In many places, this is completely true -- where I live, it's not. Taxi drivers get their license revoked, which pretty much means they have to move (out of a lucrative city) if they want to continue in that profession. Drivers have been blackballed on human rights violations for discriminating based on race, and taxi companies can have their business permit revoked and assets frozen if drivers are shown to be playing with credit processing or length of fare. And it's all on CCTV, by regulation.
I'm always shocked when I visit other places and see what kind of stunts the taxi drivers try to pull. However, they've all accepted my card for the appropriate amount when I make it plain that that's the only way they're getting anything at all out of me. And I generally let them know that I tip fairly well when they don't try things like that.
Oh, and one other reason cabbies prefer(red) cash: it's faster. This means they can squeeze in more fares, and make more money. The time spent processing a credit card is time they're not spending making money.
Ah; but for most people, it's not "nothing" -- instead, it's cash in multiples of 20. So for a $35 fare, they get $40, keep the change. Sure, they get some that go the other way too, but from what I've heard, many cabbies find that their take is higher without credit cards than with.
Of course, where I live, it's illegal for them not to accept credit, as accepting electronic payment is a requirement to get licensed in the city. Refusing to process it is prosecuted as fraud. All the cabs have credit card stickers in the windows.
No, it's because the credit card company takes a cut of card transactions, but you the customer get to pay the same amount... meaning the driver gets less money for the ride.
Your argument sounds compelling... until you re-read the title of this article. Then you realize that in some countries, there are other benefits to declaring your income locally that outweigh the liabilities like speeding fines.
But the US system is so messed up that in this case, you're probably right: the IRS *already* makes tax dodging highly lucrative, as much of your tax money goes to things that don't directly affect the citizenry.
Oh, and limits shouldn't be set by how fast people travel: I live in a place where the limits are lower than they should be in some areas, and higher than they should be in some areas -- but people almost always drive 10mph over the higher limit, no matter where they are. The area is famous for the frequency and severity of its traffic accidents and high insurance premiums. I drive out of the area to ride my bike.
Excellently put. At least teaching within the box will help students see the box, and *some* will attempt to see outside it. But for a full education, you need to start developing creative and critical thinking *early* (like, at 3-4 years) at which point, any scripted instruction will become a way of attaining more focused knowledge, as opposed to providing the sum of the child's learning experience.
My kids regularly call their teachers out on "lies to children" instruction, but are gracious enough to not try and get in the way of the point that's actually being taught (identify the box, but still bother to look inside). The teachers in general seem more delighted than annoyed, and sometimes use these points for special study in the class.
My point is that if African children are learning scripted study in the classroom, they are free to explore outside that script outside the classroom, and are pretty much required to do so to survive. Their attitude towards education and what it accomplishes is guaranteed to be significantly different from the NCLB world-view.
Not to mention the fact that regularly setting fire to the prairies was often considered a *good* thing. It's kind of like the whole wolf issue -- people killed the wolves and then the prairie started dying. Why? Because the herd animals were no longer doing their job -- staying clumped up and tilling/fertilizing the ground in one place, then running as a group to another place, being herded by wolves. Instead they'd spread out and graze down the entire area without spending enough time breaking up the ground an adding enough fertilizer into the soil. Likewise, the burning added nutrients to the soil that helped the plants start growing sooner in the growing season, which gave the entire food chain a leg up at the beginning of the year. It's not all about Bambi.
So finger pointing is less than helpful, as you pointed out, not only because everyone's ancestors have made mistakes by present-day criteria (otherwise we'd be dead like those who didn't exploit as heavily as our ancestors did), but also, we're still happily making mistakes that some of these earlier groups never made (sometimes on purpose, sometimes by lack of technical ability, sometimes both, depending on the generation you're looking at).
I was going to post exactly this. Why a) does any US state still have the death penalty and b) do they use such barbaric ways to administer it as lethal injection? Even drowning would probably be better, and nitrogen asphyxiation better still.
Fortunately, there are an increasing number of WiFi hotspots popping up. All you have to do is enter one of those as your internal storage fills up, wait a few minutes, and all those new photos are synced to the cloud. Secure? Not on your life. Convenient? You betcha.
Your reading comprehension is almost as good in this response as in the one you made to mine...
I'll make it a bit clearer for you: "Industry Connector" is the opposite of "proprietary".
And sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Hopefully you can a) understand the lowest form of wit, and 2) comprehend something involving no pretty pictures and larger words like "industry connector" and "vested interest".
