much harder to find people who will work hard to maintain the status quo. It is also much harder to find people who have a special cause that actually care enough about the rest of the product that they'd turn down alliances that would give them what they want. "If you vote for MY change, I'll vote for yours..." (And yes, that's a problem in congress, too. To expect it not to happen in a CC is just nuts.) In the meantime, most of "the people" with either not have the time to invest in dealing with this, or the interest, expecting, as some try telling them, that "a CC won't change much at all, just a few tweaks here and there ...".
It's dead simple when competing with DSL/Cable. Fiber is cheaper,
You are seriously trying to claim that the cost of service using existing, already fully depreciated copper pairs used for cash cow POTS services is MORE than having to install the infrastructure for fiber to a home? Really? Including the fact that everything past the demarc is now the responsibility of the owner to pay for and the telco only needs to maintain things up to that point, where fiber is maintained by you to the device?
You're op-ex is about 20% lower and quality is drastically better.
Oh, you're only considering the ongoing expenses and not the installation of the currently non-existent fiber. The quality argument is irrelevant when talking costs.
So, either you would have to get people to stand behind the pole, or have them turn around and look at the number before crossing
You don't have to look at the number before crossing. The number isn't there to tell you how much longer you have to enter the crosswalk, it is there to tell people IN the crosswalk how much longer THEY have. The thing that tells you that you can enter the crosswalk is the WALK indicator. The thing that tells you not to enter the crosswalk is the DON'T WALK indicator. The countdown doesn't start until the DON'T WALK sign lights, which means you cannot legally enter the crosswalk at that point, so the number CANNOT be telling people how much longer they have to enter it.
If you're looking at the number to decide if you can enter the crosswalk or not, you are doing it wrong.
As for the summary (and I presume the FA it was quoted from), cars can't use the number to tell when the light is going red. The light changes to yellow (amber) some time after the number hits zero. (At some intersections around here, it happens at zero. At others, a few seconds later.) It doesn't go red until well after the countdown hits zero.
And if YOUR intersections have the countdown still in progress when the light changes to yellow for the drivers, then your traffic people have it set wrong, and they're the problem, not the countdown.
So... the police handed him a computer for his leisurely pleasure while being booked / in jail and before they released him?
If by "a computer" you mean the ubiquitous "cellphone with FB app", you have a great question.
If the records show he was in custody at the time of the post then in my mind this is beyond a reasonable doubt
Cellphone. Reasonable doubt. The questions to ask are "what was the source of the posting (IP address/client) and did he have his cellphone at the time?"
particularly given the other collaborating evidence and circumstances.
Evidence cannot "collaborate".
"Runaway Convention" is a boogey man used by those in favor of the current corrupt big government to scare unthinking people into opposition.
If you think that a convention writ large will not echo the same kinds of actions that plague smaller scale similar activities, then you are not very observant of human behaviour.
It didn't take a Constitutional Convention to create the horrid 16th and 17th amendments.
Your opinion about and the creation of those amendments is irrelevant. I was replying specifically to a call for a convention. No, it didn't take a convention to create some amendments, but a convention certainly is not limited to just the amendments you want it to create.
I'll also point out that the amendment system is horribly inefficient and deliberately so. Google "ERA" if you want an example.
That said, who would plug a USB device into a park bench?
The same kind of people who plug them into USB sockets at the airport.
a corporation can be stripped of any and all rights, even to exist as legal entity, just for example, and individual liberty remains.
If you think this is about removing the right of corporations to exist as legal entities, you are woefully naive.
If you remove the right of corporations to exist because they might be created as an association of like-minded people who want to pool their money to pay for political speech, that is, indeed, a restriction on both the right to free association and the right to free speech -- the very basis of the 1st Amendment. To remove those rights requires a stripping of the 1st Amendment right, and you're doing it because the people who are exercising their rights are saying something you don't like. Know how I can tell? Because you are supporting THIS PAC when they do exactly what they seek to prohibit others from doing.
And no matter how hard you argue to the contrary, the people who make up corporations cannot be stripped of their right to free speech without you being stripped of the same right.
Eliminate corporate influence. The people who run corporations deserve no more vote than anyone else.
They don't get "no more vote" than anyone else. And you're right, it isn't irony. I said that in the Subject.
