Is that 15K per person? Because that sounds like 15 years worth of subscriptions if you are paying 1Kpp... why on earth wouldn't you subscribe if buying up front would take 16 years to pay off?
I think you might be confused. Here's how I read it:
He has a perpetual Autodesk license; he's not paying anything per month for that because he bought that license outright 10 years ago for $15,000. He's also paying $1,000/month/person for other software subscriptions, and that would increase to $1,300/month/person if he had to subscribe to Autodesk as well.
At $300/month, the $15,000 he spent on the perpetual license 10 years ago would be eaten up in a little more than 4 years for a single seat.
And a valid defense is "I wasn't driving the vehicle" (At least in CA).
California native here. About 10 years ago I sold my pickup truck and filed a waiver of liability with the DMV. Six months later I received an $80 ticket for driving the truck on the Orange County Toll Road without paying the fee. WTF? So, I called the phone number on the ticket.
Me: Hey, I sold that truck six months ago!
Toll Road: It's registered to you. Pay up!
Me: No, I filed the DMV paperwork. It's not mine, and I wasn't driving it.
Toll Road: DMV says it's yours. Pay up!
So, I called the DMV.
Me: Hey DMV, WTF??
DMV: You're the registered owner. Pay up!
Me: But I filed a waiver of liability 6 months ago!
DMV: We have no record of that. Maybe it got lost in the mail. Pay up!
Me: Lost in the mail? Seriously?
DMV: Well, if the writing on the form is illegible, the data entry clerk discards it. Maybe that happened. Pay up!
Me (under my breath): I bet a lot of forms processed on Friday afternoons are illegible. (Out loud): OK, thanks.
So I filed another waiver, this time through the Auto Club, and got a receipt. That was the end of it.
TL;DR: "I wasn't driving the vehicle" is only a defense if you can prove it.
"... in order to prevent devices from unintentionally shutting down due to undercurrent conditions."
Here, let me help you with that: "... in order to prevent devices from unintentionally shutting down due to undersized batteries that are degraded by bursts of high current demand."
This doesn't sound very Agile. Customers need new versions of software every few months. It doesn't matter if the software works, or is secure. The most important thing is to complete the Sprints to get to a release milestone and to a release. Customers really want that more than anything else.
Since it won't react to other people's voices, there is no way for South Park to play jokes on it.
You need to RTFA (sorry about that). It reacts to everybody's voice. It can't discriminate among different voices, so there's no way to keep it from reacting to everyone. Including South Park.
2) Recognize other people's voices? Seriously? The last thing you want to do is allow other people and their lousy musical taste to pick the music during a party.
From TFA: While HomePod will answer to anyone's commands [emphasis added], it isn't capable of recognizing individual voices. This means you can't set up user profiles or tailor the device to different members of a household.
So, The "last thing you want to do" is exactly what HomePod does.
E.g. what about some one-off cheap $1 toy? Is selling that illegal without an easily replaceable battery? There are going to be edge cases.
From the bill: "Digital electronic product" means a handheld or portable electronic device containing a microprocessor and flat panel computer monitor originally manufactured for distribution and sale in the United States for general consumer purchase. Digital electronic product includes but is not limited to smartphones, electronic reading devices, laptop computers, and tablets.
Sounds like you are arguing against cable tv bundling channels. That is fine, but it is no way remotely connected to net neutrality.
You may think it isn't connected, but wait and see. ISPs that are also TV providers (in other words, all of the cable providers) make a lot of money on channel bundling, and they are losing TV customers as cord cutting increases. I'm sure they'd really like the bundling model to extend to internet access.
As TheCycoONE points out, they kinda sorta made the point, but weakly. I was a little disappointed that they didn't have something along the lines of this:
You can only get cheese if you also get mustard and kale. You can scrape those off if you don't want them, but you have to pay for them; they're part of the bundle. If you want ketchup and pickles, you have to buy an apple pie. And fries are only available if you add the chicken sandwich package.
Chick-fil-A is mostly located in the Bible Belt, so being overly liberal could effect its business.
On a "number of restaurant per capita" basis it looks that way, but they have locations in 45 states and the District of Columbia. There are 4 locations within a 15-minute drive of where I work in SoCal. The store on Westwood Bl, right on the edge of the UCLA campus (hardly a bastion of religious conservatism) does a booming business. Oh, and by the way: effect =~ s/^e/a/
I'm much less scared of nuclear missile negotiations with both armies on high alert being handled by someone like kennedy, than your current dumbfuck president handling his personal cell phone.
