Someone claiming queue isn't a verb would also "sound like a cue to" correct them. The OP used a sentence structure clearly and commonly used for cue (a thing said or done that serves as a signal to an actor or other performer to enter or to begin their speech or performance). Rather than admit to a trivial error he's making himself look like a fool denying it.
They put a camera on the device and don't have a "recording in progress" indicator anywhere on the exterior. WTF was Google thinking?
It does have a recording light. Maybe Google was thinking 'smart' people would know how to use Google to find things out before jumping to entirely false conclusions;)
The same reason that mobile phones have had them for years, even though they were virtually useless for most of that time and hardly used, and the same reason radio was a common feature on old phones even though it was hardly used and pretty crap: Because it had some use for some users and the cost of providing it was low enough to justify it.
I very rarely use the camera on my phone, but one of the most common uses is for video chats when someone is discussing a technical issue etc they are having and I want them to show me. I wouldn't buy a phone without a camera even though it's only a small part of the benefit.
I don't understand the concern about people with a camera on their head in a pub or whatever. It has a recording light and you can bet I'd ask my friends to stop if they sat there recording me, just like I would if they did with a smartphone, but it doesn't/won't happen. If it's some random stranger then I'd take it up with them and the landlord, again unlikely to happen, and places that didn't control misuse would quickly see customers leave to go somewhere that did. People already have hundreds of ways to be jackasses if they want to, another one isn't going to end the world.
In the same way that we don't need a military because we should get rid of all reasons why anyone would ever make us use them. It's a noble goal but you don't remove discrimination by clicking fingers and thus you should keep safeguards until they aren't needed.
I didn't 'blame' discretion. I said that discretion encourages and facilitates discrimination. Unless we require that police file a full report with all details on race, gender, behaviour, circumstances and dozens/hundreds of other factors each time they choose to exercise discretion or not and then have someone independent checking that information for discrimination then it will remain thus as long as their are people around who want to discriminate.
Sometimes it is better to accept that the ideal isn't achievable and do the best that is. There's nothing to stop us working to solve the bigger issues and changing as we go.
Yea, and whats wrong with Communism? All of those mass genocides just gave it a bad name. Surely we can do it right if we try again.
I'm not sure Communism is the best comparison to make. Sure it's easy to point out the huge failures of the extreme examples but where are the extreme examples of capitalism (no government involvement in trade or industry)?
I'm not in favour of sterilising people, but I guess I believe in eugenics on some level because I think government policy in the UK should be changed. Our current benefits policy means that you can have a family while never earning and the state will finance you, this increases the taxation on people who do work leading to them having fewer children. In effect, our government is encouraging the poorer in society to have more children (than they would without the state) and discouraging others. I'd like to see these revised to limit support when having multiple children with no viable means to look after them, effectively removing an encouragement (or discouraging) them from having children. This view, in my opinion, is a form of modern eugenics because although genetic traits may make less different than social norms etc it is a policy designed to rebalance whether the 'right' or 'wrong' people are having children.
I have had police let me go for being drunk or stoned in public before, simply because I wasn't causing problems and they have bigger fish to fry.
I've had the police let me go for jumping a red directly in front of a police car (not quite as retarded as it sounds honest). You, and I, could see that as the police prioritising their time and a good thing. The fact that it has been shown, again and again, that discretion isn't applied equally to different races and genders should make us reconsider that though. I shouldn't be getting an easier ride from law enforcement because I'm white middle class than someone who is black lower class, but 'discretion' encourages exactly that.
He might pull the wool over the eyes of gullible teens and twenty somethings,
Where as the people making a case against him appear to have pulled the wool over the eyes of another extremely gullible demographic: you. If comparing people who don't share your position to naive teens in a painfully obvious attempt to play the man instead of the ball is the best you've got then debating on the internet is probably about the right level for you.
There may have been some original sensible reason, but it sure feels like a scam to me.
Generally because train companies charge prices based on line demand etc but can only charge one rate across the whole journey. In your case the Reading-London section has a higher rate because it's more heavily in demand so if the ticket includes that section then will be charged at that higher rate. As Swindon-Reading is lower rate you can buy a ticket for that section for less as a separate ticket. Bizarrely I'm pretty sure the system came about as a way to 'simplify' ticket costing and avoid companies abusing it:|
but if not, I'm morally justified in withholding this cost if there are legal methods of doing so).