And now maybe you can get off your high horse and feel a little bit embarrassed for attempting to flame someone who made your point in a much more coherent manner than you did, without trying to attack someone who you thought held a different view.
Apple does whatever they think will benefit them the most. See USB-C for an example of using an industry connector. For that matter, Thunderbolt's an industry standard (just as Firewire was) -- but those don't really count, as Apple holds some of the patents and has a very vested interest in the adoption.
They're horrific for the environment because of their low efficiency. Rather than asking for wireless charging, we should be fighting to outlaw it. There's a reason Republicans are fans of wireless charging.
I recall something along these lines being said for things like larger screen sizes... until Apple decided to finally jump on the bigger screen bandwagon. Same goes for x86 processors I believe.
If wireless charging looks to be really getting societal acceptance, you can believe Apple will introduce it -- the same way they introduced NFC after being pretty much the only phone manufacturer not to support it. They'll go from "we're not touching it" to "here's the entire solution using that technology, instead of just bits and pieces you have to try and cobble together yourselves."
I have never, ever used a data cable to transfer large amounts of data to/from a mobile device, because I've never bought a device that required such inefficiency.
Sure, USB3 and thunderbolt have higher data throughput speeds than writing to an SD card, but as with a fully laden station wagon, you can't beat the bandwidth of an SD card transfer.
Actually, you can, and fairly easily. Just save each individual asset to the cloud as it's recorded, and have live syncing to your desktop. By the time the SD card gets back to base with all the images, the tortoise cloud transfer is already complete. At that point, it doesn't matter how fast the transfer speeds of the SD card are, as the card is late to the party.
Personally, I prefer the privacy and dependability of an SD card, but as for data transfer rate, networked connectivity will almost always win out over SD card. Especially since "the cloud" doesn't run out of space right as you're about to take the ultimate photograph/video.
Actually, Apple's marketing is getting tired. I found myself laughing during the latest presentation because it was all so stilted and "ooh! Machining parts makes us sooo unique!" as if that's not what a bunch of other manufacturers do. So no, there's no innovation in their marketing; just an attempt at using the old tired marketing strategies.
However, using the OED instead of DuckDuckGo's definition doesn't really make a difference to my point. Apple actually makes changes to established tech -- what they've stopped doing is creating NEW tech, like I said. Even the watch is just rehashes, although it does some neat gimmcky things.
Actual creation is not negotiable. It's an absolute unavoidable criterion of "innovate". "Creating novel things" is the only definition of innovation.
1. Make changes in something established 1.1 [with object] Introduce (something new, especially a product): innovating new products, developing existing ones
You disagree with the OED here. The OED says that making changes to an established product is innovation. They especially point out that this includes developing existing products by introducing something new to them. This is NOT the same as creating something the industry hasn't seen before.
Your statement relies on the unspoken assumption that Apple actually innovates.
I don't think that word means what you think it means....
innovate (n-vt)
v.
To begin or introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time.
v.
To begin or introduce something new.
I'd say single USB-C in a laptop, terraced batteries, "taptic" force-sensitive touchpad, butterfly keyboard mechanism and large-aperture pixel display all count as innovations, and that's only in a single product. They've also been innovating in software/hardware integration (especially in the health-related sensor/SDK stuff), digital payment (they're by no means the first to do digital payment -- I was working on this tech over 15 years ago, they're just implementing it in a new way), and phone encryption.
So yeah, they're doing a lot of innovating lately. Not a lot of creating novel things, but a LOT of introducting things as if for the first time.
This is a good point. My original argument was about "no *good* place to stick it on a modern car" because most insertions would either take too much time or involve an antenna that couldn't be guaranteed to have good reception. But the front and rear bumpers would be perfect. The fiberglass/composite/whatever isn't going to obstruct the antenna.
That being said, most of the reports I've seen of people finding these things have had them in wheel wells or on the rear frame under the trunk. Not sure if that's just because the others were never found though.
I don't know about you, but I'd know pretty quickly if something was stuck in the wheel well of my car; it would sound funny when I was driving. I'd get out to see if there was something stuck in the wheel well, and... well there you have it.
It's also possible that a bunch of people there had these stuck on their cars, and it was a freak chance that this one got found (just happened to be on the right angle, was inspecting tires/repairing a flat) or, considering the conference, they could have swept the area for RF transmissions after donning a tinfoil hat.
There aren't that many places on a modern car where you can reliably stick such a device, as the antenna needs to not be shielded, and engine compartments tend to be fairly inaccessible. Attaching everything but the antenna to the frame and running the antenna up through the front grille would make more sense, but take way more time to set up.
