There are a lot of things you can do with a UBI that are utterly stupid, but that doesn't mean that a UBI is necessarily bad. Even free market advocates like Milton Friedman proposed solutions like a negative income tax that fundamentally amount to a UBI. Just avoid doing the stupid things that incentivize undesirable behavior (e.g., don't give parents additional UBI for each kid they have and if you do give kids a UBI, lock it away until they reach adulthood) and it's going to be a much better system than the mess we have now. Of course, adopting a UBI probably necessitates other changes (immigration, etc.) but it's a better system than what we've got right now and we could probably get away with spending less for better outcomes.
You're equating regulation with taxation. I can assure you that they are entirely different things. More importantly, increasing minimum wage, or taxing individuals is entirely antithetical to UBI. It makes absolutely no sense at all. True UBI would eliminate both of those concepts. They're unnecessary. Clearly you don't understand UBI as well as you think you do. This is apparent in your mis-use/hodgepodging of things Bernie has mentioned (at various times) that don't relate back to UBI.
The closest you came was the "Bezos" tax, except that the real version of it (that would actually work) is a sort of "automation tax." Bill Gates proposed one, so did Musk... neither of their plans will work without refinement, but the concept is simple: We have retarded the technological advancement of the planet simply because we insist on protecting jobs for the sake of protecting them and/or keeping people working. Had not the UAW stepped in and slowed automation in 1964 when Unimate came online, how much further along would the auto industry be? Or, in a similarly ridiculous situation, why are we turning coal plants back on? (To put people back to work.)
The true answer is that there are people whom we don't actually need working—they can be automated immediately or in the near future. But, the truer answer is that we can't let those same people starve to death in the streets (they would revolt, like the French Revolution, it would be very bad). So, there needs to be a plan to "take care" of those people. We can keep filly-farting around with "socialist" programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, social security, etc... or we can stop being ridiculous, encourage full automation at every level (Buy n Large from WALL-e), and get on with the next version of humanity. This doesn't take socialism, but it absolutely takes a new-world-view on what it means to be human. I can assure you that what "being human" doesn't mean is waking up every day and going to a job you dread just to put food on the table for you and your family.
This plan still allows for private ownership, but recognizes that the only reason you have land on which your robots can grow those crops is because the public (govt) has parceled it out of their own stores, and you currently hold title. So, when your robots grow food, keep a profit... but the public is entitled to a profit from your lands as well. The public's profit comes in the form of taxation. Taxation, that is, until we figure out an actual better version of apportionment that doesn't involve money. (Think Federation of Planets, when dealing amongst themselves.)
Your final point then, is moot (if not a bit outlandish.) Neither will the government take over, nor will it regulate. It will, however, encourage you and support you to automate every single worker you can. Possibly including yourself. UBI is about individual freedom, not restriction, and recognizes that society as a whole benefits when you don't have to worry about eating/sleeping, but can go pursue whatever it is you want. Maybe you love your job and your life and everything you do... most don't. They'd rather be doing something else. Maybe if you didn't have to work you could focus on your band, or painting, or traveling, or just spending time with your family. Or, maybe you want a better life than UBI provides and you have the skills to still work as we move toward total automation (not at all claiming we're there already). So you work, and the companies pre-tax profits pay your salary, which isn't taxed. It might be lower than you're currently used to, but you don't have to give up the UBI money, so in the end, you wind up ahead of the "don't want to work" people and can enjoy more than the "basics." Or maybe you drop to part-time, so you can pursue some happiness.
Please note: I'm using "you" because I'm responding to you. It's entirely possible that you have a perfect life, have a perfect work-life balance, and love your j
Except that basic income doesn't require governmental control of all businesses, which is what "socialism" actually is. Basic income (and social programs like welfare) might seem "socialist" because that's what you've been told, but they are not - they do not require public ownership/control of business. Single-payer-government-run health care on the other hand, is totally socialist (because the system is run by the public a.k.a. government).
In America, the shining example we have of socialism is the Interstate Highway System (most roads really). It is 100% unequivocally socialist with the tiny exception of states that have been retain pieces as toll roads for various reasons, but those pieces can't use federal funds.
socialism
noun a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Being "tracked" and being "reported," however, are two entirely different things.