I think it's an incredibly safe bet that swapping tickets isn't legal, though it's likely a civil offence not a criminal one. Thus if the legality of the action is part of your ethical decision then almost the entirety of the rest of your post is redundant.
There are two ways this kind of abuse can work:
1/ First is buying a ticket from A-B when you want to go A-Z, then swapping it with someone who bought ticket from Y-Z who wants to go Y-B in which case you bought the right to travel one journey and then took another. The idea that holding the 'token' somehow makes it legal is nonsense as if that was true the company could sell you the token and refuse to let you on the tube as you got the 'token' that you bought.
2/ That you have some form of cards, like Oyster in London, that deducts balance based on the journey. In this case the terms of the card and travel will be clear that you must swipe at your entry and exit points and thus, again, swapping cards would be a civil offence (if their isn't a local law specifically making it a criminal offence).
Since you can remedy the defect by plugging in a $5 external speaker, the possible claim in civil damages is no more than $5.
It's very unlikely that a court would decide it on that basis. Plugging in an external speaker isn't remedying the defect any more than Ford offering you a bus pass if your car breaks under warranty. Additionally, having someone other than dell replace the broken component would void your warranty which means it is a valid remedy (given that the warranty is a considerable part of the value of a device bought with one).
As with anything it's worth consulting in person with someone who has relevant legal knowledge before doing anything involving a court.
Your argument is analogous to "My gas cap no longer affixes properly, therefore, Mercedes is due to replace the full value of my car"
And your response to the original issue was analogous to suggesting that an appropriate remedy would be buying some duct tape and taping it up after every fill so I wouldn't get up on too high a horse in your position.
You just have to drop the phone from higher than 3 feet
Bollocks. Both my current phones have been dropped god knows how many times. The most recent one was ~6 foot onto a concrete step before going over the edge and falling a floor onto tiles without any damage and it wasn't even in a case. Not sure I'd trust my S4 to survive that admittedly. I've never had a smartphone break, I've replaced them due to a combination of network incentives and desire for new functionality.
I thought that for the last couple of days. Then I tried using Beta for a couple of threads and it is a much less enjoyable experience so I can understand the frustration. Putting "Fuck Beta" in a signature isn't going to do anything to change the owners mind. Being polite and respectful and offering feedback, has apparently, been ineffective. So what would work? Making the comments section largely unusable by spamming it with "fuck beta" comments perhaps? You have to consider that the pro-beta comments are being moderated favourably which implies that it isn't just a few bitching change adverse users but a widely held view.
Yes, it inconveniences people who wanted to get insightful comments but that's exactly why it's more likely to be effective.
When regulators "get ahead" of an industry, it is only to put barriers in front of it. Regulations don't "pave the way", they block it.
Maybe I'm just some 'commie' European but I think like many things it isn't that black and white. I have no issue with 'net neutrality' style regulation existing before it becomes common for companies to degrade competing services. I have no issue with blocking healthcare providers from discriminating based on genetic information until we decide if we are comfortable with that as a society.
What does a UID tell you aside from how long ago that account was created? There's plenty of stupid posts on here by people with low IDs and plenty of insightful posts by people with new IDs, if publishing ID numbers does anything at all then it is that is makes age of account into a measure of the validity of your opinion which is something we'd be better off without in my opinion.
I wasn't overly impressed by Beta but given the amount of immature bitching, not referring to your post here which makes valid points maturely, I wish they'd just get on with the change and either/. will die or, hopefully, the whiners will fuck off.
Of course, at some point, they will tap into NHS (I'm assuming that this is UK), and send to everyone, regardless of whether they had opted-in or not.
If that led to less people being dangerously overweight without causing other negative side-effects (depression, self-esteem issues etc) then so what if they do? Is it really more abusive to send someone a text encouraging them to eat more healthily or to continue to support their self-harm by providing the benefits that prop it up and leave them to it?
they'll come up with some "sexual scandal" to silence him. Just look at what happened to Hollande because of the tax raises on the rich.
Yeah. The way they tricked him into repeatedly getting onto that bike and going to the same house with the same woman in it! If you meant, and just poorly expressed, that the scandal was only revealed because he annoyed the wealthy then you're selectively ignoring the dozens of times that low-tax or pro-business politicians have been outed for scandals.
The people who organized and practiced this system are guilty of a crime.
