So California has removed an important rung on the economic ladder, by turning entry level jobs into permanent no-skill "careers" flipping burgers. This effect is worst in minority neighborhoods which already have extremely high teenage unemployment.
Okay, so why does it remove entry-level jobs for minorities but apparently not for white teenagers? Maybe whatever causes that disparity is where the problem really lies.
The FBI and city of San Bernadino both have a legal right to access the data, so why is it Apple's choice about if they will help them?
First, because the court order didn't ask for Apple to help access only that data, it asked Apple to provide a tool for the government to access all data, including on any other iPhone (of the same model, at least) owned by other people. Second, because the court order compelled speech: it required Apple to write new code, and code is speech. The First Amendment guarantees right to free speech, which also includes the right to refrain from speaking.
(And by "free" I mean at no additional cost beyond the Google Fiber internet service itself.)
After all, Google already offers Google Voice / Hangouts for free. I assume that this is just Google Voice plus an ATA -- essentially the same thing lots of people already do using an ObiTalk, just entirely Google-branded.
Counteroffer should be that AT&T pays back the BILLIONS in subsidies they have already received and actually builds out the fiber that they've already promised to build!
And then the state should confiscate it and then use competitive bidding to decide who gets to manage it. Why? Because FUCK YOU, AT&T, that's why!
Compared to Europe, or even some 3rd world countries, North America (Canada and USA) seem awfully backward and old fashioned. So much stuff seems extremely retro or even antiquated;... the cars....
I hate to break it to you, but we drive the same Japanese cars you Europeans do.
Now, if you're deliberately under-pricing it to make the public think it's cheaper than it really is, or you're siphoning off revenue to cover shortfalls elsewhere in your budget, then yeah you're not going to have enough money for maintenance or improvement. If you're under-pricing it to discourage use of cars (which I can totally see happening in the Bay Area not just because it's for all intents and purposes socialist, but because the traffic there is some of the worst in the country), then you should be charging car owners additional registration fees or fuel taxes or parking taxes or even turning some of those freeways into toll roads, and using that money to subsidize your public transportation system.
Transit is subsidized in most places, but roads are subsidized even more.
On the other hand, ride quality goes a long way towards inducing people to ride.
Does it? I highly doubt it! On the contrary, I'm willing to bet the only things transit riders actually give the slightest fuck about is price and trip time vs. the alternatives. (And maybe not getting mugged.)
"smoother riding qualities" is fairly low on the list of things voters might want to pay for in a transit system, probably coming behind "staying within the budget", "lower maintenance costs" and "on-time operation".
No kidding. The only legitimate concern about a smooth ride should be "sufficient to reduce the number of lawsuits from people falling over and injuring themselves during normal operation below some acceptable threshold." Beyond that, "smoothness" should have been nixed at the value-engineering stage of design.
The argument is "because I'm rich, I can watch video from any site on the Internet I want (anything from Ted.com to $porn_site) without worrying about data caps, but poor people can only afford to use sites that are zero-rated which limits and/or censors them." Why should only rich people be able to watch Ted talks?
"Legislating pricing" is not what's happening here. You imply that net neutrality is some sort of government subsidy; it is not. In reality, it's basically just a rule that ISPs have to provide the whole Internet instead of picking some subset (often "coincidentally" controlled by them) to provide at the base cost and then charging extra for the rest.
Net neutrality is preventing your carrier from slowing down OR SPEEDING UP certain services or sites in relation to others - everything must be on an absolutely equal level.
Referring to "services" is a little ambiguous. It should be made clear that net neutrality does not prohibit ISPs from discriminating based on protocol (e.g. HTTP vs. VOIP); that's just QoS and is still perfectly reasonable. The key is that the throttling cannot discriminate based on the origin or destination.
a kind of sick cryptophobia where a law-abiding person is hated by their government for their desire to not be constantly spied on by that same government.
It's just how all the old villages grew together. They didn't rename the roads they connected at the time because they didn't want to inconvenience anyone but now they are confusing people unfamiliar to the area for generations.
That's not always the reason. Sometimes (especially in the South back in the '50s) they used to take roads that had the same name for their entire length and intentionally rename part of them. Why? So you could tell when you were crossing from the white neighborhood to the black neighborhood, of course!
Atlanta is infamous for naming everything "Peachtree." Peachtree Street, Peachtree Road, Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Peachtree Parkway, West Peachtree Street, Peachtree Circle, Peachtree Center Avenue, Peachtree Battle Avenue, Peachtree Hills Avenue, Peachtree Memorial Drive, etc.
My neighborhood is old enough to be built with a street grid (as opposed to the tree-like network that idiotically funnels all the traffic onto an arterial road to get anywhere, common in subdivisions built after the '50s). The houses along every parallel street are numbered the same way. For example, 1000 11th Street is one block south of 1000 12th Street, which is one block south of 1000 13th Street, etc. This scheme is perfectly reasonable: it's a grid, after all; what else would you expect?!
The only weirdness here was that two streets that were supposed to be parallel curved to intersect each other.
Google does not deserve your help! They've got plenty of money to pay some schlub to fix it. Why should you work for a for-profit corporation for free?
If you want to volunteer to help improve maps, contribute to OpenStreetMap instead!