In the reverse of this case, and in the absence of automatic security cameras, if ICE (or other law enforcement) submitted a list of license plates to the mall and said "can you please let us know if your staff notices any of these license plates in your lot," there is no issue. It holds then that the reverse is true—a citizen can, absolutely and unequivocally, report any public information to any authority, including a particular car's location. A citizen can also be compensated for reporting information deemed "useful" to law enforcement (aka "reward").
In this case, the mall is exercising it's right to monitor it's premises, which includes it's right to capture license plate information for anyone on it's private property, then sharing that list with law enforcement for a fee. There's simply no crime here and there is no violation.
Also, I think you mean the 4th Amendment, not Article 4. Article 4 is: Full Faith and Credit, Interstate Extradition, New State admittance to the Union, Protection from invasion/domestic Violence, Privileges and Immunities. Unless of course you mean "Freedom of Movement" as part of "Privileges and Immunities," but fundamentally that only allows people to cross state borders and absolutely allows tracking and has nothing to do with being embarrassed. (You do not at all have right to not be embarrassed.) Specifically In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States)
A more applicable law would be 4th Amendment, which disallows for warrantless tracking, but again, that's tracking by the government, not asking for reports from private citizenry. "Person of Interest" law is an example of this. Law enforcement has the right to seek the public's assistance in locating a person/people of interest without needing a warrant. "Have you seen this man?" is an example of that. It was specifically addressed as part of Carpenter v. United States, which put severe limits on the Third Party Doctrine, but not on "reasonable expectation of privacy (Kats v United States). Specifically "For example, federal Fourth Amendment protections do not extend to governmental intrusion and information collection conducted upon open fields; expectation of privacy in an open field is not considered reasonable. Some states, however, do grant protection to open fields." (from https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...)
Relative to what attorneys pay AdWords for Personal Injury ads, they're not that expensive. Moreover, they're paid for on a CPM, not CPC model. The tracking cookie for retargeting might serve a CPC ad or dozen, but even those are cheaper than you'd think b/c tsill not adwords.
Disclaimer: I'm the President of Marketing for a law firm. We spend a ton on marketing... and I've known about this for years. We thought about this when it came out about 2 years ago, but don't like the CPM model and had other (ethical) concerns.
As noted above, this is directly from the treasury:
There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services.
If you have a case you're citing where SCOTUS required cash payment, then cite it. Otherwise, you are wrong. Businesses absolutely do not have to accept cash.
Can a business refuse cash? Federal law makes U.S. currency a legal tender for paying debts. As a small business owner, you must accept dollars for your products or services. This doesn’t mean paper notes. You can accept electronic dollars as payment.
Private businesses can create their own payment policies, including ones that restrict cash payments. You can say that customers must pay with a credit card, check, or money order. You can also ban large bills at your business.
Bottom line—you can accept payments in whatever form you want. Here’s why:
No federal law requires businesses to accept cash. You only need to accept cash when someone owes a debt. If the customer pays before you provide the product or service, you don’t have to accept cash. You need to establish a cash payment policy before a transaction occurs. You can’t change your policy mid-transaction or refuse someone’s paper bills when you say that you accept cash. As long as you tell customers upfront that you don’t accept cash, you can refuse cash payments.
The simple solution to this is free passports for all, and passport offices that are open outside working hours at least 2x/month. I honestly can't believe we don't have this in place yet.
Just limit it by MAC to a certain # of devices, and let the user delete devices from time to time. Apple does this already, so does Adobe CC, and Google Music. It's not that hard.
The whining is coming not from the content providers, but from the cable companies, because they're the obsolete ones getting screwed. Viacom doesn't care because the more streams there are (regardless of shared login) the more $ they get to charge advertisers on OTT.
It's simple math: a+b = cable companies just need to die already.
I don't have the time to find any particular source, but I believe the scanning checked luggage goes through is more advanced than the screening for hand luggage, which part of the reason why you're not supposed to put film in checked luggage.
