I think that is the fundamental question that needs to be asked. If you make it, it should be patented. If you write it it should be copyrighted. The issue here is that the software industry (in part) wants to go double-dipping.
Indeed you are right. Over the kind of commute distances in the USA, and given the vast urban, suburban and semi-rural sprawl that characterises large parts of the US, it's very true. Mass transportation doesn't work in large parts of the USA, due to the low densities of housing. Unless you count Aircraft. Which seem to work fine as a mass transit system (see later!)
High speed rail (and by high speed I mean anything that goes at 100mph+) can help with shrinking the sprawl effect though. If you do high speed right, you can co-ordinate express commuter and long distance high-speed trains. The Japanese do it on the Shinkansen. The British on their High Speed routes. The Germans... need I go on.
I used to commute about 20 miles (in each direction) every day, from a commuter village near a small city to a business park in a much larger city. That involved a 10 minute bus ride, followed by a 12 minute train ride, followed by a 5 minute metro ride, followed by a 10 minute walk. That journey took an hour, including all changes, door-to-door. In rush-hour traffic, you're talking about 50 minutes drive. So, despite all those changes - what kept the journey time down? Spending those 12 minutes on the train at (or near) 100mph. It meant I could do 16 of those miles in 12 minutes. I tried going the whole way on the (more frequent) bus. Add 30 minutes.
So High Speed rail can help in the daily commute. In the UK, daily commuters to London come from as far away as Yorkshire (170-200 miles). They can do the bulk of their commute in 1hr 45 minutes.
The big trick with commuting using high-speed rail is plumbing the high-speed rail system into the cities' mass transit systems at either end. By doing this you can start to make longer-distance commutes effective by public transport. Most European cities have their subway, light rail and bus networks closely tied into the intercity train system, usually sharing station sites. That makes a difference. Even just making the nearby city bus routes stop at the front of the station can make a huge difference to this. That's where I think agencies like RTD in Denver have the right idea - bring the trains and the buses into the same place.
The other important thing is that the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) need to get their heads out of their backsides and quit imposing utterly ridiculous crashworthiness standards on the trains. On a high-speed rail system you put the crashworthiness (or lackofcrash-worthiness) into the infrastructure itself, not the trains. That's what the entire rest of the world does. It means you can use light, efficient train sets, allowing the commuter trains to accelerate all the way to 100mph+ at the same rate as a light rail vehicle. It also reduces the maintenance required to the route, making both the trains and tracks cheaper to run, because of the reduced axle-loadings and lower energy costs. The imposition of a "Positive Train Control" system over the entire existing intercity networks will go a long way to preventing crashes, and once it is implemented, the FRA really need to reconsider their approach.
To be honest, any approach to high speed rail would likely take 20-30 years to truly bed-in. "Transit oriented development" needs to be more than a buzzword - it needs to become second nature - for a true change to work. That means people need to get in the habit of thinking "I will buy this house because it is near a good bus route" or "This house is only 10 minutes walk from the station" in the same way that people currently think of "only 5 minutes from the interstate". That's when the big changes will start. But to get there, you need to reduce the barriers to using transit, and consider raising the barriers for running a car. High Speed Rail can form a part of that.
The final question is what is being competed against? In most of the developed world, the high-speed train networks are often geared around being competitive with airlines on journeys in the 100 - 400 mile area. If you site your stations well, and use
Except, in the case of a contract for phone service, which is what the OP is talking about, you are legally bound to the contract by that point. I'm sure there's some weasel-words in AT&T's standard terms that says something along the lines of "I agree to pay the specified monthly rate, along with any associated levies and taxes".
He is essentially saying that he could not get AT&T to give him the price INCLUSIVE of ALL taxes and fees, on a fixed-rate monthly plan, before his bill turned up in the mail. At the point that the bill arrives, he will have already used the service, and likely be contractually bound to pay the fees for 18-24 months.
As an aside, I still think the checkout is too late of a stage for the inclusive prices to be shown to you -- if there's a huge queue of people behind you, you have essentially reached the point of no-return when the operator asks you for payment. Technically you could walk away, but in reality that would be socially unacceptable in many cases. And heaven forbid you say "actually I don't want these two items after all", given the ease of accessing a supervisor to deduct the items from the bill (at least in my experience, you can add 5 minutes to your checkout time for that alone). It's worth noting also that people from other states/cities may well not be able to predict the final price -- although the sales taxes are a matter of public record, it's impossible to know all the applicable taxes for everywhere, so it hurts tourists and migrant workers particularly.
