Because, when non-autonomous cars are banned from cities and those same cities tear down parking structures, owning your own car will become a giant, expensive problem?
If car services compete against each other, cars will have to be available and clean. Today, when hailing a taxi, you don't get to select a taxi based on level of service.
Lots of people living on major metropolitan areas don't have cars today.
I would expect that the *AA will actually do better out of this because people will not get roadside assistance with their insurance and will need to purchase it separately.
Why would you need to buy roadside assistance when you are buying a car *service*? It's the equivalent of someone who only uses taxis (or Uber) buying roadside assistance.
To clarify why the AAA will be redundant: the most likely scenario for adoption of autonomous cars is that individuals will not own them. Instead, people will sign up for a car service.
If you are paying for a service, you don't need most of the products and services that AAA offers.
Company that will be redundant in a world of autonomous cars produces survey that shows people won't accept the very thing that will make it redundant.
Film at 11.
Red Hat sued SCO in 2003 for false advertising, and that case was stayed pending resolution of the IBM case. Is that still pending (and can Red Hat try to get damages)?
SCO has no money. Trying to revive that suit would only be a waste of legal fees.
The All Writs Act should be repealed, but it hasn't been. Courts have "interpreted" in such a way to trim it down to Constitutional scope. It FEELS like this use of it SHOULD be unconstitutional, but how so? The Constitution basically says the police have to get a warrant before they can search the phone. They did get the warrant.
I don't think anyone is arguing that this use of the AWA invokes a 4th amendment violation. I think that the arguments are that:
1. The constitution doesn't give the government the right to order someone to do something that would be burdensome.
2. Ordering Apple to create this software and sign it may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
3. Other???
Today, people who don't own a car and/or don't want to drive just take a taxi or Uber. If they buy a self-driving car instead, how does that lead to more trips and more pollution?
They won't buy a car. They will subscribe to a car service that will provide an autonomous car on demand. That autonomous car will drive more miles than a privately-owned car, but there will be less cars in total. What's the overall effect? I don't know.
What large cities are envisioning is that non-autonomous cars will be banned from the city. People will enter the city using trains and buses and will travel the last mile (last few miles) using a (possibly shared) autonomous car service. As long as people end up actually using the train service, total energy usage should be reduced.
"Be it resolved that computers running or intending to run Microsoft Windows purchased by the department which boot using the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) have the ability to disable the Secure Boot features for both local hard drive and network booting."
What about Surface Pro tablets? I think that this policy would preclude their purchase (a good idea IMHO), but others may disagree. You probably need to figure this out before it sinks your attempt to bring in a new policy.
Yeah, I remember working for a large US employer when it came time to sign up for United Way contributions. There was a lot of pressure to sign up. I was in a special situation, so it didn't really affect me, but I doubt that my colleagues felt that their "voluntary" contributions had no impact on their careers.
Can offering a competitive salary for the college president improve a student's experience by 0.1%? I'm guessing yes.
I am going to guess no. I suspect that a bad president may be able to degrade a student's experience by 0.1%, but where is the accountability? CEOs and others can do a bad job and still get a golden handshake.
Taking your argument further, imagine that, as a successful employee, I increase the company's revenue by 10x my salary. I should be paid 10x what I am being paid, right? Except that the world doesn't work like that. CEOs and college presidents are overpaid because they and their friends have stacked the deck so that "competitive" salaries are excessive.
However, the FBI screwed it up by changing the password to the cloud storage so the phone can no longer be paired to the cloud
Either the FBI is very incompetent or that was a deliberate act by the FBI to create the situation that now exists. A situation that is the best possible scenario for the FBI to force Apple to unlock a phone.
The FBI has lied about this case time and time again. They even had the gall to blame the San Bernadino health department for resetting the password.
I am not convinced that there was a screwup, but instead the FBI got the password changed, knowing exactly what the consequences would be.