Do you really need reminding that one of the armies on high alert was being handled by Nikita Kruschev? Anyone old enough to remember his shoe-banging episode at the UN in 1960 can tell you Nikita makes Trump and Putin look like a pair of pot smoking peaceniks.
It isn't advanced mathematics. Take a huge population, group by email domain, and look at the average claims for each domain.
Right. Again, the question is, why would hotmail users have higher average claims?
That's an interesting question, but irrelevant in terms of the statistics. Some zipcodes have higher average claims than other zipcodes. Some people might think the insurance companies are using zipcodes as a proxy for race, but a peek behind the curtain might reveal that it has more to do with traffic density, road conditions, weather, and other things that don't correlate to racial makeup. In the end, the why doesn't matter to the actuary.
The real question is (assuming their risk-analysis people aren't just chasing butterflies) -- what mechanism would correlate Hotmail accounts with a statistically greater risk of loss?
It isn't advanced mathematics. Take a huge population, group by email domain, and look at the average claims for each domain. If the group you're a member of has higher-than-average claims, expect the portion of your premium tied to this actuarial statistic to be higher than average. If you're a 20-year-old mail with a bad driving record residing in an accident-prone zipcode, expect your already exorbitant premium to be slightly higher because you use Hotmail.
Since buying their product (car insurance) is required under law, they no longer qualify as being a private company.
There are a lot of insurance companies, and they compete for your business. Maximum premium rates for legally required coverage are set by the state's insurance commission. State law sets the minimum liability coverage, and the terms of your auto finance contract probably require additional insurance as well; you can buy higher liability coverage amounts if you wish, as well as collision (covers damage to your car when you're at fault), comprehensive (covers damage to your car not resulting from a collision, such as hail, falling trees, etc.), uninsured motorist (collision not your fault with a car whose owner isn't insured), towing, car rental while your car is being repaired, and probably other types of insurance as well.
tl;dr: Most people buy much more coverage than the law requires, and rates vary significantly from one insurance company to another. Shop around.
If tomorrow you get t-boned by an uninsured driver who ran a red light, there's not much you could have done to avoid that accident. They still have to pay for your losses, so you're "costing" them even though you did nothing wrong.
The law in California only requires liability coverage; i.e., coverage for damage to other people and their property due to an accident where you're at fault. This does not include the case where "you get t-boned by an uninsured driver who ran a red light", but you can pay extra for that not-required-by-law coverage. It also doesn't include the case where a tree falls on your parked car, but you can pay extra for that not-required-by-law coverage.
A wealthy gated community wants to set up their own community broadband.
A municipality wants to set up broadband services.
An industrial estate wants to give exiting and new business total ISP freedom via their own new network.
Will state bureaucrats now demand the use of existing monopoly telco providers as only they legally meet the new state NN rules?
From TFS: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) signed an executive order on Monday requiring internet service providers with state contracts to abide by net neutrality principles. Only service providers having contracts with the state are forced to comply with the governor's order, so the answer to your question appears to be "No", unless the new service providers enter into contracts with the state.
. But, when Facebook accepts payment for advertisements, Facebook is responsible for that content.
Was the discussion about advertising content? I thought it was about fake news articles submitted by users. I suppose both are a problem. So then Facebook has to filter out news articles posted by ads. That still sounds like a slippery slope, although it does limit the scope. Maybe they just shouldn't allow political ads at all.
Didn't this whole controversy start with ads purportedly paid for by Russian actors?
your utopia sounds nice, but here in the real world there is much more going on. theres a reason its illegal for foriegn governments to influence US elections.
Except for a few well-defined cases, it's not illegal for foreign governments to attempt to influence US elections. For example, In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 2012.
Note the word "expressly". If an ad paid for by a foreign entity speaks against the policy or behavior of a candidate (whether true or false), but does not explicitly say "Do not vote for " or "Vote for " , it's legal.
I just want to look at my friends kids and pet pics. Is that so much to ask?
Same here, though the "news" doesn't bother me as much as the weird quizzes that appear to be designed to make you feel smart but in reality should be easy for anyone with an IQ over 80. Just keep scrolling.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't know that the guy from Hawaii found another job so fast.
Obviously ...
Wow. Woosh to the tenth power.
I think he was triggered before his sarcasm detector could fire.
Is that 15K per person? Because that sounds like 15 years worth of subscriptions if you are paying 1Kpp... why on earth wouldn't you subscribe if buying up front would take 16 years to pay off?