The problem is, things get worse if there are differentials in the sales tax rates, say for luxury and essential items. Most consumers would not be able to look in their trolley and say which items are liable to a higher rate of taxes, which means they can't predict their checkout price, and certainly could not predict "if I remove this item, will I have enough money to buy the rest?" From personal experience, I have had to survive for periods when I've got £8 to last a week (for groceries and essentials), and therefore I have gone round the shop, totting up the prices of everything I need so I can work out whether I can afford it or not. I don't have to ask a checkout assistant to run up the total so I can find out the actual price to pay. Although if I lived in the US I probably would, just to spite the supermarkets.
Which is one of the reasons why it is law in Europe [to show inclusive prices]. Retailers don't get a choice.
There is nothing to stop retailers from giving the detailed breakdown on the bill or receipt, or even showing both prices on the shelf ticket, but the inclusive price must be shown.
That way, retailers get to say "but that much is tax", and companies can use the receipts to claim their taxes back (companies are not liable to sales tax), but the average consumer doesn't get any surprises at the check-out.
In the case of a contract for service, I would be very reluctant to pay for something that wasn't spelled out at contract negotiation. As it is, the service provider is legally obliged to collect the tax on behalf of the government, but I would still say it forms part of the contractually agreed payment sum, and thus you should be entitled to, at the very least, the formula by which they are calculated, and their current rates (particularly levies which are kept by the provider and not passed on to the govt.)
Except, we're not talking about a national advertising campaign here. We're talking about a specific sale where the ZIP code is known.
Thing I don't understand in the US is why the prices on the shelf-tickets (or their electronic equivalents) aren't required to include all applicable taxes. I can see why it would be difficult to include those on an advertising billboard, because as you rightly say, taxes change from city to city. However, the billing system or Point-of-Sale computer CAN calculate the price inclusive of local taxes. There is, therefore, no excuse for the shelf ticket or final offer price not to be shown inclusive of all relevant taxes and fees. It inspires consumer confidence, as a shopper can add up the contents of the basket in his head, and work out the total price he will pay, without having to uplift it to account for taxes.
a. No SMS has a subject line, it is a "Short Message Service" (max 160 chars)
b. How the hell does the network know whether you have opened the message or not -- either it has been sent to your phone, or it has not. Any other way, and people would be publishing "free-SMS" hacks for phones.
At least here in the UK, Telemetry and control signals are carried over the National Grid itself, nowadays using an optic fibre that runs alongside the earth wire. Case Study.
I see no reason why all telemetry and control signals should not be carried in narrow- or broadband communications along the power infrastructure itself, and then restricted to a physically separate infrastructure when being processed. Data links to business systems can be provided using a one-way connection (Serial or optical). If you then want to have a real-time billing system, you can join all the business networks up, either along the same fibre-way (atop the pylons), or through the olde-fashioned interweb.
For telemetry, TCP/IP may often be your worst choice, since it has a high latency. If you want to protect your infrastructure from lightning strikes, you need to respond at the speed of light. Literally. Other control signals (demand etc.), may be able to wait a second or two, but you can't afford to risk the kind of packet loss you may receive if the teleco or ISP is having a bad day. So all the control stuff will need to be on multiple route redundant circuits anyway. Note I said circuits - you have to have whole circuits to yourself.
TCP/IP may have been well designed for critical communications networks. But it sure as hell ain't designed for critical real-time communications. Ergo you have to have a dedicated infastructure, so there is no excuse for having any connection, even firewalled from t'internet to the power station control systems.
If you really must share infrastructure, then for pete's sake, use the time-honoured TDM.
The really ridiculous thing is that Germany already knows how to do it right.
The ICE is an excellent high speed train, capable of 320kph (200mph), and it is well integrated into the existing German Intercity network.
They are throwing all this fine integration out at the expense of sexiness.
If they built a normal high speed line to the airport, they could extend the benefits to a far wider area, just as Frankfurt did. As it is, anyone coming from outside Munich city centre will have to change onto a Maglev, wasting 15 minutes in connecting time. If they built a traditional ICE line, the benefits of direct fast services to the airport from Nürnburg, Würzburg, Augsburg, Stuttgart, Mannheim, and places further afield could be realised. They could also use the money saved to build another section of high-speed track, as a number of ICE routes in the area are only upgraded classic rail lines, at 200kph (125mph), thereby extending the benefits of the link to domestic (non-air) passengers.
It's a short-sighted decision, and it surprises me because traditionally Germany have been very good at realising the network benefits of their public transport improvements. Much better than the French are, who tended to use the TGV to replace existing links (thereby denying intermediate and regional passengers the benefits, and often reducing service levels), rather than augment and accelerate existing routes (which is what DB do with ICEs), and provide new high-speed sections where flows warrant it.