"When you have an understanding of the history of the argument", presumes that the reader does have that knowledge, which is referenced nowhere in TFA. It's obtuse to assume everyone is as learned as you are about this comparison. And no, the financial aid calculator that determines your "need based" assistance level isn't exactly "marketing material". Since you want to dismiss it, here's your real data:
The point of my original comment, which you missed, is that if you're going use use a "list price" quote it as MSRP, not "the cost of attending Harvard". The kids who get in to Harvard are some of the brightest in the land and when they don't have a need for need-based scholarships, they get scholarships anyway.
As I said, it's poor reporting. The article (and it's headline) talks about "cost of attending" not "price". Meaning, it's not at all non-sequitur to point out the difference between MSRP and actual "cost".
Contrary to popular belief: Harvard's true tuition is based on your family's income/assets, it's not fixed like standard schools. I get that the "list price" is $69K, but that's not the "cost" if your family isn't earning ~$250K/year. Harvard has "need-based" scholarship programs that can reduce the true cost to zero or near zero. The point is, if your academics can get you into Harvard College, they don't want you to worry about the price, they want you to attend. Oh, and they disallow student loans. https://college.harvard.edu/fi...
From the Harvard site (linked): "In fact, approximately 70 percent of our students receive some form of aid, and about 60 percent receive need–based scholarships and pay an average of $12,000 per year. Twenty percent of parents pay nothing. No loans required."
In other words, the "genius" who made this comparison isn't Harvard material - and is trying to say "it's expensive to house our inmates" by assuming Harvard is expensive. The truth is, it's not.
If s/he had done some research, s/he could should have said "Cost of a Porsche Boxster S", or something else that is actually "expensive" instead of making the poor people think they've got no chance of affording Harvard if they can get in.
Every night, before I go to sleep, I hope and pray to the PTBs that Google will add AT&T to Project Fi's list of carriers. There's a section of the desert between Vegas and LA that is useless on TMo/Sprint/USCellular. Adding AT&T to Fi (and possibly iPhone support for Fi) with decent marketing $ behind it would be the end of direct-from carrier services as we know it here in the U.S.. Needs to happen.
Seriously - The current system of fixed-price, then ticket resale, proves is that "people will pay what the market will bear". It boggles me that the original seller (venue, artist, etc...) wouldn't want to capitalize on the additional revenue that's currently going in the re-sellers pockets. If, for every event, the tickets when to an online auction system, and capitalism rules were allowed to work @ point of original sale, I'm not sure you'd need this law.
Yes, poor fans will be pissed that they "can never buy tickets at reasonable prices" but that's just more motivation to succeed at life rather than work for minimum wage. Also, people are pissed that they can't by face-value tickets b/c bots & scalpers anyway. If face-value was dynamic, that argument would be moot.
An auction-style system would almost certainly reduce the amount of scalpers that wind up with tickets. I'd assume that the secondary market would wind up limited to unwanted tickets from season ticket holders.
I realize that it's a much smaller, and MUCH richer country than ours, but Singapore already does this. There, you have a choice: Use the free Gov't access, choose a different provider (or tether), or do some combination of both.
Done right, this could simply be another competitor in what will soon be a crowded field. Obviously, there's going to be some mistrust of how the gov't will use the collected data, but I would guess that the majority of people don't care enough about how (or are ignorant to the fact that) the government is going to use the tracking data for it to be anything other than a minor news story if this moves forward.
I don't really care who directs it, I just hope they base 7, 8 and 9 on the Timothy Zahn books. I read them long ago and have been waiting for them to be movies for something like 20 years.
You know, as I was RingTFA, I was trying to figure out how the reporter didn't mention Monsanto at all. Seriously, your quote is modded funny, but not including the fact that Monsanto owns (and TIGHTLY controls) both in the article seems to be a significant oversight on the part of the press.
I'd guess this # would go up if people counted their alarms as an App. Mine definitely is, as I use a Droid w/ a Doc and a customizer app to reprogram my camera button into a "snooze". Thus, I use an app before I even wake up.
I would guess that if Verizon is the one that is requiring this of Motorola, then they are doing it to restrict people's ability to tether 2.2 without having to pay Verizon.
The Android 2.2 platform has built-in wifi tethering that you have to pay your carrier for in order to use, an extra $20/month or some such. Rather than do that, a quick root and install of a free wifi tether app allows the owner to bypass the carrier Tether requirements and build their own little wifi network to access the 'net from any wifi capable device without paying... The data becomes just another set of packets.