I'm only going by the summary, and would also like to note that I am sure that what you are talking about will also have happened, however you are missing another, more legitimate reason for why they might want to do this that is entirely legal: If they have an informant or have legally tapped a phone line etc then they might not want to declare that in court because it would kill a source of information. I'm not saying I like the method, nor am I saying that I don't think it opens up other abuses, but I can appreciate that a completely ethical police officer may wish to avoid disclosing the source because it makes it harder for him to do his job.
Singapore for example with so little space has pioneered high rise cheap parking for all out in the suburbs and electronic pay to enter town centers that really increased the quality of life in the inner city, or so I hear.
They also have to buy a license to own a car which costs thousands of dollars a year. I'm not knocking Singapore's solution but it's hardly shocking that if you charge people thousands to be allowe to buy a car and then again to use the city roads you can afford to buy public parking. They also have excellent public transport as well fwiw:)
Personally I have no issue with London public transport and the other major European cities I've been to have tended to have good public transport as well. I drove into London this Saturday to Kew Gardens area, the traffic was fine and I could park without paying. I sometimes wonder whether the people complaining about these things actually do it much themselves.
Indeed. Classic case of treating the symptom rather than the cause.
That rather depends on where you define symptom and cause, sometimes the only practical action that can be taken is to address something part way down the chain. Is the 'cause' that everyone isn't able to walk to everything they need? Or would you say the cause was just that there isn't enough parking?
In this case, even if we take "there isn't enough parking" as the cause this may well still address it. Perhaps the cost of converting land into more parking etc is too high to justify when people can get away with poor parking. As it becomes more costly to park poorly the amount people will be willing to pay to use proper parking will increase and more parking spaces will be built. I'm not saying it will work like this but it's hardly an unlikely chain of events.
No, it doesn't reduce congestion. It convinces employees working 40 miles away from the city that they can still live in San Francisco and don't have to worry about driving the commute.
I don't really see what the issue with this is. I would be a little surprised if the transport carbon footprint of a googler using these buses was higher than someone doing a 10 mile commute in a car. If they want to live in San Francisco then why do they deserve to live there less than anyone else? It sounds like one group of current residents has decided that they want to the city to cater to their needs at the expense of the needs of others and I don't think that is a particularly reasonable position.
In case I'm unclear: I'd much rather be on a road with 1,000 people driving 1,000 cars, than 500 buses with 2 people in them. I used n=2 in this example, but I'm thinking even for n=6, it's a net loss. I don't actually know the value of n.
I don't think anyone would suggest that buses with two passengers would be better than cars with one. But is anyone really suggesting that on average these buses aren't running with considerably more passengers? Furthermore removing 30 cars each from the road during heavy commuting times is a big benefit even if it means a couple of buses running around with ~0-5 passengers during the night etc.
They will certainly have a negligible impact on the environment vs employees commuting in cars. Obviously some would move closer without the bus service but thousands of employees doing a short commute will still have far more impact on the environment than a couple of buses running empty or near empty overnight.
Supposedly the protests are motivated by tech company employees living in the city but working a long way away. This means they are increasing demand for housing and thus the cost of housing. It isn't an environmentally motivated protest. Personally I think they should like a bit harder in the mirror and realise that it is their own resistance to building more housing and spending money on better transport infrastructure that is the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone claiming queue isn't a verb would also "sound like a cue to" correct them. The OP used a sentence structure clearly and commonly used for cue (a thing said or done that serves as a signal to an actor or other performer to enter or to begin their speech or performance). Rather than admit to a trivial error he's making himself look like a fool denying it.
It does have a recording light. Maybe Google was thinking 'smart' people would know how to use Google to find things out before jumping to entirely false conclusions ;)
The same reason that mobile phones have had them for years, even though they were virtually useless for most of that time and hardly used, and the same reason radio was a common feature on old phones even though it was hardly used and pretty crap: Because it had some use for some users and the cost of providing it was low enough to justify it.
I very rarely use the camera on my phone, but one of the most common uses is for video chats when someone is discussing a technical issue etc they are having and I want them to show me. I wouldn't buy a phone without a camera even though it's only a small part of the benefit.
I don't understand the concern about people with a camera on their head in a pub or whatever. It has a recording light and you can bet I'd ask my friends to stop if they sat there recording me, just like I would if they did with a smartphone, but it doesn't/won't happen. If it's some random stranger then I'd take it up with them and the landlord, again unlikely to happen, and places that didn't control misuse would quickly see customers leave to go somewhere that did. People already have hundreds of ways to be jackasses if they want to, another one isn't going to end the world.