Credit card is used to pre-authorize until the bike is returned to a rack. Seems to me SMS would work better, as you could have them directly billed to the person's phone bill in a similar way (agreements would have to be made with the carrier).
And yes, even in this system, there's a certain amount of damage, both to bikes and to the racks.
See Toronto's Scarborough RT as a reference. This train, built decades ago on a dedicated track, was fully capable of running fully automated yet they never managed to remove the driver primarily because of pushback from the transit union.
And to counter that, look at Calgary and Vancouver. The trick is to do it with new infrastructure; replacing the old infrastructure will take a LOT longer.
And to do that, they act as a man in the middle, also known as a repeater.
That said, this still doesn't explain how they're registering themselves on the local network. THAT is probably one of the things that's "national security" -- especially as this appears to be that "golden key" that they want for other kinds of encrypted data.
And of course, THAT means that anyone who is operating outside the law can use the exact same techniques to intercept cellular data.
See, the thing about a real object oriented language is that you define your objects, and then they only work in one manner. This means that if you're working on a project, you create your requirements documentation, and then define your core objects to match that. And then everyone who touches that code is forced to do things the same way, or else redefine the objects (which is a no-no).
The "strict procedural language pretending to be object oriented" approach is what gives unreadable code, as you end up with everyone being allowed to do whatever they want, and there's no real object model in place to constrain that.
Because if you go with Object Pascal, you're going to be constantly confusing your stringtypes and endianness. Pascal's a great teaching language (first thing I had formal training in), but since nobody's using it for modern deployment, the only thing you're really going to be able to transition to is Delphi.
Pre-C++11 is a nightmare, as it does so many things wrong OO-wise that I wouldn't really call it object oriented at all. 11+ begins to get more sane, and might be worth learning.
But if you do ObjectiveC, you can significantly add to the percentage of developers who can build for GNUStep:D
Indeed -- learn LISP. Lambda variables, recursion, all atoms being true objects. Then you can redefine the language to pretend to be any of the other HLLs out there.
Problem is, all the lessons that were learned with LISP have since been forgotten and are doomed to be made again and again.
Slashdot Mirror
In many places, this is completely true -- where I live, it's not. Taxi drivers get their license revoked, which pretty much means they have to move (out of a lucrative city) if they want to continue in that profession. Drivers have been blackballed on human rights violations for discriminating based on race, and taxi companies can have their business permit revoked and assets frozen if drivers are shown to be playing with credit processing or length of fare. And it's all on CCTV, by regulation.
I'm always shocked when I visit other places and see what kind of stunts the taxi drivers try to pull. However, they've all accepted my card for the appropriate amount when I make it plain that that's the only way they're getting anything at all out of me. And I generally let them know that I tip fairly well when they don't try things like that.
Oh, and one other reason cabbies prefer(red) cash: it's faster. This means they can squeeze in more fares, and make more money. The time spent processing a credit card is time they're not spending making money.
Ah; but for most people, it's not "nothing" -- instead, it's cash in multiples of 20. So for a $35 fare, they get $40, keep the change. Sure, they get some that go the other way too, but from what I've heard, many cabbies find that their take is higher without credit cards than with.
Of course, where I live, it's illegal for them not to accept credit, as accepting electronic payment is a requirement to get licensed in the city. Refusing to process it is prosecuted as fraud. All the cabs have credit card stickers in the windows.
No, it's because the credit card company takes a cut of card transactions, but you the customer get to pay the same amount... meaning the driver gets less money for the ride.
Your argument sounds compelling... until you re-read the title of this article. Then you realize that in some countries, there are other benefits to declaring your income locally that outweigh the liabilities like speeding fines.
But the US system is so messed up that in this case, you're probably right: the IRS *already* makes tax dodging highly lucrative, as much of your tax money goes to things that don't directly affect the citizenry.
Oh, and limits shouldn't be set by how fast people travel: I live in a place where the limits are lower than they should be in some areas, and higher than they should be in some areas -- but people almost always drive 10mph over the higher limit, no matter where they are. The area is famous for the frequency and severity of its traffic accidents and high insurance premiums. I drive out of the area to ride my bike.
Excellently put. At least teaching within the box will help students see the box, and *some* will attempt to see outside it. But for a full education, you need to start developing creative and critical thinking *early* (like, at 3-4 years) at which point, any scripted instruction will become a way of attaining more focused knowledge, as opposed to providing the sum of the child's learning experience.
