I'm getting the fastest internet service in the country for $59 a month. [...] Too bad about all these state legislators who seem to feel the need to protect their constituents from super-fast internet speeds at affordable rates that the private companies never seem to feel the need to deliver.
Well, the issue would be is that $59 that you're paying at least "revenue neutral" (i.e., the city government isn't losing money).
The complaint about having the government be an ISP is that they can afford to operate at a loss because they can use your tax dollars to fill in the gaps. I can understand the argument--remember the Space Shuttle and the effect it had on commercial launches in the US? That said, private businesses are not providing service because they claim they can't do it profitably (even with government subsidies to build out infrastructure). So if they're not interested, find someone else who is.
In my opinion, I have no problem with the city owning the wires that connect to my house and go to the central office. I'm a little leery about having them be a full-blown ISP, providing the service, though. I think it's better for them to open up those wires to any company that wants to provide that service on the city owned wires.
I wouldn't say it's worse than useless. But it may not be the panacea that we expect.
First, I have my doubts about the whole "A.I. Can Handle Anything" theory. Weather, accidents, and construction can create very creative roadways where you will want a driver behind the wheel who'll be able to figure out and work with human beings on the scene (for example, a cop doing traffic control around an accident).
So you'll still want drivers. The question is, how many drivers will you need?
Consider long-haul trucks, which are the ones that are really ripe for automation. They usually have two drivers so that they can run 24 hours at a stretch. I believe--and I may be off--that the rules for these people require that they drive no more than 12 hours. It might be 10 hours, I don't remember. But in any event, the reason you have two drivers is so that you don't have a truck spending 12-14 hours sitting by the side of the road while the single driver sleeps.
You could get rid of one driver right there. A long haul truck with one driver who can sleep for 12 hours and will only be woken up if something weird is going on that the truck can't handle so it pulled off to the side of the road. That's still saving money versus having two drivers and is certainly not "worse than useless."
If I hack their website such that I can give myself 93,000,000 air-miles, why should I tell United so that they'll give me "up to a million" air-miles?
Same here. Anyone that says, "We need your e-mail address and we promise we won't spam you" gets the AOL account. I check it, maybe, once every few months.
My "office" (i.e., my cube) does not have a window. There is one big window for everybody, but where I am, I don't get any particular benefit out of the window. If it was covered tomorrow, I doubt I'd even notice.
As long as I have Internet access and something to amuse me, I don't really care if the car has windows or not. If I can watch movies or TV shows or video chat with people or whatever, why would I look out the window?
Now this makes an assumption that my car is always in auto-drive and I am always a passenger. If I'm ever expected to drive the car, I definitely need windows. And I doubt we're going to see the day, at least in the near future, where that won't be the case.
Here we have all these people saying that they wouldn't trust an automated car but they're fine with automated turrets? What happens when that asshole in the left lane takes out your turret? Then you got nothin'!
Make 1 million cars without windows at a cost of x. Make 1 million cars with windows at a cost of y. Sell out of the cars with windows. Don't sell a single car without windows. Hope that your profit margin on the cars with windows is enough to pay for all the sales you didn't make on the other cars.
While I agree that it's worth considering whether you need windows in a car, it's probably more fiscally prudent to do some research and figure it out rather than waste the time, effort, and money designing and building a product that nobody wants.
seeing as America does not currently have a manned space program to speak of.
FTFY.
I won't get into the whole "manned versus unmanned" argument. But I'd point out we "didn't have a manned space program to speak of" from 1975 to 1981--six years. We've been buying rides from the Russians since 2011. SpaceX is expecting to have it's capsule ready for it's first manned mission in 2017, which will be six years from the last Shuttle launch.
Somehow we survived the six years between 1975 and 1981 as a country without a manned spaceflight program. I think we'll probably do it again between 2011 and 2017.
I'll add another angle--can I bring my bike for free? Airlines charge you if you're bringing more than a small suitcase. For the most part, trains don't. I know that the trains going up the coast from LA let you bring a bike for free, though you have to let them know in advance.
And the comfort angle--how much is your comfort worth for how long?
Say that I can fly from LA to SF in an hour. I'm a bit more okay with being jammed into a seat with 300 of my new closest friends. But if the amenities are more like an airline's business-class seat for a quarter of the price of a business-class seat, I'd consider it as long as the schedules work.
That's something else to consider. I can't speak for LA to SF, but way back when there was an hourly airline shuttle between NY and Boston. Pretty easy on the schedule. If there's one train a day at 6:00AM and 4 or 5 airlines flights a day, I'd consider the airlines over the train.