If you're looking for a business reason, that's it.
Could these newly found pyramids finally unlock the secrets of what will happen (or not) on December 21st, 2012?
Personally, I'm betting we're not going to get these dug out in time. When we do get them un-buried, I'd laugh if they said something along the lines, "Yeah, our whole 2012 thing was just a joke to scare the Inca! See those lines they built at Nazca? We put them up to that too!".
Ahh, the Maya, the great pranksters of the ancient world!
Until then, I'm just going to be happy with the 2012 Insurance Policy I picked up to laugh about this 2012 thing with all my friends!
That's just COOL! Too bad the writer of the article didn't know enough about Pac Man to realize that he's about to much on a Power Pellet and eat all the ghost-Thetans that are coming his way after liberation by the Scientologists!
I really didn't want to rekindle the debate about whether patents (or software patents) are a good or bad thing. I've been a/. reader (responder) for quite a while and understand the general consensus about patents here.
I really am only trying to understand what people who have been involved in these programs have seen before. My overall goal of this research is to help develop a program management will accept before anyone says "you work for us, we own the patents anyway" and does away with PIPs all together. Most of the people I work with (including me) love our jobs and I are just trying to get a fair result.
I suppose I should have mentioned that we have a patent/idea review board in place to determine what we would like to spend time on (judge value, creativeness, patentability) before we begin even the provisional process, but I wanted to keep the question simple.
Thank you to all who have chimed in with the various programs you have seen and/or have been involved with.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a lot of things you can do with a UBI that are utterly stupid, but that doesn't mean that a UBI is necessarily bad. Even free market advocates like Milton Friedman proposed solutions like a negative income tax that fundamentally amount to a UBI. Just avoid doing the stupid things that incentivize undesirable behavior (e.g., don't give parents additional UBI for each kid they have and if you do give kids a UBI, lock it away until they reach adulthood) and it's going to be a much better system than the mess we have now. Of course, adopting a UBI probably necessitates other changes (immigration, etc.) but it's a better system than what we've got right now and we could probably get away with spending less for better outcomes.
My point exactly. Well put.
-SM
No - I take an actuarial definition of socialism.
You're equating regulation with taxation. I can assure you that they are entirely different things. More importantly, increasing minimum wage, or taxing individuals is entirely antithetical to UBI. It makes absolutely no sense at all. True UBI would eliminate both of those concepts. They're unnecessary. Clearly you don't understand UBI as well as you think you do. This is apparent in your mis-use/hodgepodging of things Bernie has mentioned (at various times) that don't relate back to UBI.
The closest you came was the "Bezos" tax, except that the real version of it (that would actually work) is a sort of "automation tax." Bill Gates proposed one, so did Musk... neither of their plans will work without refinement, but the concept is simple: We have retarded the technological advancement of the planet simply because we insist on protecting jobs for the sake of protecting them and/or keeping people working. Had not the UAW stepped in and slowed automation in 1964 when Unimate came online, how much further along would the auto industry be? Or, in a similarly ridiculous situation, why are we turning coal plants back on? (To put people back to work.)
The true answer is that there are people whom we don't actually need working—they can be automated immediately or in the near future. But, the truer answer is that we can't let those same people starve to death in the streets (they would revolt, like the French Revolution, it would be very bad). So, there needs to be a plan to "take care" of those people. We can keep filly-farting around with "socialist" programs like food stamps, welfare, WIC, social security, etc... or we can stop being ridiculous, encourage full automation at every level (Buy n Large from WALL-e), and get on with the next version of humanity. This doesn't take socialism, but it absolutely takes a new-world-view on what it means to be human. I can assure you that what "being human" doesn't mean is waking up every day and going to a job you dread just to put food on the table for you and your family.
This plan still allows for private ownership, but recognizes that the only reason you have land on which your robots can grow those crops is because the public (govt) has parceled it out of their own stores, and you currently hold title. So, when your robots grow food, keep a profit... but the public is entitled to a profit from your lands as well. The public's profit comes in the form of taxation. Taxation, that is, until we figure out an actual better version of apportionment that doesn't involve money. (Think Federation of Planets, when dealing amongst themselves.)