I would call the attempt at stripping the rights of people to that freedom of association and speech using such a group to be hypocritical, not ironic. And I say the same thing about Move To Amend, where the specific goal is to remove the right to free speech from people they disagree with using the same tactics they allegedly disagree with.
something more drastic would be needed, constitutional amendment using path of national convention and ratifying states
You should be very careful in calling for a constitutional convention. You should be aware that a call to remove the 1st Amendment (in an attempt at limiting who can speak on certain topics) opens the door to a removal of the 4th and 5th, just for starters. You may want to limit the debate to one specific topic, but you can be sure there will be others who will not.
You should also accept that a constitution that provides protection to people in general is better than one that picks and chooses who and what it will protect, even if there are outliers that stretch the coverage. And that the 1st Amendment was created specifically to protect those outliers, not the "generally accepted appropriate speech".
Perhaps it is best to accept that protections for your rights also protect others.
Some simple epoxy around the wires and a current limiter (common in just about every usb setup anyway) will take care of conductive liquids (by preventing them from doing damage to the electronics with the limit until the liquid drains out of the port).
If you want to damage the electronics, carry a stun gun and zap the port. Or carry a portable battery powered inverter and stuff 120VAC into the system. Conductive liquids aren't going to damage the electronics, they already have current limiting. But simple salt water will turn copper conductors into green goo pretty well.
Chewing gum stuffed into the USB port is likely the most common and hardest to solve problem there.
Superglue. One quick squirt with a dollar store tube. And if someone comes along right behind you and plugs in before it sets, that's even more fun.
but I'm not a vandal
We can tell.
People are going to have to be smart (I know, it'll never happen) and use charge-only cables with the data lines physically disconnected.
It is the data lines that convey the information to the device that it is on a charger and may draw whatever current it needs. This is one of the biggest headaches of USB charging, when a company uses one method of signalling "charger" and another uses a different one. E.g., a resistor to ground or +5 on one of the data lines vs. a resistor of a certain value vs. a resistor of a different value.
Then there are oddball companies who decide they won't charge at all via USB unless they can negotiate a current from an active host (Sony, you know who you are), or won't charge if they CAN negotiate with the active host (Galaxy Tab3).
Then you'll have to trust whoever makes those.
It's pretty trivial to modify a standard USB cable to lose data connectivity. Every cable I've pulled apart, the power is red and black. Don't cut the red or black wires. Do cut the others. Then see if your device still charges before you take it to the bench to charge it there.
What will be interesting to see is if anyone comes up with a USB plug that has a 5 Ohm resistor attached between power and ground. Plug it in at dusk and the solar powered battery should be dead by the morning. (Use a cheap/dead USB stick for the connector.)
One stop shopping. While you're ordering whatever else you order from Amazon, you can also order a pizza.
"Your order for 'Enders Game' in hardbound is almost complete. Would you like fries with that?"
Just be aware that your job resume may be on the bottom half when you decide to change employment.
Bottom half of what? And if the place I was applying was overly worried that I had ignored a specious compiler warning when compiling a large open source project written by someone else, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to work there. Would you?
People like you are what gives people who say "people like you" a bad name.
It's not a question of turning off warnings, it's a question of correcting the code to get rid of the warnings.
There are two ways of getting rid of warnings. You can either change (potentially a lot of) code, or you can turn off the warning. The fastest way to get rid of them is turn them off. Then you never have to deal with or explain them again.
If I had a boss that said I had to justify and document every warning in the code I work with, and I couldn't turn them off, I'd never get anything productive done. I'd be spending days pouring over someone else's code, making significant changes, and then have to do it all again when the next version or patch comes out. What a waste of time, for code that runs perfectly fine.
If you turn off the warnings you turn off the warnings for all occurrences in the code, and that is really a dangerous thing to do.
Why do people keep wanting to lecture me that turning off warnings is a bad thing to do when I haven't said it is a good thing to do? I think I said that I'd rather see the warnings than not. Pretty sure I said that. Yep.
Ignoring compiler warnings is stupid, dangerous and can cause serious problems to become hidden.
No, ignoring specious warnings is a reasonable thing to do, and it is turning them off that makes them become hidden, not ignoring them.
Aaaaaaah! How hard is it to include "stdio.h" from the get go?
Who cares? How is it relevant to the issue? That was an example, not an exhaustive list of all possible sources of warnings.
"Trivial" warnings are usually trivial to fix--and they should be fixed so that the serious warnings stand out.
I deal with code that has thousands of trivial warnings, and I can tell you that trying to fix them all is NOT trivial. I'm guessing that many of those warnings come from using a different compiler, but I don't know. I have enough to deal with fixing sloppy code that was written using a compiler that silently ignores some ridiculous parameter values but is now being compiled on one that doesn't validate them at all. (gfortran vs. PGI fortran. One compiler designed to support novice programmers, one designed to run as fast as possible. One ignores a -1 when told to copy a string, the other copies MAXINT characters...)