In some ways, Apple introduced iTunes to make sure that people could buy music on their Macs. Microsoft's DRM solution wouldn't run on Macs and nobody really cared about Real's solution. Since Apple was getting into music (with "Rip, Mix, Burn" and iTunes), they needed this and didn't want to be left behind.
Now there's plenty of streaming music solutions available for people's iPhones. So why is Apple getting into this market except to compete with their third-party developers?
Now, the use of a MP3 player is limited. Maybe for jogging where having a phone is awkward.
I have a friend who still has his iPod. The reason is simple--he likes his music but he needs his phone. And he doesn't want to waste his phone battery listening to music when he might need that power for an important phone call.
I have to upgrade otherwise a critical piece of software (e.g. Xcode) will not run.
Or you end up a situation where you have to use older software.
Of course, if you're a developer and you're making Apps, Apple will at some point insist that your applications must link against the latest version of the operating system if you want to release through their stores (and you don't have much choice if it's iOS) which means that, yes, you have to go buy new hardware. I'm facing this pretty soon with my five year-old MacBook Pro.
But for people who are not developers, there isn't as much of an issue.
Same difference. I expect that my location is kept private too.
Your expectations may be off, then.
For example, if I call you, the police can find out that I spoke with you by checking my or your telephone records. While they cannot determine what was said, they can know that I called you at a particular time.
Where you are is somewhat the same thing and is probably protected in the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you looked here?
And I assume there are a couple of pilots on the flight who could easily verify if this was the case.
I'm getting the fastest internet service in the country for $59 a month. [...] Too bad about all these state legislators who seem to feel the need to protect their constituents from super-fast internet speeds at affordable rates that the private companies never seem to feel the need to deliver.
Well, the issue would be is that $59 that you're paying at least "revenue neutral" (i.e., the city government isn't losing money).
The complaint about having the government be an ISP is that they can afford to operate at a loss because they can use your tax dollars to fill in the gaps. I can understand the argument--remember the Space Shuttle and the effect it had on commercial launches in the US? That said, private businesses are not providing service because they claim they can't do it profitably (even with government subsidies to build out infrastructure). So if they're not interested, find someone else who is.
In my opinion, I have no problem with the city owning the wires that connect to my house and go to the central office. I'm a little leery about having them be a full-blown ISP, providing the service, though. I think it's better for them to open up those wires to any company that wants to provide that service on the city owned wires.
The South rises again!
"The South's Gonna Do It Again!!"
"Do what? Lose?"
I wouldn't say it's worse than useless. But it may not be the panacea that we expect.
First, I have my doubts about the whole "A.I. Can Handle Anything" theory. Weather, accidents, and construction can create very creative roadways where you will want a driver behind the wheel who'll be able to figure out and work with human beings on the scene (for example, a cop doing traffic control around an accident).
So you'll still want drivers. The question is, how many drivers will you need?
Consider long-haul trucks, which are the ones that are really ripe for automation. They usually have two drivers so that they can run 24 hours at a stretch. I believe--and I may be off--that the rules for these people require that they drive no more than 12 hours. It might be 10 hours, I don't remember. But in any event, the reason you have two drivers is so that you don't have a truck spending 12-14 hours sitting by the side of the road while the single driver sleeps.
You could get rid of one driver right there. A long haul truck with one driver who can sleep for 12 hours and will only be woken up if something weird is going on that the truck can't handle so it pulled off to the side of the road. That's still saving money versus having two drivers and is certainly not "worse than useless."
First, they needed women.
Maybe you should apply...
...and if not, does it make a sound?
Well, here's an interesting question...
If I hack their website such that I can give myself 93,000,000 air-miles, why should I tell United so that they'll give me "up to a million" air-miles?
CIgxNlLIZkWuDS8JcvqjwzXAqjVADEDwwCBml6tbrEaUF5aR42XNlbjwBLwtTC+38yBXvxm9fSpE/Hi0
FwJ1tk2R4aCmvulqMYX3mexWd6Gc2oKQVkcAGh/Q+cPfDUO5sgPlphSoO5fuBNl6dhZFjQ
Same here. Anyone that says, "We need your e-mail address and we promise we won't spam you" gets the AOL account. I check it, maybe, once every few months.
"Lose" money? I don't think so. They get money from being on Spotify.
The question is, do they get as much as they could/should?
I wouldn't say it's an asinine question.