True, but still, the reason should be one that's relevant to an issue the hiring manager cares about. For example, if your reason is "because I have a long commute" then you're inviting the manager to ask himself "why shouldn't I just hire somebody with a shorter commute instead?" I mean, I suppose it's possible to use the negotiation equivalent of the Chewbacca defense, but you'd need gigantic levels of confidence -- and genius bullshitting skills -- to pull it off. And anybody capable of that is probably in sales, not engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so why does it remove entry-level jobs for minorities but apparently not for white teenagers? Maybe whatever causes that disparity is where the problem really lies.
First, because the court order didn't ask for Apple to help access only that data, it asked Apple to provide a tool for the government to access all data, including on any other iPhone (of the same model, at least) owned by other people. Second, because the court order compelled speech: it required Apple to write new code, and code is speech. The First Amendment guarantees right to free speech, which also includes the right to refrain from speaking.
I vaguely remember something like that, but can't recall the details. Could you enumerate them?
(And by "free" I mean at no additional cost beyond the Google Fiber internet service itself.)
After all, Google already offers Google Voice / Hangouts for free. I assume that this is just Google Voice plus an ATA -- essentially the same thing lots of people already do using an ObiTalk, just entirely Google-branded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
Counteroffer should be that AT&T pays back the BILLIONS in subsidies they have already received and actually builds out the fiber that they've already promised to build!
And then the state should confiscate it and then use competitive bidding to decide who gets to manage it. Why? Because FUCK YOU, AT&T, that's why!
I hate to break it to you, but we drive the same Japanese cars you Europeans do.
There may not be any Republican power in California, but lots of transit funding is Federal.
Transit is subsidized in most places, but roads are subsidized even more.
Does it? I highly doubt it! On the contrary, I'm willing to bet the only things transit riders actually give the slightest fuck about is price and trip time vs. the alternatives. (And maybe not getting mugged.)
No kidding. The only legitimate concern about a smooth ride should be "sufficient to reduce the number of lawsuits from people falling over and injuring themselves during normal operation below some acceptable threshold." Beyond that, "smoothness" should have been nixed at the value-engineering stage of design.
The argument is "because I'm rich, I can watch video from any site on the Internet I want (anything from Ted.com to $porn_site) without worrying about data caps, but poor people can only afford to use sites that are zero-rated which limits and/or censors them." Why should only rich people be able to watch Ted talks?
"Legislating pricing" is not what's happening here. You imply that net neutrality is some sort of government subsidy; it is not. In reality, it's basically just a rule that ISPs have to provide the whole Internet instead of picking some subset (often "coincidentally" controlled by them) to provide at the base cost and then charging extra for the rest.
Referring to "services" is a little ambiguous. It should be made clear that net neutrality does not prohibit ISPs from discriminating based on protocol (e.g. HTTP vs. VOIP); that's just QoS and is still perfectly reasonable. The key is that the throttling cannot discriminate based on the origin or destination.
That's true, but the fact that the uncertainty in the measurement is much larger than its rate of change means that it isn't a very useful statement.
Because that's fucking unconstitutional too! Supporting one part of the Bill of Rights does not give you an excuse to shit on the rest of it!
That's a nice turn of phrase.
That's not always the reason. Sometimes (especially in the South back in the '50s) they used to take roads that had the same name for their entire length and intentionally rename part of them. Why? So you could tell when you were crossing from the white neighborhood to the black neighborhood, of course!
Atlanta is infamous for naming everything "Peachtree." Peachtree Street, Peachtree Road, Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Peachtree Parkway, West Peachtree Street, Peachtree Circle, Peachtree Center Avenue, Peachtree Battle Avenue, Peachtree Hills Avenue, Peachtree Memorial Drive, etc.
My neighborhood is old enough to be built with a street grid (as opposed to the tree-like network that idiotically funnels all the traffic onto an arterial road to get anywhere, common in subdivisions built after the '50s). The houses along every parallel street are numbered the same way. For example, 1000 11th Street is one block south of 1000 12th Street, which is one block south of 1000 13th Street, etc. This scheme is perfectly reasonable: it's a grid, after all; what else would you expect?!
The only weirdness here was that two streets that were supposed to be parallel curved to intersect each other.
According to TFA (or at least one of TFAs about it; I read it elsewhere) the duplex in question was not badly damaged enough to be worth tearing down.
Google does not deserve your help! They've got plenty of money to pay some schlub to fix it. Why should you work for a for-profit corporation for free?
If you want to volunteer to help improve maps, contribute to OpenStreetMap instead!
The fact that you can host it yourself is what makes email superior to the centralized alternatives, despite its faults.
It's GUI-based instead of ncurses-based, and is scripted with Javascript instead of Lisp.
True, but still, the reason should be one that's relevant to an issue the hiring manager cares about. For example, if your reason is "because I have a long commute" then you're inviting the manager to ask himself "why shouldn't I just hire somebody with a shorter commute instead?" I mean, I suppose it's possible to use the negotiation equivalent of the Chewbacca defense, but you'd need gigantic levels of confidence -- and genius bullshitting skills -- to pull it off. And anybody capable of that is probably in sales, not engineering.