Your final point then, is moot (if not a bit outlandish.) Neither will the government take over, nor will it regulate. It will, however, encourage you and support you to automate every single worker you can. Possibly including yourself. UBI is about individual freedom, not restriction, and recognizes that society as a whole benefits when you don't have to worry about eating/sleeping, but can go pursue whatever it is you want. Maybe you love your job and your life and everything you do... most don't. They'd rather be doing something else. Maybe if you didn't have to work you could focus on your band, or painting, or traveling, or just spending time with your family. Or, maybe you want a better life than UBI provides and you have the skills to still work as we move toward total automation (not at all claiming we're there already). So you work, and the companies pre-tax profits pay your salary, which isn't taxed. It might be lower than you're currently used to, but you don't have to give up the UBI money, so in the end, you wind up ahead of the "don't want to work" people and can enjoy more than the "basics." Or maybe you drop to part-time, so you can pursue some happiness.
Please note: I'm using "you" because I'm responding to you. It's entirely possible that you have a perfect life, have a perfect work-life balance, and love your j
Except that basic income doesn't require governmental control of all businesses, which is what "socialism" actually is. Basic income (and social programs like welfare) might seem "socialist" because that's what you've been told, but they are not - they do not require public ownership/control of business. Single-payer-government-run health care on the other hand, is totally socialist (because the system is run by the public a.k.a. government).
In America, the shining example we have of socialism is the Interstate Highway System (most roads really). It is 100% unequivocally socialist with the tiny exception of states that have been retain pieces as toll roads for various reasons, but those pieces can't use federal funds.
socialism
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
-SM
All it takes is one.
-SM
This.
Also, charge lots of money for an item of very little value and use a stolen/fraudulent CC to purchase = (nearly) instant cash.
Yes, chargebacks can happen, but the savvy are long gone by then. Also, charge 10K on a legit card, make a payment or two for "looks", then default.
-SM
Being "tracked" and being "reported," however, are two entirely different things.
In the reverse of this case, and in the absence of automatic security cameras, if ICE (or other law enforcement) submitted a list of license plates to the mall and said "can you please let us know if your staff notices any of these license plates in your lot," there is no issue. It holds then that the reverse is true—a citizen can, absolutely and unequivocally, report any public information to any authority, including a particular car's location. A citizen can also be compensated for reporting information deemed "useful" to law enforcement (aka "reward").
In this case, the mall is exercising it's right to monitor it's premises, which includes it's right to capture license plate information for anyone on it's private property, then sharing that list with law enforcement for a fee. There's simply no crime here and there is no violation.
Also, I think you mean the 4th Amendment, not Article 4. Article 4 is: Full Faith and Credit, Interstate Extradition, New State admittance to the Union, Protection from invasion/domestic Violence, Privileges and Immunities. Unless of course you mean "Freedom of Movement" as part of "Privileges and Immunities," but fundamentally that only allows people to cross state borders and absolutely allows tracking and has nothing to do with being embarrassed. (You do not at all have right to not be embarrassed.) Specifically In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States)
A more applicable law would be 4th Amendment, which disallows for warrantless tracking, but again, that's tracking by the government, not asking for reports from private citizenry. "Person of Interest" law is an example of this. Law enforcement has the right to seek the public's assistance in locating a person/people of interest without needing a warrant. "Have you seen this man?" is an example of that. It was specifically addressed as part of Carpenter v. United States, which put severe limits on the Third Party Doctrine, but not on "reasonable expectation of privacy (Kats v United States). Specifically "For example, federal Fourth Amendment protections do not extend to governmental intrusion and information collection conducted upon open fields; expectation of privacy in an open field is not considered reasonable. Some states, however, do grant protection to open fields." (from https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...)
-SM
Relative to what attorneys pay AdWords for Personal Injury ads, they're not that expensive. Moreover, they're paid for on a CPM, not CPC model. The tracking cookie for retargeting might serve a CPC ad or dozen, but even those are cheaper than you'd think b/c tsill not adwords.
Disclaimer: I'm the President of Marketing for a law firm. We spend a ton on marketing... and I've known about this for years. We thought about this when it came out about 2 years ago, but don't like the CPM model and had other (ethical) concerns.