My "office" (i.e., my cube) does not have a window. There is one big window for everybody, but where I am, I don't get any particular benefit out of the window. If it was covered tomorrow, I doubt I'd even notice.
As long as I have Internet access and something to amuse me, I don't really care if the car has windows or not. If I can watch movies or TV shows or video chat with people or whatever, why would I look out the window?
Now this makes an assumption that my car is always in auto-drive and I am always a passenger. If I'm ever expected to drive the car, I definitely need windows. And I doubt we're going to see the day, at least in the near future, where that won't be the case.
Okay, wait a second!
Here we have all these people saying that they wouldn't trust an automated car but they're fine with automated turrets? What happens when that asshole in the left lane takes out your turret? Then you got nothin'!
I agree. You need gunports--at least a backup.
Well, let's see.
Make 1 million cars without windows at a cost of x. Make 1 million cars with windows at a cost of y. Sell out of the cars with windows. Don't sell a single car without windows. Hope that your profit margin on the cars with windows is enough to pay for all the sales you didn't make on the other cars.
While I agree that it's worth considering whether you need windows in a car, it's probably more fiscally prudent to do some research and figure it out rather than waste the time, effort, and money designing and building a product that nobody wants.
Measure twice. Cut once.
He also won't get any debris in his eyes that I'll have to have a vet remove later.
Doggles.
seeing as America does not currently have a manned space program to speak of.
FTFY.
I won't get into the whole "manned versus unmanned" argument. But I'd point out we "didn't have a manned space program to speak of" from 1975 to 1981--six years. We've been buying rides from the Russians since 2011. SpaceX is expecting to have it's capsule ready for it's first manned mission in 2017, which will be six years from the last Shuttle launch.
Somehow we survived the six years between 1975 and 1981 as a country without a manned spaceflight program. I think we'll probably do it again between 2011 and 2017.
quadrocopter drones with cans of foam which can be sprayed at programmed points building structures.
Foam? Spray paint!
I'm totally tagging the 91st floor of the Freedom Tower...
Exactly.
I'll add another angle--can I bring my bike for free? Airlines charge you if you're bringing more than a small suitcase. For the most part, trains don't. I know that the trains going up the coast from LA let you bring a bike for free, though you have to let them know in advance.
And the comfort angle--how much is your comfort worth for how long?
Say that I can fly from LA to SF in an hour. I'm a bit more okay with being jammed into a seat with 300 of my new closest friends. But if the amenities are more like an airline's business-class seat for a quarter of the price of a business-class seat, I'd consider it as long as the schedules work.
That's something else to consider. I can't speak for LA to SF, but way back when there was an hourly airline shuttle between NY and Boston. Pretty easy on the schedule. If there's one train a day at 6:00AM and 4 or 5 airlines flights a day, I'd consider the airlines over the train.
But what about the data that's already IN the US?
Look, this is a medical device. People carry it around with them.
Actually, I believe it's meant for use in a hospital, not to be carried around.
Next time they put me on morphine, I am so hacking into this... :^D
Good point.
In some ways, Apple introduced iTunes to make sure that people could buy music on their Macs. Microsoft's DRM solution wouldn't run on Macs and nobody really cared about Real's solution. Since Apple was getting into music (with "Rip, Mix, Burn" and iTunes), they needed this and didn't want to be left behind.
Now there's plenty of streaming music solutions available for people's iPhones. So why is Apple getting into this market except to compete with their third-party developers?
Now if the local Donut Shop had an app, the response would have been quicker...
Now, the use of a MP3 player is limited. Maybe for jogging where having a phone is awkward.
I have a friend who still has his iPod. The reason is simple--he likes his music but he needs his phone. And he doesn't want to waste his phone battery listening to music when he might need that power for an important phone call.
I have to upgrade otherwise a critical piece of software (e.g. Xcode) will not run.
Or you end up a situation where you have to use older software.
Of course, if you're a developer and you're making Apps, Apple will at some point insist that your applications must link against the latest version of the operating system if you want to release through their stores (and you don't have much choice if it's iOS) which means that, yes, you have to go buy new hardware. I'm facing this pretty soon with my five year-old MacBook Pro.
But for people who are not developers, there isn't as much of an issue.
Same difference. I expect that my location is kept private too.
Your expectations may be off, then.
For example, if I call you, the police can find out that I spoke with you by checking my or your telephone records. While they cannot determine what was said, they can know that I called you at a particular time.
Where you are is somewhat the same thing and is probably protected in the same way.