The difficulty, or ease, of changing code to remove a warning message has nothing to do with the fact that it is a warning and not an error for a reason.
If you let your code develop with all warnings suppressed, than I can see how you can end up in the position where turning them on leads to hundreds of "insignificant" warnings appearing. Don't let that happen.
So don't create an environment where is it beneficial to disable warnings. If you notice, I'm arguing against the disabling of warnings. I said it was worse than leaving them.
You can add "at any given time" to that to make the statement an accurate model.
I'm sorry, but a statement regarding a long term condition doesn't apply "at any given time". It's a statement that, over a full day, each space is used multiple times. Saying "each space will be used multiple times a day at any given time" is just nonsense. "A day" and "at any given time" are mutually exclusive measurements.
When you say "lost ten percent of your users", do you mean that if we randomly sample the number of spaces occupied, we'll find 10% of them empty?
If that's what I meant, that is what I would have said. I did not. You keep making things up and then expecting me to defend them.
What's the "correct" number of occupied spaces,
A meaningless question.
This, I think is where your model breaks. You've just described a market in which raising the price increases the amount of the resource a consumer is willing to consume.
Another example of making things up. I said nothing of the sort. Raising prices will have at least two effects. One is to keep people from trying to park there, reducing the demand. Opposite of what you claim I said. The second effect is that people who have paid a high cost for an hour of time will use the hour of time they've paid for. That's not increasing the amount he's willing to consume, it is consuming the entire amount he's paid for. They're not going to feed the meter for another hour unless they really need it, and at that point effect 1 comes into play.
Your error was in thinking that lower prices increase parking space turnover.
If I have paid an extreme amount (in my opinion) for a certain time on a meter, then I am less willing to just walk away from that investment. If I pay a quarter for an hour at a meter and my business is done in ten minutes, then I don't feel bad about just leaving, opening up the space for the next user. If I pay a dollar for the same amount of time, I'm more likely to see 50 minutes left on the meter when I get done and think "I'm already here, I might as well do something else." While in some cases that might mean I make purchases from another business, often it will mean I stay longer browsing where I already was, or I visit a store to see what something looks like for when I buy it cheaper online.
And when the rate goes to $10 for an hour, you would be foolish to think that there won't be people who decide that $10 to conduct ten minutes worth of business is insane and they'll go somewhere else altogether.
It is simply absurd to price something to deliberately reduce demand and then deny that you've reduced demand, or at least tried to.
The very existence of that auction is due to the fact that SF is underpricing its parking spaces.
No, it exists because there are people who want to make money by selling a limited public resource. In fact, if you overprice the parking space, people would be more likely to try selling them because they want to recoup some of the money they spent in the first place. For a quarter, I'll walk away. For $10 I might try selling it to the next guy.
Your assumption seems to be that a public resource must be priced at a rate to limit demand to what is available, thus optimizing return on investment, not just to cover the costs of providing that service. That's a goal of a for-profit corporation, of course, but a city government should not be trying to make a profit on the services it provides to the citizens. The city government should also consider in the pricing the benefits of the service to the local economy and the return from that. I know that some have denied that public parking is a benefit to the economy of a city, but in fact it is.
Is that better or worse than teaching someone to leave warnings on for those operations and then not noticing when a really significant one appears because it's buried in an avalanche of other output?
Worse, because when the significant one appears the code will be non-functional and there will be no compiler warning to help figure out why. It is harder to remember to go back and change the makefile (or other build script) to turn the warnings back on and then see a large number of irrelevant warnings appear (which you may think are relevant and waste time fixing without actually fixing the broken code). If you inherited the build from someone else (not a good idea in a programming class necessarily) you might not KNOW you need to go turn the warnings back on, you might just have a broken program and no warnings to tell you where to look.
By the way, I define "significant warning" to mean "actually reports something that is going to make the program malfunction". For example, "incompatible declaration of function printf" when I forget to include stdio.h is not a significant warning because I don't care what printf returns and nothing depends on it. Should I decide to turn that one off, and then do something that actually does depend on the return value and it doesn't work, it becomes a significant warning and I want to see it. I'm reasonably competent, so I can recognize a warning that refers to a line of code I've just changed, even if there are other warnings.
I get to deal with lots of code that has lots of warnings. I can handle it.