As noted above, this is directly from the treasury:
There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services.
https://www.federalreserve.gov...
If you have a case you're citing where SCOTUS required cash payment, then cite it. Otherwise, you are wrong. Businesses absolutely do not have to accept cash.
More info here https://www.patriotsoftware.co... :
Can a business refuse cash?
Federal law makes U.S. currency a legal tender for paying debts. As a small business owner, you must accept dollars for your products or services. This doesn’t mean paper notes. You can accept electronic dollars as payment.
Private businesses can create their own payment policies, including ones that restrict cash payments. You can say that customers must pay with a credit card, check, or money order. You can also ban large bills at your business.
Bottom line—you can accept payments in whatever form you want. Here’s why:
No federal law requires businesses to accept cash.
You only need to accept cash when someone owes a debt. If the customer pays before you provide the product or service, you don’t have to accept cash.
You need to establish a cash payment policy before a transaction occurs. You can’t change your policy mid-transaction or refuse someone’s paper bills when you say that you accept cash. As long as you tell customers upfront that you don’t accept cash, you can refuse cash payments.
The simple solution to this is free passports for all, and passport offices that are open outside working hours at least 2x/month. I honestly can't believe we don't have this in place yet.
-SM
Just limit it by MAC to a certain # of devices, and let the user delete devices from time to time. Apple does this already, so does Adobe CC, and Google Music. It's not that hard.
The whining is coming not from the content providers, but from the cable companies, because they're the obsolete ones getting screwed. Viacom doesn't care because the more streams there are (regardless of shared login) the more $ they get to charge advertisers on OTT.
It's simple math: a+b = cable companies just need to die already.
-SM
I don't have the time to find any particular source, but I believe the scanning checked luggage goes through is more advanced than the screening for hand luggage, which part of the reason why you're not supposed to put film in checked luggage.
-SM
Ha! I said "film" on /.!
"When you have an understanding of the history of the argument", presumes that the reader does have that knowledge, which is referenced nowhere in TFA. It's obtuse to assume everyone is as learned as you are about this comparison. And no, the financial aid calculator that determines your "need based" assistance level isn't exactly "marketing material". Since you want to dismiss it, here's your real data:
http://www.collegecalc.org/col...
The point of my original comment, which you missed, is that if you're going use use a "list price" quote it as MSRP, not "the cost of attending Harvard". The kids who get in to Harvard are some of the brightest in the land and when they don't have a need for need-based scholarships, they get scholarships anyway.
As I said, it's poor reporting. The article (and it's headline) talks about "cost of attending" not "price". Meaning, it's not at all non-sequitur to point out the difference between MSRP and actual "cost".
-SM
This comparison is stupid.
Contrary to popular belief: Harvard's true tuition is based on your family's income/assets, it's not fixed like standard schools. I get that the "list price" is $69K, but that's not the "cost" if your family isn't earning ~$250K/year. Harvard has "need-based" scholarship programs that can reduce the true cost to zero or near zero. The point is, if your academics can get you into Harvard College, they don't want you to worry about the price, they want you to attend. Oh, and they disallow student loans. https://college.harvard.edu/fi...
From the Harvard site (linked): "In fact, approximately 70 percent of our students receive some form of aid, and about 60 percent receive need–based scholarships and pay an average of $12,000 per year. Twenty percent of parents pay nothing. No loans required."
Here's a calculator: https://college.harvard.edu/fi...
In other words, the "genius" who made this comparison isn't Harvard material - and is trying to say "it's expensive to house our inmates" by assuming Harvard is expensive. The truth is, it's not.
If s/he had done some research, s/he could should have said "Cost of a Porsche Boxster S", or something else that is actually "expensive" instead of making the poor people think they've got no chance of affording Harvard if they can get in.
Sloppy journalism.
-SM
Go Crimson!
Every night, before I go to sleep, I hope and pray to the PTBs that Google will add AT&T to Project Fi's list of carriers. There's a section of the desert between Vegas and LA that is useless on TMo/Sprint/USCellular. Adding AT&T to Fi (and possibly iPhone support for Fi) with decent marketing $ behind it would be the end of direct-from carrier services as we know it here in the U.S.. Needs to happen.
