Finally, paying for parking is becoming much more common. A self driving car would incur much lower parking fees. It could go be used by another timeshare owner or it could park it self in a the cheap lots further away and probably formatted for autocars.
Not only park further away, but self driving cars can park closer together. They could park side by side because no driver has to get out, and they could comfortably park four cars in a row; if the first one is needed the other three just drive away for five seconds and immediately go back to the empty row.
Good idea. Since the boot of the car would be shared, it only makes sense to put some useful stuff in there. And since now the umbrella and shopping bags are shared, you save money there.
The government wants you to believe that you need EXTRA liability insurance and safety provisions than is already covered by your motor insurance.
If I give someone a lift, nothing extra is required. If that someone drops me a few bucks for gas, nothing extra is required.
How is Ubers model *any* different?
It's different by being a _business_ model. There are things you can do privately, but you can't do them as a business. Uber drivers are not "giving someone a lift". They don't pick up people going to the same place that they wanted to go anyway. They specifically make a trip because they are paid to make a trip. They are taxis.
People actually openly participate in jury nullification as a means of protest, both against unjust laws and to challenge the illegality of jury nullification itself. But 1. Jurors are acting as extensions of the legal system (the government) in a trial. and 2. Not all trials have jurors.
I really hope that Uber gets a jury that decides the company is breaking the law, has no intention to stop breaking the law, and therefore needs to be dissolved. With all the investment money divided up between the taxi drivers affected by their law breaking.
Uber is actually the modern day Rosa Parks. I think refusing to go to the back of the bus (e.g. refusing to obey an unjust law) is a better analogy. I'm sure Martin Luther King also engaged in civil disobedience, but he is known for more than just that, which clouds the analogy.
Did Rosa Parks get billions of dollars from investors and then use the money to bribe bus drivers not to accept any white passengers? I don't think so.
I wonder if this just set a new legal precedent that can be used by the defense the next time a security researcher finds her/him-self on the wrong side of a legal team for exploring a service that was open to the web. As according to this ruling if you leave it open, it's your fault if someone else gets access to it. So, basic example, you should have "no expectation of privacy" if you leave directory browsing turned on as per the judges reasoning/analogy, it's the exact same thing as leaving your blinds open and a passer by gets a peek.
Absolutely misunderstanding what the good judge said. If your server sends information to a hacker without the hacker asking for it, you would have a point. But that doesn't happen (or not very often).
Fuck's sake, she majored in geophysics - maybe she should be trying to find work with the USGS?
I suppose from your post that you are one of those one-trick ponies that can do one thing and nothing else. What in hell does a major from 20 or 30 years ago have to do with anything?
What a bullshit. They should instead adapting the law to the changing times. This is like deciding whether a computer is an abacus or a typewriter.
The only thing that has changed is that a big American bully company with billions of dollars from investors ignores and deliberately flaunts the law. The existence of a bully who flaunts the law is not a reason to change the law, it is a reason to stamp out that bully.
Surely it should be possible that a company arranges for people to get rides from private persons. Any other ruling from the Court would be dreadful.
Nobody says a company cannot arrange for people to get rides from private persons. For example, that has been done for more than 20 years in Germany. If you want to travel from Bremen to Munich, you find a Mitfahrzentrale which will find a person who wants to drive that way anyway and takes you with them.
Uber however arranges from people to get rides from legally professional drivers, who drive their car specifically from the place where you want to leave to the place where you want to go, for hard cash.
The recently announced layoffs for the few tech workers in New York and California got cancelled (for now). All 100+ tech workers in Florida got laid off earlier this year. If Disney really wants to do the right thing, they would hired back their laid off workers in Florida and send the Indian workers packing.
Well, what about a legislation change: If you train someone to do your job, and afterwards you are fired, this is taken as absolute evidence that the trainee shouldn't have been there under an H1B scheme, therefore needs to be sent home and the original worker be re-employed, with all wages paid as if he had been employed all the time; complaints can be filed for six years.
Result: If it happens to you, you can do whatever you like as long as your money lasts, then go to court and get your old job back plus all your wages paid. Being able to file a complaint for several years means it is a huge risk for the employer, which is what we want.
So, copyright infringement is now basically the same as child rape. I wonder if copyright infringers fit the description of a "dangerous offender."
