it's pitting a highly regulated industry (taxi cabs) with an unregulated variant.
Unregulated versions have existed in many cities for a long time -- for example, private hire cars in the UK. In the US, the equivalent is not unregulated (limo services) but it is much less regulated than taxi services. People were prepared to pay more for the convenience of a taxi.
What Uber brings is the convenience of a taxi combined with the advantages of existing unregulated services. That's where technology comes in -- it provides the convenience.
Taxi services are now suffering because of a combination of historic greed and anti-competitive actions. By that, I mean the sale of medallions, which brought in revenue to cities (greed) and made it difficult or impossible for people to start a taxi business (anti-competitive). However, those medallions are a huge cost of running a taxi which is not incurred by services such as Uber.
When Google still owned Motorola they tried to make some quality designs that had a lot more polish than the typical Android phone, but the sales didn't follow because it didn't have the bells and whistles that attract tech geeks
Perhaps part of the problem was that (prior to Google ownership) Motorola had already put off many of the geeks by producing the most locked-down phones of any Android manufacturer.
I am not sure what the point of your post was, since it seems to be mostly irrelevant.
As far as I can tell, the person asking the question wants to just get a SIM card and put it into his already unlocked phone. Obviously, he needs to ask for the right size SIM (to match his exisitng phone) when buying.
So, the only question is whether his phone supports the necessary frequencies and standards for either AT&T's or T-Mobile's network.
However, they will still abuse citizens by simply claiming they had probable cause to search the phone
But that's the whole point of the ruling. The police would need to get a warrant. They can't simply claim "probably cause" to search a cellphone without a warrant.
The more severe the parking shortage, the more cumulative distance that driver has driven (i.e. in circles) trying to find a spot by luck. Rather than circling the block a dozen times, the driver looks up a spot and reserves it, then goes directly there.
Which says nothing about the efficient use of parking spaces -- all it affects is efficient use of the roads (at the expense of efficient use of parking spaces).
These people are providing the city the great and valuable service of a functional smart parking grid operating when parking congestion is high.
There seems to be an unwritten premise behind your claim that the space would be unused if it were not for this app. In fact, the reverse is true -- likely the driver "selling" the space will remain in place longer than necesssary so that he/she can sell the parking space. Without the ability to sell a space, it will be vacated more quickly and then immediately filled by another driver who happens to be driving by (because there is a shortage of parking).
For example, in a negotiation, a diplomat can say "we don't need the unions to have disproportionate control over production costs", in reference to potentially giving unions control over tariffs
But there is a huge difference between reporting the content of discussions between the parties and publishing early drafts of the proposed treaty.
As long as the final version (release candidate would be a better expression here) is properly publically analysed (and, if needed, rewritten), there's no problem.
But that's the point. There is no rewriting (which would imply re-negotiation) of the final version -- it becomes a take-it-or-leave-it option. That's one of the goals of the secrecy during negotiation.
If research is paid for by outsiders, if sports pay for itself, then where is this ever growing cost of education coming from?
1. Sport only pays for itself in a very limited number of institutions. The claim is that somehow the sport gets almuni to gift more money, but I doubt that there are any studies that have investigated this claim.
2. While the pay of the teachers has been going down, pay for administrators has been going up.
Well, you have to figure the wage suppression was worth significantly more than $5,000 per worker, heck it was probably worth between 2 and 4 times that per year and the case involves at least a half decade of bad actions, so make it 10k per worker per year and that works out to ~3.2B.
In this case, I believe that the lawyers are putting their interests above that of the clients. An average person in the class is making well over $100k. For that person, which is better: $5k guaranteed or a 25% chance of $50k? Obviously the latter. However, for the lawyers, the question is rather different. Get guaranteed $Millions now, or spend a lot more time and effort to get a $25% chance of $multi-millions? Most people would probably opt for the $Millions and that's what these lawyers are doing -- grab the easy guaranteed money and move on to the next class action.
It's essentially a loophole in the 4th amendment and its counterparts in those countries.
I don't believe it is a loophole. The NSA and it's supporters are using it for a bullshit claim that it's a loophole. As yet, I don't think the Supreme Court has weighed in on this question.
an entry that says "[Dealername] Added Value $500".
I remember seeing one car that the dealer was even more forward about markup. The item was "Additional dealer profit". The sticker was on a TC by Chrysler, which probably sat on the dealer's lot until the dealer realized that the "Additional profit" needed to be negative in order to sell the car.
