I would absolutely rather pay the $2 for Verizon roaming and use my same SIM card, than try to communicate that people in the US that need me need to dial some Cambodian phone number long distance for them, or that if they text me I have a non-US standard phone number they have to enter to send a text, etc.
It has broad bi-partisan support, and basically passed both houses of congress and both major parties without any objections on a voice vote. The constitutionality is completely for the bill, i.e. freedom of speech. There is no way a challenge would go anywhere. IANAL.
Then arrange a double-blind black-box analysis. That doesn't need to reveal HOW things work, it just proves that they DO work. If your target company balks at proving their device works, it's bunk.
How about being stuck on a road in a snowstorm without communication? There are reasons why we shouldn't disable people's phones. I would argue for nagware - every hour, have a message pop up telling you there is a safety issue and asking you to return your phone to a Verizon store for a free replacement or something. Seems like a good balance between keeping devices safe and people losing critical communication.
"The driver, who has to be there to help the truck get on and off the interstate exit ramps, moved to the backseat alongside a crowd of transportation officials to watch the historic ride."
Slashdot: Is that... Leeegal?
Emperor Uber: I'll make it legal!
Yeah but his current valuation is based on his stock position with Facebook stock. There is no way, for example, that he could sell all of his stock at current market value without crashing the value. So if the offer from Microsoft was a cash offer, that may have been a much better bargain IMHO.
This. The thing that most technical nerds (myself included) forget, is that the law is heavily constructed around intent. Doing the exact same things with different intent is different in the eyes of the law.
I would rather know what I am using and pay for what I use in at least a somewhat transparent fashion, than pay the exact same as all other customers and never really know what I am paying for. Verizon's system for me has been reliable and fast, and I pay for it, which I'm happy to do.
Agreed. And the important point is that I don't trust my phone, or any of the equipment the retailer is using. I know that my credit card company / bank trusts my phone to allow the NFC transactions, and that's all I need to be indemnified by federal law and limited to $50 max damages by the Fair Credit Billing Act.
It's important to understand the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax avoidance is taking all the deductions, programs, etc. you are entitled to under tax law. We would never expect an individual to not take a tax deduction or child credit etc. because they have "courage". That's just bad personal finances. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is illegally trying to avoid paying taxes you owe. For example, lying on your tax forms.
I have no problem with Apple doing legal tax avoidance, and all their investors (including a lot of your personal retirement plans, etc) would agree. Anything else would not be patriotism, it would just be bad finance practice. If they're doing something illegal, that's another issue. But let's not slam a corporation that is legally following tax law. Instead, let's slam legislators and encourage legislation to close tax loopholes and simplify the tax code.
With Google Fiber coming to areas in Utah, it's interesting to see Comcast start to push heavy contracts but at a discounted price. I think they want to make sure that people are at least locked in from changing to Google Fiber for a couple of years. Seems like a last-ditch effort to protect market share in the face of an obviously much superior competitor.
That comment in the original article made me chuckle. Although it is technically correct and OK to use the term kilocalorie for food measurements, everyone in the world shortens it to "Calorie". But using the correct official term makes things sound more scientific-y and awesome-nerd.
What the market will bear, of course. Prices are not set on "what value do you put on owning that little robot". They are put on "What value to you place in having that sharp or poisonous metal shard removed from your digestive tract before it kills you". Willingness to pay, my friend, based on the service performed, not on the value of the tools.
I hate to say it, but roaming taxes are a tax on the stupid, or at least on people with pockets too deep to care, or a company account etc. It's pretty easy these days to either give your carrier a phone call before leaving, to arrange an international rate for your trip, or to buy a local sim card or throwaway phone while you are there. Or just turn off your data roaming and use wifi. It's not like ten years ago when people didn't understand data roaming. People should know these things, there are news articles once a month.
Except if this happened at a "major financial institution", the Federal Reserve would step in and stop a panic by insuring the funds. That's why we *have* a federal reserve. See the Panic of 1907 for an example.
It's all fun and games and your "living" until the FBI (or insert your country's equivalent here) breaks your door down at 3:00 AM. Try to convince a judge "I broke into his house and stole his cat and held it ransom because I wanted to let him know his windows are breakable."
So what is interesting is that 100 years ago, most business was transacted on trust. Shaking someone's hand and trusting them to be honest. Then we got into a lot of legalese. But now we've gone back - there is *so much* legalese around *everything* that we are back to doing business based on trust again. We buy apps from companies that we generally trust. We do business online based on reputations of companies. So the legalese has peaked and now we don't even pay attention to it anymore. It's interesting how we have gone full circle.
Prices of products from large corporations that know what they are doing are not set based on cost+. They're set based on Willingness to Pay. Cost is only used to determine whether a market is viable for a product.
To use the emergency alert system, your phone must be connected to the cellular network. That works great for things like tornado warnings or Amber alerts, etc. But two weeks into a disaster, when all the cell towers have been dead for well over a week, that gets a lot more difficult. And the emergency alert system is for short messages - i.e. "Tornado! Take cover!" or "Look for this license number...". They don't work well for long lists of water distribution locations and updated stock, instructions for leaving the area with bus schedules, etc. It is a lot easier to provide emergency power to one radio station operating independently than to a thousand cellular towers, which are all connected by fiber lines that will be severed when an earthquake hits. So for immediate duck and cover type warnings, the existing cellular system works great. For coordinating large-scale multiple-week disaster efforts, they fall apart quickly. That's why emergency response teams have phones and connected devices, but also have complete stand-alone systems like VHF radios.
Slashdot Mirror
I would absolutely rather pay the $2 for Verizon roaming and use my same SIM card, than try to communicate that people in the US that need me need to dial some Cambodian phone number long distance for them, or that if they text me I have a non-US standard phone number they have to enter to send a text, etc.