Ten years is the proposed _maximum_ for copyright infringement. For most crimes, there is a huge range of how bad the crime is. For example, growing pot: You might have a flower pot full, or you might have a 100 acre farm. Surely the maximum sentence should be fitting for the one using a huge farm to grow drugs. With copyright infringement, you might make a copy of a CD for a relative, or you might run a major operation with multi-million dollar revenue. You want a maximum sentence that fits the multi-million dollar operation.
Now of course it needs to be made clear which sentence is appropriate for which level of offence. For example, with copyright infringement there is probably a factor of one million in severity between the most harmless and the worst possible offenses.
And then you get a large truck on a road (or bridge) not rated for it, and in which it can't move.
My in-laws routinely see semi trucks trying to go down their small dirt road, because something is telling them to take turns no sane person would take those trucks on -- there's even big signs saying "No Trucks except local delivery".
I have seen a road with a big sign "Truck drivers - your GPS is wrong". Not a bit of a problem for a mile. Then came a bit where I had problems squeezing my smallish car through (yes, I had to go careful to avoid losing either mirror), and any truck arriving there would have to reverse for a mile.
Since this isn't about absolutely avoiding left turns, but reducing the number, you could just count every right turn as a 10 second penalty, and every left turn as a 30 second penalty, and go on calculating the fastest route.
What does a California Design firm's trademark have to do with my USPS aided fruit delivery service?
Nothing. But the poster you responded to said "if you call your app 'Apple Mail'", not "if you call your post-office based fruit delivery service 'Apple Mail'".
The details would be: What is the trademark, and to which trade does it apply? (For example, one place I worked used "Apple Security" as their security company, which was totally unrelated to the Apple Inc., with not the slightest trademark problem). And how are you using that trademark?
You are saying you are using a simple word in the dictionary. Apple is a normal word in the dictionary. Try using it for selling computers, software or music. At least give us enough for an educated opinion - even though people here are not lawyers, or not your lawyer.
If the Swat team response to an unverified phone call is to put people's lives at such severe risk as you describe, the problem is with the police, not the teenage idiot who placed the fake calls.
Absolutely, totally wrong. Without the teenager's call, that Swat team would have stayed where they are, and nothing bad would have happened. With the phone call, here's a list of possible consequences, all of which are the teenagers fault:
1. Swat team goes out, and figures out that nothing bad is going on, without frightening anyone. Waste of tax payers money.
2. Exactly like 1, but then the Swat team isn't available when a real call comes in. As a consequence, people might lose their lives because nobody is coming to help them.
3. Swat team goes out, under the assumption that the caller might be correct. The safest way to do this is to use so much force that nobody can fire a gun, while trying not to injure anyone. Result if everything goes right is a very, very unpleasant experience for the homeowner.
4. Same as 3, but a bit of bad luck, and the home owner gets injured.
5. Same as 3, but the homeowner is in a position that makes him look dangerous. For example, cleaning the guns in his collections, or sharpening a huge kitchen knife. With his wife is with him, crying because she just sliced a bunch of onions. Anything can happen.
6. Home owner detects that there are potential intruders at his doors and gets his gun to fight them off in self defence. Bad things _will_ happen.
All these scenarios apply even if you have a well-trained team that does its best to keep everyone secure.
Really? Being the victim of SWATing seems like it could cause lifelong psychological damage - let alone the danger that you're sending HEAVILY ARMED people over to someone's house.
I wouldn't put a specific term on SWATing, I'd just treat it as what it is - attempted murder. Unless it is successful. In that case it is murder.
Because social engineering is like the hardest point of entry of any computer system. A'ight. Mitnick approves
That's not the only problem. If Apple (or any other company) has the capability to give you access to your data if you forget your password or passcode or whatever, then obviously this can be used against you through social engineering. But it can also be used against you by the police, the NSA etc.
Your biggest protection against Apple ratting you out to any agencies is the fact that Apple deliberately avoids being able to do so. Once they have the capability, they can be forced to use it against you.
You didn't read the judges 11 page opinion then, where he makes his reasons very clear. Among other things, the trolls claim that they need the information to take people to court, but they never do; they just abuse the courts as a cheap way to get information for their blackmail scheme.