Please don't post in stories on which you are completely uninformed. This particular case has no 4th amendment issues. The phone belongs to the San Bernadino heath department, so there never was an expectation of privacy.
The issue here is whether Apple can be forced to do something that they don't want to do. Something that is against Apple's business interests, something that may have 1st amendment issues, something that may negative consequences for the security of Americans.
This is going to unleash far more parallel construction. I can see the way the courts will see this: "parallel construction is bad!. But you must prove that parallel construction has taken place before we will throw out this evidence."
I still wonder how it is possible that the republicans can't come up with a single decent candidate. And this is not the first time that happened.
The answer to that is simple and obvious: the GOP is completely driven by a small number of ultra-wealthy individuals (through funding PACs and the manipulation of useful idiots AKA the Tea Party). To those people, all the GOP candidates are very suitable.
The Koch brothers and their friends are spending $1B this election season.
How is it possible to sue for a declarative judgement? Or is this another case where wealthy companies are treated better by the courts than ordinary citizens?
I read of too many cases where judges appear to be highly biased in their judgements. The case you describe is yet another example. I speculate that in this case, the mortgage was in arrears, so the judge felt that foreclosure was proper, so he wasn't going to let small details like who was entitled to foreclose get in the way of kicking them out of their house.
Isn't there a compromise? Can't Apple unlock this individual phone without providing the government a universal backdoor?
You haven't been following what is going on. Farook (the guy who perpetrated the multiple shooting deaths) destroyed his personal phone. This is his work phone. Since he had the awareness to destroy his personal phone, how much useful data do you think is on this phone?
Furthermore, they have the metadata for this phone, so why not get the data off the phones that this one communicated with? Do you really think he was calling people in the middle east with his work phone?
Going on, the FBI screwed up one possible way to access the phone: allowing it to sync with the iCloud.
What you are left with is the conclusion that the primary reason that the FBI is expending time and money on this is to establish a precedent. The FBI thinks that "because terrorists", people will be more sympathetic to unlocking this phone, and, once it has been done once, it can be done a thousand time, or ten thousand times.
You also have to consider the number of times that one spare battery is insufficient, but 4 or 5 recharges is sufficient. That's very rare for me, but YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, when non-autonomous cars are banned from cities and those same cities tear down parking structures, owning your own car will become a giant, expensive problem?
If car services compete against each other, cars will have to be available and clean. Today, when hailing a taxi, you don't get to select a taxi based on level of service.
Lots of people living on major metropolitan areas don't have cars today.
Obviously, you have not read the comments in any story about Wayland.
So what this article is saying is that the drivers were available before the hardware was available.
There must be exploding minds amongst those people at Microsoft who used to promote the idea that Linux had poor hardware support.
Why would you need to buy roadside assistance when you are buying a car *service*? It's the equivalent of someone who only uses taxis (or Uber) buying roadside assistance.
To clarify why the AAA will be redundant: the most likely scenario for adoption of autonomous cars is that individuals will not own them. Instead, people will sign up for a car service.
If you are paying for a service, you don't need most of the products and services that AAA offers.
Company that will be redundant in a world of autonomous cars produces survey that shows people won't accept the very thing that will make it redundant. Film at 11.
SCO has no money. Trying to revive that suit would only be a waste of legal fees.
I don't think anyone is arguing that this use of the AWA invokes a 4th amendment violation. I think that the arguments are that:
1. The constitution doesn't give the government the right to order someone to do something that would be burdensome.
2. Ordering Apple to create this software and sign it may be a violation of the 1st amendment.
3. Other???
They won't buy a car. They will subscribe to a car service that will provide an autonomous car on demand. That autonomous car will drive more miles than a privately-owned car, but there will be less cars in total. What's the overall effect? I don't know.
What large cities are envisioning is that non-autonomous cars will be banned from the city. People will enter the city using trains and buses and will travel the last mile (last few miles) using a (possibly shared) autonomous car service. As long as people end up actually using the train service, total energy usage should be reduced.