It has broad bi-partisan support, and basically passed both houses of congress and both major parties without any objections on a voice vote. The constitutionality is completely for the bill, i.e. freedom of speech. There is no way a challenge would go anywhere. IANAL.
Then arrange a double-blind black-box analysis. That doesn't need to reveal HOW things work, it just proves that they DO work. If your target company balks at proving their device works, it's bunk.
How about being stuck on a road in a snowstorm without communication? There are reasons why we shouldn't disable people's phones. I would argue for nagware - every hour, have a message pop up telling you there is a safety issue and asking you to return your phone to a Verizon store for a free replacement or something. Seems like a good balance between keeping devices safe and people losing critical communication.
This is a great precedent, though. If every falsely accused person went for damages of $17k, it would quickly alter the landscape for these studios.
Nice to have the focus off the United States every once in a while. USA! USA!
"The driver, who has to be there to help the truck get on and off the interstate exit ramps, moved to the backseat alongside a crowd of transportation officials to watch the historic ride."
Slashdot: Is that... Leeegal?
Emperor Uber: I'll make it legal!
Yeah but his current valuation is based on his stock position with Facebook stock. There is no way, for example, that he could sell all of his stock at current market value without crashing the value. So if the offer from Microsoft was a cash offer, that may have been a much better bargain IMHO.
This. The thing that most technical nerds (myself included) forget, is that the law is heavily constructed around intent. Doing the exact same things with different intent is different in the eyes of the law.
I would rather know what I am using and pay for what I use in at least a somewhat transparent fashion, than pay the exact same as all other customers and never really know what I am paying for. Verizon's system for me has been reliable and fast, and I pay for it, which I'm happy to do.
Use your own router and cable modem. It's cheaper than renting, and gives you more control.
Agreed. And the important point is that I don't trust my phone, or any of the equipment the retailer is using. I know that my credit card company / bank trusts my phone to allow the NFC transactions, and that's all I need to be indemnified by federal law and limited to $50 max damages by the Fair Credit Billing Act.
It's important to understand the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax avoidance is taking all the deductions, programs, etc. you are entitled to under tax law. We would never expect an individual to not take a tax deduction or child credit etc. because they have "courage". That's just bad personal finances. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is illegally trying to avoid paying taxes you owe. For example, lying on your tax forms.
I have no problem with Apple doing legal tax avoidance, and all their investors (including a lot of your personal retirement plans, etc) would agree. Anything else would not be patriotism, it would just be bad finance practice. If they're doing something illegal, that's another issue. But let's not slam a corporation that is legally following tax law. Instead, let's slam legislators and encourage legislation to close tax loopholes and simplify the tax code.
The 6+ has been out for two years, and the 6S+ for a full year, so I'm not sure what you mean?
With Google Fiber coming to areas in Utah, it's interesting to see Comcast start to push heavy contracts but at a discounted price. I think they want to make sure that people are at least locked in from changing to Google Fiber for a couple of years. Seems like a last-ditch effort to protect market share in the face of an obviously much superior competitor.
https://www.nutrition.gov/what...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What the market will bear, of course. Prices are not set on "what value do you put on owning that little robot". They are put on "What value to you place in having that sharp or poisonous metal shard removed from your digestive tract before it kills you". Willingness to pay, my friend, based on the service performed, not on the value of the tools.
I hate to say it, but roaming taxes are a tax on the stupid, or at least on people with pockets too deep to care, or a company account etc. It's pretty easy these days to either give your carrier a phone call before leaving, to arrange an international rate for your trip, or to buy a local sim card or throwaway phone while you are there. Or just turn off your data roaming and use wifi. It's not like ten years ago when people didn't understand data roaming. People should know these things, there are news articles once a month.
How does this differ from E-911, which is already in place in most large jurisdictions in the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Except if this happened at a "major financial institution", the Federal Reserve would step in and stop a panic by insuring the funds. That's why we *have* a federal reserve. See the Panic of 1907 for an example.
Good thing Blackberry is the most secure mobile platform for doing secure things, right? Right?
It's all fun and games and your "living" until the FBI (or insert your country's equivalent here) breaks your door down at 3:00 AM. Try to convince a judge "I broke into his house and stole his cat and held it ransom because I wanted to let him know his windows are breakable."
So what is interesting is that 100 years ago, most business was transacted on trust. Shaking someone's hand and trusting them to be honest. Then we got into a lot of legalese. But now we've gone back - there is *so much* legalese around *everything* that we are back to doing business based on trust again. We buy apps from companies that we generally trust. We do business online based on reputations of companies. So the legalese has peaked and now we don't even pay attention to it anymore. It's interesting how we have gone full circle.
Prices of products from large corporations that know what they are doing are not set based on cost+. They're set based on Willingness to Pay. Cost is only used to determine whether a market is viable for a product.
To use the emergency alert system, your phone must be connected to the cellular network. That works great for things like tornado warnings or Amber alerts, etc. But two weeks into a disaster, when all the cell towers have been dead for well over a week, that gets a lot more difficult. And the emergency alert system is for short messages - i.e. "Tornado! Take cover!" or "Look for this license number...". They don't work well for long lists of water distribution locations and updated stock, instructions for leaving the area with bus schedules, etc. It is a lot easier to provide emergency power to one radio station operating independently than to a thousand cellular towers, which are all connected by fiber lines that will be severed when an earthquake hits. So for immediate duck and cover type warnings, the existing cellular system works great. For coordinating large-scale multiple-week disaster efforts, they fall apart quickly. That's why emergency response teams have phones and connected devices, but also have complete stand-alone systems like VHF radios.