Not really. Tesla doesn't really have the volume (or the low end offerings) to eat the dealerships' bread and butter(except possibly some relatively niche outfits
If you consider BMW niche, then yes.
If I walk round my office car park, I see more Teslas parked here than BMWs. Considering the number of years that BMW has been selling cars, that' s pretty amazing. In all fairness, I should mention that the Tesla factory is just a few miles up the road, so I live in prime territory for Tesla.
If Google is considered 'external communications' and an 'overseas' company, then why is Google paying UK taxes?
The level of ignorance in that article is amazing. Google does pay taxes, but it also shifts the vast majority of income that is arguably earned in the UK to Ireland. Sales to British companies made by British salespeople, working in Britain, are reported as sales made in Ireland. That's the issue.
How many years of backups should they be required to keep?
How many years of records does the IRS expect taxpayers to keep? Imagine that you were audited and then the IRS lost the records of the audit and then audited you again. That would suck.
This appears to be slightly different -- if I understand correctly, the emails were downloaded to a PC (probably using POP3, not IMAP) and deleted off the server. Backing up every desktop system provides a lot of challenges. Backing up emails from a laptop that is rarely connected to the LAN is even more difficult.
Good. I don't want the local government running broadband. I want actual, real, competition.
Except that the real effect of limiting municipal broadband is the increase in prices. Cities that get municipal broadband see reduced pricing from private ISPs. Yes, everyone wants real competition, but just limiting what local governments can do does not in any way, shape or form provide more competition.
Because of the last mile cost issue, the only effective way to get competition is to separate ownership of the last mile from the rest of the infrastructure. Until that happens, municipal broadband may be the best fallback.
I'm surprised that spam is still a lucrative business model,
Some years ago, there was a suggestion that the people paying for the spam campaigns were not making any money, but the botmasters were. How did this work? As long as there is a supply of suckers prepared to pay botmasters for spam campaigns....
This is why the wealth disparity that the ultra rich work towards is so baffling.
I don't think that intelligence is the necessary attribute for acquiring wealth -- instead it is sociopathy. The ultra wealthy are only out for themselves and they don't care about the consequences, even the consequences for other rich people who are going to suffer from the starving people -- they have their private security.
On Windows, BitLocker is just as secure as TrueCrypt. Well, assuming there are no massive unintended flaws in BitLocker.
Just to clarify your statement above -- you are saying that neither TrueCrypt nor Bitlocker is secure on Windows and both can easily be compromised on Windows?
Does anyone now think that an NSL was not behind the shutdown of TrueCrypt? Really? The fact that the developers have not come forward and the hillarious suggestion to use bitlocker.
The results are likely to negative for the USA -- think of Americans travelling in Asia, with laptops on which the data is encrypted using systems which are likely to have backdoors.
That's why the defenders of the NSA are wrong -- even if you accept the privacy violations, the net result is reduction in security. Even without Snowdon, the information would have eventually leaked out.
Perhaps it depends on the person at Nominet who assesses the site, or perhaps the goalposts have moved. I once reported a site to Nominet for blocked Whois information because the site was promoting a product, although actual puchases were made through another (linked) site. Nothing happened. The site remained as "The registrant is a non-trading individual", even though it clearly was not.
Slashdot Mirror
Unregulated versions have existed in many cities for a long time -- for example, private hire cars in the UK. In the US, the equivalent is not unregulated (limo services) but it is much less regulated than taxi services. People were prepared to pay more for the convenience of a taxi.
What Uber brings is the convenience of a taxi combined with the advantages of existing unregulated services. That's where technology comes in -- it provides the convenience.
Taxi services are now suffering because of a combination of historic greed and anti-competitive actions. By that, I mean the sale of medallions, which brought in revenue to cities (greed) and made it difficult or impossible for people to start a taxi business (anti-competitive). However, those medallions are a huge cost of running a taxi which is not incurred by services such as Uber.
Cablevision would beg to differ.
Perhaps part of the problem was that (prior to Google ownership) Motorola had already put off many of the geeks by producing the most locked-down phones of any Android manufacturer.
I am not sure what the point of your post was, since it seems to be mostly irrelevant.
As far as I can tell, the person asking the question wants to just get a SIM card and put it into his already unlocked phone. Obviously, he needs to ask for the right size SIM (to match his exisitng phone) when buying.
So, the only question is whether his phone supports the necessary frequencies and standards for either AT&T's or T-Mobile's network.
But that's the whole point of the ruling. The police would need to get a warrant. They can't simply claim "probably cause" to search a cellphone without a warrant.