In the same way that we don't need a military because we should get rid of all reasons why anyone would ever make us use them. It's a noble goal but you don't remove discrimination by clicking fingers and thus you should keep safeguards until they aren't needed.
I didn't 'blame' discretion. I said that discretion encourages and facilitates discrimination. Unless we require that police file a full report with all details on race, gender, behaviour, circumstances and dozens/hundreds of other factors each time they choose to exercise discretion or not and then have someone independent checking that information for discrimination then it will remain thus as long as their are people around who want to discriminate.
Sometimes it is better to accept that the ideal isn't achievable and do the best that is. There's nothing to stop us working to solve the bigger issues and changing as we go.
I'm not sure Communism is the best comparison to make. Sure it's easy to point out the huge failures of the extreme examples but where are the extreme examples of capitalism (no government involvement in trade or industry)?
I'm not in favour of sterilising people, but I guess I believe in eugenics on some level because I think government policy in the UK should be changed. Our current benefits policy means that you can have a family while never earning and the state will finance you, this increases the taxation on people who do work leading to them having fewer children. In effect, our government is encouraging the poorer in society to have more children (than they would without the state) and discouraging others. I'd like to see these revised to limit support when having multiple children with no viable means to look after them, effectively removing an encouragement (or discouraging) them from having children. This view, in my opinion, is a form of modern eugenics because although genetic traits may make less different than social norms etc it is a policy designed to rebalance whether the 'right' or 'wrong' people are having children.
I've had the police let me go for jumping a red directly in front of a police car (not quite as retarded as it sounds honest). You, and I, could see that as the police prioritising their time and a good thing. The fact that it has been shown, again and again, that discretion isn't applied equally to different races and genders should make us reconsider that though. I shouldn't be getting an easier ride from law enforcement because I'm white middle class than someone who is black lower class, but 'discretion' encourages exactly that.
Where as the people making a case against him appear to have pulled the wool over the eyes of another extremely gullible demographic: you. If comparing people who don't share your position to naive teens in a painfully obvious attempt to play the man instead of the ball is the best you've got then debating on the internet is probably about the right level for you.
Generally because train companies charge prices based on line demand etc but can only charge one rate across the whole journey. In your case the Reading-London section has a higher rate because it's more heavily in demand so if the ticket includes that section then will be charged at that higher rate. As Swindon-Reading is lower rate you can buy a ticket for that section for less as a separate ticket. Bizarrely I'm pretty sure the system came about as a way to 'simplify' ticket costing and avoid companies abusing it :|
I think it's an incredibly safe bet that swapping tickets isn't legal, though it's likely a civil offence not a criminal one. Thus if the legality of the action is part of your ethical decision then almost the entirety of the rest of your post is redundant.
There are two ways this kind of abuse can work: 1/ First is buying a ticket from A-B when you want to go A-Z, then swapping it with someone who bought ticket from Y-Z who wants to go Y-B in which case you bought the right to travel one journey and then took another. The idea that holding the 'token' somehow makes it legal is nonsense as if that was true the company could sell you the token and refuse to let you on the tube as you got the 'token' that you bought. 2/ That you have some form of cards, like Oyster in London, that deducts balance based on the journey. In this case the terms of the card and travel will be clear that you must swipe at your entry and exit points and thus, again, swapping cards would be a civil offence (if their isn't a local law specifically making it a criminal offence).
Of course you don't, but we already knew that 'cause you're a self-declared freeloading cunt.
It's very unlikely that a court would decide it on that basis. Plugging in an external speaker isn't remedying the defect any more than Ford offering you a bus pass if your car breaks under warranty. Additionally, having someone other than dell replace the broken component would void your warranty which means it is a valid remedy (given that the warranty is a considerable part of the value of a device bought with one).
As with anything it's worth consulting in person with someone who has relevant legal knowledge before doing anything involving a court.
And your response to the original issue was analogous to suggesting that an appropriate remedy would be buying some duct tape and taping it up after every fill so I wouldn't get up on too high a horse in your position.
Bollocks. Both my current phones have been dropped god knows how many times. The most recent one was ~6 foot onto a concrete step before going over the edge and falling a floor onto tiles without any damage and it wasn't even in a case. Not sure I'd trust my S4 to survive that admittedly. I've never had a smartphone break, I've replaced them due to a combination of network incentives and desire for new functionality.