-SoulMaster
Seriously -
The current system of fixed-price, then ticket resale, proves is that "people will pay what the market will bear". It boggles me that the original seller (venue, artist, etc...) wouldn't want to capitalize on the additional revenue that's currently going in the re-sellers pockets. If, for every event, the tickets when to an online auction system, and capitalism rules were allowed to work @ point of original sale, I'm not sure you'd need this law.
Yes, poor fans will be pissed that they "can never buy tickets at reasonable prices" but that's just more motivation to succeed at life rather than work for minimum wage. Also, people are pissed that they can't by face-value tickets b/c bots & scalpers anyway. If face-value was dynamic, that argument would be moot.
An auction-style system would almost certainly reduce the amount of scalpers that wind up with tickets. I'd assume that the secondary market would wind up limited to unwanted tickets from season ticket holders.
My 2
-SM
I realize that it's a much smaller, and MUCH richer country than ours, but Singapore already does this. There, you have a choice: Use the free Gov't access, choose a different provider (or tether), or do some combination of both.
Done right, this could simply be another competitor in what will soon be a crowded field. Obviously, there's going to be some mistrust of how the gov't will use the collected data, but I would guess that the majority of people don't care enough about how (or are ignorant to the fact that) the government is going to use the tracking data for it to be anything other than a minor news story if this moves forward.
My 2 bytes.
-SM
Sorry... that word should be:
"THRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN!"
7 8 and 9 were already books. And they were awesome!
-SM
I don't really care who directs it, I just hope they base 7, 8 and 9 on the Timothy Zahn books. I read them long ago and have been waiting for them to be movies for something like 20 years.
-SM
You know, as I was RingTFA, I was trying to figure out how the reporter didn't mention Monsanto at all. Seriously, your quote is modded funny, but not including the fact that Monsanto owns (and TIGHTLY controls) both in the article seems to be a significant oversight on the part of the press.
-SM
I'd guess this # would go up if people counted their alarms as an App. Mine definitely is, as I use a Droid w/ a Doc and a customizer app to reprogram my camera button into a "snooze". Thus, I use an app before I even wake up.
That sucks for these guys!
I wonder if they'll honor the policy I bought for 12-21-2012 if the disaster is pushed 60 days!
I would guess that if Verizon is the one that is requiring this of Motorola, then they are doing it to restrict people's ability to tether 2.2 without having to pay Verizon.
The Android 2.2 platform has built-in wifi tethering that you have to pay your carrier for in order to use, an extra $20/month or some such. Rather than do that, a quick root and install of a free wifi tether app allows the owner to bypass the carrier Tether requirements and build their own little wifi network to access the 'net from any wifi capable device without paying... The data becomes just another set of packets.
If you're looking for a business reason, that's it.
-SM
Could these newly found pyramids finally unlock the secrets of what will happen (or not) on December 21st, 2012?
Personally, I'm betting we're not going to get these dug out in time. When we do get them un-buried, I'd laugh if they said something along the lines, "Yeah, our whole 2012 thing was just a joke to scare the Inca! See those lines they built at Nazca? We put them up to that too!".
Ahh, the Maya, the great pranksters of the ancient world!
Until then, I'm just going to be happy with the 2012 Insurance Policy I picked up to laugh about this 2012 thing with all my friends!
-SM
That's just COOL! Too bad the writer of the article didn't know enough about Pac Man to realize that he's about to much on a Power Pellet and eat all the ghost-Thetans that are coming his way after liberation by the Scientologists!
and mad.frog especially,
I really didn't want to rekindle the debate about whether patents (or software patents) are a good or bad thing. I've been a /. reader (responder) for quite a while and understand the general consensus about patents here.
I really am only trying to understand what people who have been involved in these programs have seen before. My overall goal of this research is to help develop a program management will accept before anyone says "you work for us, we own the patents anyway" and does away with PIPs all together. Most of the people I work with (including me) love our jobs and I are just trying to get a fair result.
I suppose I should have mentioned that we have a patent/idea review board in place to determine what we would like to spend time on (judge value, creativeness, patentability) before we begin even the provisional process, but I wanted to keep the question simple.
Thank you to all who have chimed in with the various programs you have seen and/or have been involved with.
Thanks again all,
-SoulMaster