I think you might be confused. Here's how I read it:
He has a perpetual Autodesk license; he's not paying anything per month for that because he bought that license outright 10 years ago for $15,000. He's also paying $1,000/month/person for other software subscriptions, and that would increase to $1,300/month/person if he had to subscribe to Autodesk as well.
At $300/month, the $15,000 he spent on the perpetual license 10 years ago would be eaten up in a little more than 4 years for a single seat.
And a valid defense is "I wasn't driving the vehicle" (At least in CA).
California native here. About 10 years ago I sold my pickup truck and filed a waiver of liability with the DMV. Six months later I received an $80 ticket for driving the truck on the Orange County Toll Road without paying the fee. WTF? So, I called the phone number on the ticket.
Me: Hey, I sold that truck six months ago!
Toll Road: It's registered to you. Pay up!
Me: No, I filed the DMV paperwork. It's not mine, and I wasn't driving it.
Toll Road: DMV says it's yours. Pay up!
So, I called the DMV.
Me: Hey DMV, WTF??
DMV: You're the registered owner. Pay up!
Me: But I filed a waiver of liability 6 months ago!
DMV: We have no record of that. Maybe it got lost in the mail. Pay up!
Me: Lost in the mail? Seriously?
DMV: Well, if the writing on the form is illegible, the data entry clerk discards it. Maybe that happened. Pay up!
Me (under my breath): I bet a lot of forms processed on Friday afternoons are illegible. (Out loud): OK, thanks.
So I filed another waiver, this time through the Auto Club, and got a receipt. That was the end of it.
TL;DR: "I wasn't driving the vehicle" is only a defense if you can prove it.
"... in order to prevent devices from unintentionally shutting down due to undercurrent conditions."
Here, let me help you with that: "... in order to prevent devices from unintentionally shutting down due to undersized batteries that are degraded by bursts of high current demand."
This doesn't sound very Agile. Customers need new versions of software every few months. It doesn't matter if the software works, or is secure. The most important thing is to complete the Sprints to get to a release milestone and to a release. Customers really want that more than anything else.
That cries out for a Dilbert.
Since it won't react to other people's voices, there is no way for South Park to play jokes on it.
You need to RTFA (sorry about that). It reacts to everybody's voice. It can't discriminate among different voices, so there's no way to keep it from reacting to everyone. Including South Park.
2) Recognize other people's voices? Seriously? The last thing you want to do is allow other people and their lousy musical taste to pick the music during a party.
From TFA: While HomePod will answer to anyone's commands [emphasis added], it isn't capable of recognizing individual voices. This means you can't set up user profiles or tailor the device to different members of a household.
So, The "last thing you want to do" is exactly what HomePod does.
E.g. what about some one-off cheap $1 toy? Is selling that illegal without an easily replaceable battery? There are going to be edge cases.
From the bill: "Digital electronic product" means a handheld or portable electronic device containing a microprocessor and flat panel computer monitor originally manufactured for distribution and sale in the United States for general consumer purchase. Digital electronic product includes but is not limited to smartphones, electronic reading devices, laptop computers, and tablets.
What's "reasonable"?
The bill has 19 lines of text defining "reasonable". There's a link to the bill in TFS. If you really want to know, you can find out.
Sounds like you are arguing against cable tv bundling channels. That is fine, but it is no way remotely connected to net neutrality.
You may think it isn't connected, but wait and see. ISPs that are also TV providers (in other words, all of the cable providers) make a lot of money on channel bundling, and they are losing TV customers as cord cutting increases. I'm sure they'd really like the bundling model to extend to internet access.
As TheCycoONE points out, they kinda sorta made the point, but weakly. I was a little disappointed that they didn't have something along the lines of this:
You can only get cheese if you also get mustard and kale. You can scrape those off if you don't want them, but you have to pay for them; they're part of the bundle. If you want ketchup and pickles, you have to buy an apple pie. And fries are only available if you add the chicken sandwich package.
The drive through is often the fast lane and going indoors to order is the slow lane. The drive through customers usually take priority.
LOL. Apparently you've never been to In-n-Out during dinnertime.
Chick-fil-A is mostly located in the Bible Belt, so being overly liberal could effect its business.
On a "number of restaurant per capita" basis it looks that way, but they have locations in 45 states and the District of Columbia. There are 4 locations within a 15-minute drive of where I work in SoCal. The store on Westwood Bl, right on the edge of the UCLA campus (hardly a bastion of religious conservatism) does a booming business. Oh, and by the way: effect =~ s/^e/a/
I'm much less scared of nuclear missile negotiations with both armies on high alert being handled by someone like kennedy, than your current dumbfuck president handling his personal cell phone.