I thought that for the last couple of days. Then I tried using Beta for a couple of threads and it is a much less enjoyable experience so I can understand the frustration. Putting "Fuck Beta" in a signature isn't going to do anything to change the owners mind. Being polite and respectful and offering feedback, has apparently, been ineffective. So what would work? Making the comments section largely unusable by spamming it with "fuck beta" comments perhaps? You have to consider that the pro-beta comments are being moderated favourably which implies that it isn't just a few bitching change adverse users but a widely held view.
Yes, it inconveniences people who wanted to get insightful comments but that's exactly why it's more likely to be effective.
Maybe I'm just some 'commie' European but I think like many things it isn't that black and white. I have no issue with 'net neutrality' style regulation existing before it becomes common for companies to degrade competing services. I have no issue with blocking healthcare providers from discriminating based on genetic information until we decide if we are comfortable with that as a society.
What does a UID tell you aside from how long ago that account was created? There's plenty of stupid posts on here by people with low IDs and plenty of insightful posts by people with new IDs, if publishing ID numbers does anything at all then it is that is makes age of account into a measure of the validity of your opinion which is something we'd be better off without in my opinion.
/. will die or, hopefully, the whiners will fuck off.
I wasn't overly impressed by Beta but given the amount of immature bitching, not referring to your post here which makes valid points maturely, I wish they'd just get on with the change and either
Or it might be that you're full of so much hot air ;)
If that led to less people being dangerously overweight without causing other negative side-effects (depression, self-esteem issues etc) then so what if they do? Is it really more abusive to send someone a text encouraging them to eat more healthily or to continue to support their self-harm by providing the benefits that prop it up and leave them to it?
Yeah. The way they tricked him into repeatedly getting onto that bike and going to the same house with the same woman in it! If you meant, and just poorly expressed, that the scandal was only revealed because he annoyed the wealthy then you're selectively ignoring the dozens of times that low-tax or pro-business politicians have been outed for scandals.
I'm only going by the summary, and would also like to note that I am sure that what you are talking about will also have happened, however you are missing another, more legitimate reason for why they might want to do this that is entirely legal: If they have an informant or have legally tapped a phone line etc then they might not want to declare that in court because it would kill a source of information. I'm not saying I like the method, nor am I saying that I don't think it opens up other abuses, but I can appreciate that a completely ethical police officer may wish to avoid disclosing the source because it makes it harder for him to do his job.
They also have to buy a license to own a car which costs thousands of dollars a year. I'm not knocking Singapore's solution but it's hardly shocking that if you charge people thousands to be allowe to buy a car and then again to use the city roads you can afford to buy public parking. They also have excellent public transport as well fwiw :)
Personally I have no issue with London public transport and the other major European cities I've been to have tended to have good public transport as well. I drove into London this Saturday to Kew Gardens area, the traffic was fine and I could park without paying. I sometimes wonder whether the people complaining about these things actually do it much themselves.
That rather depends on where you define symptom and cause, sometimes the only practical action that can be taken is to address something part way down the chain. Is the 'cause' that everyone isn't able to walk to everything they need? Or would you say the cause was just that there isn't enough parking?
In this case, even if we take "there isn't enough parking" as the cause this may well still address it. Perhaps the cost of converting land into more parking etc is too high to justify when people can get away with poor parking. As it becomes more costly to park poorly the amount people will be willing to pay to use proper parking will increase and more parking spaces will be built. I'm not saying it will work like this but it's hardly an unlikely chain of events.
I don't really see what the issue with this is. I would be a little surprised if the transport carbon footprint of a googler using these buses was higher than someone doing a 10 mile commute in a car. If they want to live in San Francisco then why do they deserve to live there less than anyone else? It sounds like one group of current residents has decided that they want to the city to cater to their needs at the expense of the needs of others and I don't think that is a particularly reasonable position.
I don't think anyone would suggest that buses with two passengers would be better than cars with one. But is anyone really suggesting that on average these buses aren't running with considerably more passengers? Furthermore removing 30 cars each from the road during heavy commuting times is a big benefit even if it means a couple of buses running around with ~0-5 passengers during the night etc.
They will certainly have a negligible impact on the environment vs employees commuting in cars. Obviously some would move closer without the bus service but thousands of employees doing a short commute will still have far more impact on the environment than a couple of buses running empty or near empty overnight.
Supposedly the protests are motivated by tech company employees living in the city but working a long way away. This means they are increasing demand for housing and thus the cost of housing. It isn't an environmentally motivated protest. Personally I think they should like a bit harder in the mirror and realise that it is their own resistance to building more housing and spending money on better transport infrastructure that is the problem.