My kids regularly call their teachers out on "lies to children" instruction, but are gracious enough to not try and get in the way of the point that's actually being taught (identify the box, but still bother to look inside). The teachers in general seem more delighted than annoyed, and sometimes use these points for special study in the class.
My point is that if African children are learning scripted study in the classroom, they are free to explore outside that script outside the classroom, and are pretty much required to do so to survive. Their attitude towards education and what it accomplishes is guaranteed to be significantly different from the NCLB world-view.
Not to mention the fact that regularly setting fire to the prairies was often considered a *good* thing. It's kind of like the whole wolf issue -- people killed the wolves and then the prairie started dying. Why? Because the herd animals were no longer doing their job -- staying clumped up and tilling/fertilizing the ground in one place, then running as a group to another place, being herded by wolves. Instead they'd spread out and graze down the entire area without spending enough time breaking up the ground an adding enough fertilizer into the soil. Likewise, the burning added nutrients to the soil that helped the plants start growing sooner in the growing season, which gave the entire food chain a leg up at the beginning of the year. It's not all about Bambi.
So finger pointing is less than helpful, as you pointed out, not only because everyone's ancestors have made mistakes by present-day criteria (otherwise we'd be dead like those who didn't exploit as heavily as our ancestors did), but also, we're still happily making mistakes that some of these earlier groups never made (sometimes on purpose, sometimes by lack of technical ability, sometimes both, depending on the generation you're looking at).
I was going to post exactly this. Why a) does any US state still have the death penalty and b) do they use such barbaric ways to administer it as lethal injection? Even drowning would probably be better, and nitrogen asphyxiation better still.
Fortunately, there are an increasing number of WiFi hotspots popping up. All you have to do is enter one of those as your internal storage fills up, wait a few minutes, and all those new photos are synced to the cloud. Secure? Not on your life. Convenient? You betcha.
Your reading comprehension is almost as good in this response as in the one you made to mine...
I'll make it a bit clearer for you: "Industry Connector" is the opposite of "proprietary".
And sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Hopefully you can a) understand the lowest form of wit, and 2) comprehend something involving no pretty pictures and larger words like "industry connector" and "vested interest".
And now maybe you can get off your high horse and feel a little bit embarrassed for attempting to flame someone who made your point in a much more coherent manner than you did, without trying to attack someone who you thought held a different view.
Apple does whatever they think will benefit them the most. See USB-C for an example of using an industry connector. For that matter, Thunderbolt's an industry standard (just as Firewire was) -- but those don't really count, as Apple holds some of the patents and has a very vested interest in the adoption.
They're horrific for the environment because of their low efficiency. Rather than asking for wireless charging, we should be fighting to outlaw it. There's a reason Republicans are fans of wireless charging.
I recall something along these lines being said for things like larger screen sizes... until Apple decided to finally jump on the bigger screen bandwagon. Same goes for x86 processors I believe.
If wireless charging looks to be really getting societal acceptance, you can believe Apple will introduce it -- the same way they introduced NFC after being pretty much the only phone manufacturer not to support it. They'll go from "we're not touching it" to "here's the entire solution using that technology, instead of just bits and pieces you have to try and cobble together yourselves."
Or a micro SD ca... oh wait.
I have never, ever used a data cable to transfer large amounts of data to/from a mobile device, because I've never bought a device that required such inefficiency.
Sure, USB3 and thunderbolt have higher data throughput speeds than writing to an SD card, but as with a fully laden station wagon, you can't beat the bandwidth of an SD card transfer.
Actually, you can, and fairly easily. Just save each individual asset to the cloud as it's recorded, and have live syncing to your desktop. By the time the SD card gets back to base with all the images, the tortoise cloud transfer is already complete. At that point, it doesn't matter how fast the transfer speeds of the SD card are, as the card is late to the party.
Personally, I prefer the privacy and dependability of an SD card, but as for data transfer rate, networked connectivity will almost always win out over SD card. Especially since "the cloud" doesn't run out of space right as you're about to take the ultimate photograph/video.
Actually, Apple's marketing is getting tired. I found myself laughing during the latest presentation because it was all so stilted and "ooh! Machining parts makes us sooo unique!" as if that's not what a bunch of other manufacturers do. So no, there's no innovation in their marketing; just an attempt at using the old tired marketing strategies.
However, using the OED instead of DuckDuckGo's definition doesn't really make a difference to my point. Apple actually makes changes to established tech -- what they've stopped doing is creating NEW tech, like I said. Even the watch is just rehashes, although it does some neat gimmcky things.