Do you really need reminding that one of the armies on high alert was being handled by Nikita Kruschev? Anyone old enough to remember his shoe-banging episode at the UN in 1960 can tell you Nikita makes Trump and Putin look like a pair of pot smoking peaceniks.
It isn't advanced mathematics. Take a huge population, group by email domain, and look at the average claims for each domain.
Right. Again, the question is, why would hotmail users have higher average claims?
That's an interesting question, but irrelevant in terms of the statistics. Some zipcodes have higher average claims than other zipcodes. Some people might think the insurance companies are using zipcodes as a proxy for race, but a peek behind the curtain might reveal that it has more to do with traffic density, road conditions, weather, and other things that don't correlate to racial makeup. In the end, the why doesn't matter to the actuary.
Those are games of skill, not chance.
The same could be said of poker.
The real question is (assuming their risk-analysis people aren't just chasing butterflies) -- what mechanism would correlate Hotmail accounts with a statistically greater risk of loss?
It isn't advanced mathematics. Take a huge population, group by email domain, and look at the average claims for each domain. If the group you're a member of has higher-than-average claims, expect the portion of your premium tied to this actuarial statistic to be higher than average. If you're a 20-year-old mail with a bad driving record residing in an accident-prone zipcode, expect your already exorbitant premium to be slightly higher because you use Hotmail.
Since buying their product (car insurance) is required under law, they no longer qualify as being a private company.
There are a lot of insurance companies, and they compete for your business. Maximum premium rates for legally required coverage are set by the state's insurance commission. State law sets the minimum liability coverage, and the terms of your auto finance contract probably require additional insurance as well; you can buy higher liability coverage amounts if you wish, as well as collision (covers damage to your car when you're at fault), comprehensive (covers damage to your car not resulting from a collision, such as hail, falling trees, etc.), uninsured motorist (collision not your fault with a car whose owner isn't insured), towing, car rental while your car is being repaired, and probably other types of insurance as well.
tl;dr: Most people buy much more coverage than the law requires, and rates vary significantly from one insurance company to another. Shop around.
If tomorrow you get t-boned by an uninsured driver who ran a red light, there's not much you could have done to avoid that accident. They still have to pay for your losses, so you're "costing" them even though you did nothing wrong.
The law in California only requires liability coverage; i.e., coverage for damage to other people and their property due to an accident where you're at fault. This does not include the case where "you get t-boned by an uninsured driver who ran a red light", but you can pay extra for that not-required-by-law coverage. It also doesn't include the case where a tree falls on your parked car, but you can pay extra for that not-required-by-law coverage.
A wealthy gated community wants to set up their own community broadband.
A municipality wants to set up broadband services.
An industrial estate wants to give exiting and new business total ISP freedom via their own new network.
Will state bureaucrats now demand the use of existing monopoly telco providers as only they legally meet the new state NN rules?
From TFS: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) signed an executive order on Monday requiring internet service providers with state contracts to abide by net neutrality principles. Only service providers having contracts with the state are forced to comply with the governor's order, so the answer to your question appears to be "No", unless the new service providers enter into contracts with the state.
. But, when Facebook accepts payment for advertisements, Facebook is responsible for that content.
Was the discussion about advertising content? I thought it was about fake news articles submitted by users. I suppose both are a problem. So then Facebook has to filter out news articles posted by ads. That still sounds like a slippery slope, although it does limit the scope. Maybe they just shouldn't allow political ads at all.
Didn't this whole controversy start with ads purportedly paid for by Russian actors?
the content is provided by the users and it is not the responsibility of Facebook to tell people that they are idiots.
I agree with respect to user-submitted content. But, when Facebook accepts payment for advertisements, Facebook is responsible for that content.
your utopia sounds nice, but here in the real world there is much more going on. theres a reason its illegal for foriegn governments to influence US elections.
Except for a few well-defined cases, it's not illegal for foreign governments to attempt to influence US elections. For example, In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 2012.
Note the word "expressly". If an ad paid for by a foreign entity speaks against the policy or behavior of a candidate (whether true or false), but does not explicitly say "Do not vote for " or "Vote for " , it's legal.
Educate yourself..
I just want to look at my friends kids and pet pics. Is that so much to ask?
Same here, though the "news" doesn't bother me as much as the weird quizzes that appear to be designed to make you feel smart but in reality should be easy for anyone with an IQ over 80. Just keep scrolling.