What about Surface Pro tablets? I think that this policy would preclude their purchase (a good idea IMHO), but others may disagree. You probably need to figure this out before it sinks your attempt to bring in a new policy.
Yeah, I remember working for a large US employer when it came time to sign up for United Way contributions. There was a lot of pressure to sign up. I was in a special situation, so it didn't really affect me, but I doubt that my colleagues felt that their "voluntary" contributions had no impact on their careers.
I am going to guess no. I suspect that a bad president may be able to degrade a student's experience by 0.1%, but where is the accountability? CEOs and others can do a bad job and still get a golden handshake.
Taking your argument further, imagine that, as a successful employee, I increase the company's revenue by 10x my salary. I should be paid 10x what I am being paid, right? Except that the world doesn't work like that. CEOs and college presidents are overpaid because they and their friends have stacked the deck so that "competitive" salaries are excessive.
The question is phrased in a manner that is designed to draw out a pre-defined conclusion.
The question should be:
1. Are CEOs overpaid?
2. Are College presidents overpaid?
Either the FBI is very incompetent or that was a deliberate act by the FBI to create the situation that now exists. A situation that is the best possible scenario for the FBI to force Apple to unlock a phone.
The FBI has lied about this case time and time again. They even had the gall to blame the San Bernadino health department for resetting the password.
I am not convinced that there was a screwup, but instead the FBI got the password changed, knowing exactly what the consequences would be.
Please don't post in stories on which you are completely uninformed. This particular case has no 4th amendment issues. The phone belongs to the San Bernadino heath department, so there never was an expectation of privacy.
The issue here is whether Apple can be forced to do something that they don't want to do. Something that is against Apple's business interests, something that may have 1st amendment issues, something that may negative consequences for the security of Americans.
I find that it is helpful not to wait for things that will never happen.
This is going to unleash far more parallel construction. I can see the way the courts will see this:
"parallel construction is bad!. But you must prove that parallel construction has taken place before we will throw out this evidence."
The answer to that is simple and obvious: the GOP is completely driven by a small number of ultra-wealthy individuals (through funding PACs and the manipulation of useful idiots AKA the Tea Party). To those people, all the GOP candidates are very suitable.
The Koch brothers and their friends are spending $1B this election season.
That's cool. I did not know that such devices exist.
How is it possible to sue for a declarative judgement? Or is this another case where wealthy companies are treated better by the courts than ordinary citizens?
I read of too many cases where judges appear to be highly biased in their judgements. The case you describe is yet another example. I speculate that in this case, the mortgage was in arrears, so the judge felt that foreclosure was proper, so he wasn't going to let small details like who was entitled to foreclose get in the way of kicking them out of their house.
You haven't been following what is going on. Farook (the guy who perpetrated the multiple shooting deaths) destroyed his personal phone. This is his work phone. Since he had the awareness to destroy his personal phone, how much useful data do you think is on this phone?
Furthermore, they have the metadata for this phone, so why not get the data off the phones that this one communicated with? Do you really think he was calling people in the middle east with his work phone?
Going on, the FBI screwed up one possible way to access the phone: allowing it to sync with the iCloud.
What you are left with is the conclusion that the primary reason that the FBI is expending time and money on this is to establish a precedent. The FBI thinks that "because terrorists", people will be more sympathetic to unlocking this phone, and, once it has been done once, it can be done a thousand time, or ten thousand times.
Way to go, completely misunderstanding the point.
My point is that having 10,000mAh is only an advantage if I need more charge than one spare battery provides. That never happens for me.
Carrying 10x the weight is a disadvantage if I don't need more than one recharge.
You also have to consider the number of times that one spare battery is insufficient, but 4 or 5 recharges is sufficient. That's very rare for me, but YMMV.
... and is 10x or more the size and weight of a replaceable battery?
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. (Ian Fleming)