Actual creation is not negotiable. It's an absolute unavoidable criterion of "innovate". "Creating novel things" is the only definition of innovation.
You disagree with the OED here. The OED says that making changes to an established product is innovation. They especially point out that this includes developing existing products by introducing something new to them. This is NOT the same as creating something the industry hasn't seen before.
Your statement relies on the unspoken assumption that Apple actually innovates.
I don't think that word means what you think it means....
I'd say single USB-C in a laptop, terraced batteries, "taptic" force-sensitive touchpad, butterfly keyboard mechanism and large-aperture pixel display all count as innovations, and that's only in a single product. They've also been innovating in software/hardware integration (especially in the health-related sensor/SDK stuff), digital payment (they're by no means the first to do digital payment -- I was working on this tech over 15 years ago, they're just implementing it in a new way), and phone encryption.
So yeah, they're doing a lot of innovating lately. Not a lot of creating novel things, but a LOT of introducting things as if for the first time.
This is a good point. My original argument was about "no *good* place to stick it on a modern car" because most insertions would either take too much time or involve an antenna that couldn't be guaranteed to have good reception. But the front and rear bumpers would be perfect. The fiberglass/composite/whatever isn't going to obstruct the antenna.
That being said, most of the reports I've seen of people finding these things have had them in wheel wells or on the rear frame under the trunk. Not sure if that's just because the others were never found though.
I don't know about you, but I'd know pretty quickly if something was stuck in the wheel well of my car; it would sound funny when I was driving. I'd get out to see if there was something stuck in the wheel well, and... well there you have it.
It's also possible that a bunch of people there had these stuck on their cars, and it was a freak chance that this one got found (just happened to be on the right angle, was inspecting tires/repairing a flat) or, considering the conference, they could have swept the area for RF transmissions after donning a tinfoil hat.
There aren't that many places on a modern car where you can reliably stick such a device, as the antenna needs to not be shielded, and engine compartments tend to be fairly inaccessible. Attaching everything but the antenna to the frame and running the antenna up through the front grille would make more sense, but take way more time to set up.
http://tulsa-townies.com/howit...
Credit card is used to pre-authorize until the bike is returned to a rack. Seems to me SMS would work better, as you could have them directly billed to the person's phone bill in a similar way (agreements would have to be made with the carrier).
And yes, even in this system, there's a certain amount of damage, both to bikes and to the racks.
You've got it almost right...
Just like muscles need exercise to grow, so does faith.
Either that, or maybe he's trying to make a point?
I seriously doubt that. One word: Unions.
See Toronto's Scarborough RT as a reference. This train, built decades ago on a dedicated track, was fully capable of running fully automated yet they never managed to remove the driver primarily because of pushback from the transit union.
And to counter that, look at Calgary and Vancouver. The trick is to do it with new infrastructure; replacing the old infrastructure will take a LOT longer.
And to do that, they act as a man in the middle, also known as a repeater.
That said, this still doesn't explain how they're registering themselves on the local network. THAT is probably one of the things that's "national security" -- especially as this appears to be that "golden key" that they want for other kinds of encrypted data.
And of course, THAT means that anyone who is operating outside the law can use the exact same techniques to intercept cellular data.
Or, you can just agree on implementation.
See, the thing about a real object oriented language is that you define your objects, and then they only work in one manner. This means that if you're working on a project, you create your requirements documentation, and then define your core objects to match that. And then everyone who touches that code is forced to do things the same way, or else redefine the objects (which is a no-no).
The "strict procedural language pretending to be object oriented" approach is what gives unreadable code, as you end up with everyone being allowed to do whatever they want, and there's no real object model in place to constrain that.
Because if you go with Object Pascal, you're going to be constantly confusing your stringtypes and endianness. Pascal's a great teaching language (first thing I had formal training in), but since nobody's using it for modern deployment, the only thing you're really going to be able to transition to is Delphi.
Pre-C++11 is a nightmare, as it does so many things wrong OO-wise that I wouldn't really call it object oriented at all. 11+ begins to get more sane, and might be worth learning.
But if you do ObjectiveC, you can significantly add to the percentage of developers who can build for GNUStep :D
Indeed -- learn LISP. Lambda variables, recursion, all atoms being true objects. Then you can redefine the language to pretend to be any of the other HLLs out there.
Problem is, all the lessons that were learned with LISP have since been forgotten and are doomed to be made again and again.
How so? Everyone gets the same speed....