The point that an IP is not an ID is exactly the point here, because the copyright troll wouldn't have any right to the name of anyone than the copyright infringer. And the fine judge found out that these copyright trolls have in several instances just ignored court orders and have just lied to the courts.
I have a hard time siding with anyone using software patents offensively. Fuck these guys and their patents. And if Apple asserts software patents in a non-defensive manner, fuck them, too.
You really, really must hate Google then. Wanting 4 billion dollars for some mp3 patents.
Unfortunately, far too many people are worshipping at the church of Steve Jobs for the concept of the unskilled idea person to die out any time soon.
I'll tell you something about "unskilled" Steve Jobs: When Apple had all their plans ready for the Apple 1 computer, Steve Jobs got off his arse and sold 50 of those computers to a hobby computer store for $500 each, and the $25,000 he got was enough to buy the parts for the first 50 computers he needed to deliver, plus 50 more that he could sell. Without that money, Apple would have been dead at inception. That single sale started everything.
Job's ideas were a dime a dozen. His ability to make it stick and actually produce the thing, that's what sets him apart.
And yet, when you look at the stalwarts of today's tech industry, most of them excelled, not because of their technical skills but because of their ideas. The best technical skills in the world don't mean a thing if you can't envision how to use them for something others want. Put differently, it is a lot easier to teach others to code than it is to teach them to think creatively.
No, they didn't succeed because of their ideas, but because they managed to put money where their mouth is, and got the finances to turn the idea into something that can be sold.
I don't think you just quite go the idea. It looks like this is supposed to be a ride sharing service, not a "ride sharing service". Ride sharing service, as in "I want to go from A to B, so find me an additional passenger to go from A to B, to save some cost". Properly used, this reduces or removes your cost of driving to work. It isn't supposed to allow you to make a limit.
And properly done, I think it should be totally legal for example in the UK and in Germany. Actually, In Germany that kind of thing has been done for more than 20 years, mostly for long distance drives.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, paying for parking is becoming much more common. A self driving car would incur much lower parking fees. It could go be used by another timeshare owner or it could park it self in a the cheap lots further away and probably formatted for autocars.
Not only park further away, but self driving cars can park closer together. They could park side by side because no driver has to get out, and they could comfortably park four cars in a row; if the first one is needed the other three just drive away for five seconds and immediately go back to the empty row.
Good idea. Since the boot of the car would be shared, it only makes sense to put some useful stuff in there. And since now the umbrella and shopping bags are shared, you save money there.
The government wants you to believe that you need EXTRA liability insurance and safety provisions than is already covered by your motor insurance.
If I give someone a lift, nothing extra is required. If that someone drops me a few bucks for gas, nothing extra is required.
How is Ubers model *any* different?
It's different by being a _business_ model. There are things you can do privately, but you can't do them as a business. Uber drivers are not "giving someone a lift". They don't pick up people going to the same place that they wanted to go anyway. They specifically make a trip because they are paid to make a trip. They are taxis.
People actually openly participate in jury nullification as a means of protest, both against unjust laws and to challenge the illegality of jury nullification itself. But 1. Jurors are acting as extensions of the legal system (the government) in a trial. and 2. Not all trials have jurors.
I really hope that Uber gets a jury that decides the company is breaking the law, has no intention to stop breaking the law, and therefore needs to be dissolved. With all the investment money divided up between the taxi drivers affected by their law breaking.
Uber is actually the modern day Rosa Parks. I think refusing to go to the back of the bus (e.g. refusing to obey an unjust law) is a better analogy. I'm sure Martin Luther King also engaged in civil disobedience, but he is known for more than just that, which clouds the analogy.
Did Rosa Parks get billions of dollars from investors and then use the money to bribe bus drivers not to accept any white passengers? I don't think so.
I used to wear a watch, back in the 20th century. That's when cell phones were the size of a common house brick. Fuck watches
We are straight back to phones the size of a house brick. When the iPhone was released with a 3.5 inch screen, everyone thought it was _huge_.
I wonder if this just set a new legal precedent that can be used by the defense the next time a security researcher finds her/him-self on the wrong side of a legal team for exploring a service that was open to the web. As according to this ruling if you leave it open, it's your fault if someone else gets access to it. So, basic example, you should have "no expectation of privacy" if you leave directory browsing turned on as per the judges reasoning/analogy, it's the exact same thing as leaving your blinds open and a passer by gets a peek.