Which says nothing about the efficient use of parking spaces -- all it affects is efficient use of the roads (at the expense of efficient use of parking spaces).
There seems to be an unwritten premise behind your claim that the space would be unused if it were not for this app. In fact, the reverse is true -- likely the driver "selling" the space will remain in place longer than necesssary so that he/she can sell the parking space. Without the ability to sell a space, it will be vacated more quickly and then immediately filled by another driver who happens to be driving by (because there is a shortage of parking).
But there is a huge difference between reporting the content of discussions between the parties and publishing early drafts of the proposed treaty.
But that's the point. There is no rewriting (which would imply re-negotiation) of the final version -- it becomes a take-it-or-leave-it option. That's one of the goals of the secrecy during negotiation.
Let me trump your vague "everything" with some actual reporting:
Or how about this:
So, there are your citations. What do you have?
1. Sport only pays for itself in a very limited number of institutions. The claim is that somehow the sport gets almuni to gift more money, but I doubt that there are any studies that have investigated this claim.
2. While the pay of the teachers has been going down, pay for administrators has been going up.
In this case, I believe that the lawyers are putting their interests above that of the clients. An average person in the class is making well over $100k. For that person, which is better: $5k guaranteed or a 25% chance of $50k? Obviously the latter. However, for the lawyers, the question is rather different. Get guaranteed $Millions now, or spend a lot more time and effort to get a $25% chance of $multi-millions? Most people would probably opt for the $Millions and that's what these lawyers are doing -- grab the easy guaranteed money and move on to the next class action.
I don't believe it is a loophole. The NSA and it's supporters are using it for a bullshit claim that it's a loophole. As yet, I don't think the Supreme Court has weighed in on this question.
I remember seeing one car that the dealer was even more forward about markup. The item was "Additional dealer profit". The sticker was on a TC by Chrysler, which probably sat on the dealer's lot until the dealer realized that the "Additional profit" needed to be negative in order to sell the car.
If you consider BMW niche, then yes.
If I walk round my office car park, I see more Teslas parked here than BMWs. Considering the number of years that BMW has been selling cars, that' s pretty amazing. In all fairness, I should mention that the Tesla factory is just a few miles up the road, so I live in prime territory for Tesla.
While the attributes of AT&T have followed the name, the current AT&T isn't really the same company as the old AT&T.
The level of ignorance in that article is amazing. Google does pay taxes, but it also shifts the vast majority of income that is arguably earned in the UK to Ireland. Sales to British companies made by British salespeople, working in Britain, are reported as sales made in Ireland. That's the issue.
How many years of records does the IRS expect taxpayers to keep? Imagine that you were audited and then the IRS lost the records of the audit and then audited you again. That would suck.
This appears to be slightly different -- if I understand correctly, the emails were downloaded to a PC (probably using POP3, not IMAP) and deleted off the server. Backing up every desktop system provides a lot of challenges. Backing up emails from a laptop that is rarely connected to the LAN is even more difficult.
Except that the real effect of limiting municipal broadband is the increase in prices. Cities that get municipal broadband see reduced pricing from private ISPs. Yes, everyone wants real competition, but just limiting what local governments can do does not in any way, shape or form provide more competition.
Because of the last mile cost issue, the only effective way to get competition is to separate ownership of the last mile from the rest of the infrastructure. Until that happens, municipal broadband may be the best fallback.
Some years ago, there was a suggestion that the people paying for the spam campaigns were not making any money, but the botmasters were. How did this work? As long as there is a supply of suckers prepared to pay botmasters for spam campaigns ....
In unrelated news, Comast increases its Cable TV service prices by an average of $75/month in the Porland area.
Just to clarify your statement above -- you are saying that neither TrueCrypt nor Bitlocker is secure on Windows and both can easily be compromised on Windows?
Does anyone now think that an NSL was not behind the shutdown of TrueCrypt? Really? The fact that the developers have not come forward and the hillarious suggestion to use bitlocker.
The results are likely to negative for the USA -- think of Americans travelling in Asia, with laptops on which the data is encrypted using systems which are likely to have backdoors.
That's why the defenders of the NSA are wrong -- even if you accept the privacy violations, the net result is reduction in security. Even without Snowdon, the information would have eventually leaked out.
Perhaps it depends on the person at Nominet who assesses the site, or perhaps the goalposts have moved. I once reported a site to Nominet for blocked Whois information because the site was promoting a product, although actual puchases were made through another (linked) site. Nothing happened. The site remained as "The registrant is a non-trading individual", even though it clearly was not.