Absolutely misunderstanding what the good judge said. If your server sends information to a hacker without the hacker asking for it, you would have a point. But that doesn't happen (or not very often).
Fuck's sake, she majored in geophysics - maybe she should be trying to find work with the USGS?
I suppose from your post that you are one of those one-trick ponies that can do one thing and nothing else. What in hell does a major from 20 or 30 years ago have to do with anything?
What a bullshit. They should instead adapting the law to the changing times. This is like deciding whether a computer is an abacus or a typewriter.
The only thing that has changed is that a big American bully company with billions of dollars from investors ignores and deliberately flaunts the law. The existence of a bully who flaunts the law is not a reason to change the law, it is a reason to stamp out that bully.
Surely it should be possible that a company arranges for people to get rides from private persons. Any other ruling from the Court would be dreadful.
Nobody says a company cannot arrange for people to get rides from private persons. For example, that has been done for more than 20 years in Germany. If you want to travel from Bremen to Munich, you find a Mitfahrzentrale which will find a person who wants to drive that way anyway and takes you with them.
Uber however arranges from people to get rides from legally professional drivers, who drive their car specifically from the place where you want to leave to the place where you want to go, for hard cash.
The recently announced layoffs for the few tech workers in New York and California got cancelled (for now). All 100+ tech workers in Florida got laid off earlier this year. If Disney really wants to do the right thing, they would hired back their laid off workers in Florida and send the Indian workers packing.
Well, what about a legislation change: If you train someone to do your job, and afterwards you are fired, this is taken as absolute evidence that the trainee shouldn't have been there under an H1B scheme, therefore needs to be sent home and the original worker be re-employed, with all wages paid as if he had been employed all the time; complaints can be filed for six years.
Result: If it happens to you, you can do whatever you like as long as your money lasts, then go to court and get your old job back plus all your wages paid. Being able to file a complaint for several years means it is a huge risk for the employer, which is what we want.
So, copyright infringement is now basically the same as child rape. I wonder if copyright infringers fit the description of a "dangerous offender."
Ten years is the proposed _maximum_ for copyright infringement. For most crimes, there is a huge range of how bad the crime is. For example, growing pot: You might have a flower pot full, or you might have a 100 acre farm. Surely the maximum sentence should be fitting for the one using a huge farm to grow drugs. With copyright infringement, you might make a copy of a CD for a relative, or you might run a major operation with multi-million dollar revenue. You want a maximum sentence that fits the multi-million dollar operation.
Now of course it needs to be made clear which sentence is appropriate for which level of offence. For example, with copyright infringement there is probably a factor of one million in severity between the most harmless and the worst possible offenses.
No one stole anything.
Some stock traders were tricked in to buying more Twitter stock because they thought it would rise further in the near future.
Sure. Nobody stole anything. It's called stock manipulation, and if caught, someone will do a long jail sentence.
And then you get a large truck on a road (or bridge) not rated for it, and in which it can't move.
My in-laws routinely see semi trucks trying to go down their small dirt road, because something is telling them to take turns no sane person would take those trucks on -- there's even big signs saying "No Trucks except local delivery".
I have seen a road with a big sign "Truck drivers - your GPS is wrong". Not a bit of a problem for a mile. Then came a bit where I had problems squeezing my smallish car through (yes, I had to go careful to avoid losing either mirror), and any truck arriving there would have to reverse for a mile.
Since this isn't about absolutely avoiding left turns, but reducing the number, you could just count every right turn as a 10 second penalty, and every left turn as a 30 second penalty, and go on calculating the fastest route.
What does a California Design firm's trademark have to do with my USPS aided fruit delivery service?
Nothing. But the poster you responded to said "if you call your app 'Apple Mail'", not "if you call your post-office based fruit delivery service 'Apple Mail'".
The details would be: What is the trademark, and to which trade does it apply? (For example, one place I worked used "Apple Security" as their security company, which was totally unrelated to the Apple Inc., with not the slightest trademark problem). And how are you using that trademark?
You are saying you are using a simple word in the dictionary. Apple is a normal word in the dictionary. Try using it for selling computers, software or music. At least give us enough for an educated opinion - even though people here are not lawyers, or not your lawyer.
If the Swat team response to an unverified phone call is to put people's lives at such severe risk as you describe, the problem is with the police, not the teenage idiot who placed the fake calls.
Absolutely, totally wrong. Without the teenager's call, that Swat team would have stayed where they are, and nothing bad would have happened. With the phone call, here's a list of possible consequences, all of which are the teenagers fault:
1. Swat team goes out, and figures out that nothing bad is going on, without frightening anyone. Waste of tax payers money.
2. Exactly like 1, but then the Swat team isn't available when a real call comes in. As a consequence, people might lose their lives because nobody is coming to help them.
3. Swat team goes out, under the assumption that the caller might be correct. The safest way to do this is to use so much force that nobody can fire a gun, while trying not to injure anyone. Result if everything goes right is a very, very unpleasant experience for the homeowner.
4. Same as 3, but a bit of bad luck, and the home owner gets injured.
5. Same as 3, but the homeowner is in a position that makes him look dangerous. For example, cleaning the guns in his collections, or sharpening a huge kitchen knife. With his wife is with him, crying because she just sliced a bunch of onions. Anything can happen.
6. Home owner detects that there are potential intruders at his doors and gets his gun to fight them off in self defence. Bad things _will_ happen.
All these scenarios apply even if you have a well-trained team that does its best to keep everyone secure.
Really? Being the victim of SWATing seems like it could cause lifelong psychological damage - let alone the danger that you're sending HEAVILY ARMED people over to someone's house.
I wouldn't put a specific term on SWATing, I'd just treat it as what it is - attempted murder. Unless it is successful. In that case it is murder.
Because social engineering is like the hardest point of entry of any computer system. A'ight. Mitnick approves
That's not the only problem. If Apple (or any other company) has the capability to give you access to your data if you forget your password or passcode or whatever, then obviously this can be used against you through social engineering. But it can also be used against you by the police, the NSA etc.
Your biggest protection against Apple ratting you out to any agencies is the fact that Apple deliberately avoids being able to do so. Once they have the capability, they can be forced to use it against you.
I'm not so sure I agree that this make sense...
You didn't read the judges 11 page opinion then, where he makes his reasons very clear. Among other things, the trolls claim that they need the information to take people to court, but they never do; they just abuse the courts as a cheap way to get information for their blackmail scheme.
The point that an IP is not an ID is exactly the point here, because the copyright troll wouldn't have any right to the name of anyone than the copyright infringer. And the fine judge found out that these copyright trolls have in several instances just ignored court orders and have just lied to the courts.
I have a hard time siding with anyone using software patents offensively. Fuck these guys and their patents. And if Apple asserts software patents in a non-defensive manner, fuck them, too.
You really, really must hate Google then. Wanting 4 billion dollars for some mp3 patents.
Unfortunately, far too many people are worshipping at the church of Steve Jobs for the concept of the unskilled idea person to die out any time soon.
I'll tell you something about "unskilled" Steve Jobs: When Apple had all their plans ready for the Apple 1 computer, Steve Jobs got off his arse and sold 50 of those computers to a hobby computer store for $500 each, and the $25,000 he got was enough to buy the parts for the first 50 computers he needed to deliver, plus 50 more that he could sell. Without that money, Apple would have been dead at inception. That single sale started everything.
Job's ideas were a dime a dozen. His ability to make it stick and actually produce the thing, that's what sets him apart.
And yet, when you look at the stalwarts of today's tech industry, most of them excelled, not because of their technical skills but because of their ideas. The best technical skills in the world don't mean a thing if you can't envision how to use them for something others want. Put differently, it is a lot easier to teach others to code than it is to teach them to think creatively.
No, they didn't succeed because of their ideas, but because they managed to put money where their mouth is, and got the finances to turn the idea into something that can be sold.
I don't think you just quite go the idea. It looks like this is supposed to be a ride sharing service, not a "ride sharing service". Ride sharing service, as in "I want to go from A to B, so find me an additional passenger to go from A to B, to save some cost". Properly used, this reduces or removes your cost of driving to work. It isn't supposed to allow you to make a limit.
And properly done, I think it should be totally legal for example in the UK and in Germany. Actually, In Germany that kind of thing has been done for more than 20 years, mostly for long distance drives.