That's pretty damn funny. I forgot to turn my phone off when flying to and from LA last month (3000 miles). Wonder if it caused any havoc with Tmobile?
Given that the US GSM carriers (and particularly T-mobile) have approximately zero coverage over pitchforkland Kansas, asswipe Colorado and buttfuck Nevada, probably not (along with the rest of the midwest and mountain states).
Of course, Montana has the best coverage of the lot, I mean those elk need to be on-line 24/7 in them there hills.
Am I the only one laughing that back in old, antiquated Europe, our passport control have the ability to read the documents, with their own eyes? Oh I forget, how are you supposed to treat your visitors like criminals if you can't take their photograph, fingerprints, and 30-odd other bits of personal data to make sure we aren't terrier-ists (fans of small dogs). It doesn't help prevent terrorist attacks, but it does give you a nice big data mine (and how are you supposed to undermine people's rights effectively if you don't know everything about them).
It is laughable that there is no non-computerised backup for the system. (How about filling out the forms and scanning them in later?)
This is why, in the EU, it is an offence to collect "Personal Data" without consent, except where there is a legal, contractual or public interest reason for collecting and processing the data.
In addition there are requirements that a data controller has to inform a subject of what the data is to be used for, and to whom it will be given, regardless of whether the subject gave the data or a 3rd party did (except in the case of some law enforcement). The data controller should ensure your personal data is as accurate as possible.
There are requirements that the data not be stored for a period longer than is necessary to perform the processing, and that you can always refuse your data to be used for marketing. You also have the right to appeal any automated decisions made with the data. You have a right that your data is held securely, and the directive clearly states that a company holding data should be aware of the "state of the art" of security procedures, providing cost is not prohibitive.
You can't export personal data to a country that doesn't provide equivalent legal protections (e.g. the USA), regardless of any contract between companies.
And finally, there is a right to judicial remedy if the directive is breached by a company, including compensation.
I note that a normal person is not bound by the directive, but any EU-based organisation storing such data is (company, charity etc.).
I am pretty sure (IANAL) that if organisations like Polar Rose worked out of the EU, any personal data they collected would count as controlled data, regardless of who supplied it to them, and they would have a duty to inform the subject etc.
EU Directive 95/46/EC
Article 1: (part)
1. In accordance with this Directive, Member States shall protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data.
Article 2: (part)
(a) 'personal data 'shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;
Article 7:
Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if:
(a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or
(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; or
(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject; or
(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or
(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed; or
(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection under Article 1 (1).
Well, there is already an exemption that covers battery powered TVs. I would imagine that this applies here too. Essentially, if you have a battery powered TV (eg. in a Trailer/Caravan, Motor-Home, or a pocket TV), your home licence covers you while you are out and about.
a. You don't want Windows hoovering GB of drive space and RAM just to run Office? b. You want to run Windows software seamlessly with Linux software - not on a different VM c. You are trying to reduce your licensing fees, or don't want to buy OEM Windows on your new PCs, and currently have OEM Windows on the old PC.
The market they are making the big push into is companies, governments and schools switching to Linux desktops, not home users.
For these people, the point of moving to Linux desktops is to reduce their costs. So they won't be forking out for Windows Licences.
Typically these people are 90% happy with OpenOffice. However, they may have management software, or current database systems that would be expensive to port to Linux (or Mac). Crossover Office provide software that means they don't need to change their existing systems. It also means that Linux desktop users don't have to switch to another "screen" (Windows Terminal Server, VM, etc.) to use this "Windows" software - a nice friendly icon can be placed on the corporate menu, which works just like the one in the start menu.
Most importantly, though, Crossover Office comes with a full Support Contract, unlike WINE, making it corporate-friendly.
Also, office PCs don't come with high-spec hardware suited to VMs. Businesses particularly seem to skimp on the RAM - something that is essential if you are using VMs.
As to the personal user...
For power users, like myself, it is very rare that I need "Windows" for anything. Once in a blue moon I need to access a site that's IE only. BUT In some areas, Excel is far ahead of the others. So I need Excel for some tasks. OpenOffice.org Impress also has problems with some Powerpoint files.
I don't fancy spending £100 on a new Windows Licence (my old one is OEM, and thus stuck on my old - and dying - PC) I do need Office and IE occasionally. At £25, Crossover Office saves me money, and lets me do almost anything MS Office on Windows can do.
No. SuperKaramba will be built in (think Apple OSX Widgets). So your calendar, inbox contents, local weather, PC stats, whatever can be displayed on your desktop. Active Desktop was IIRC just a way of putting HTML or Animations on the desktop - they weren't programs per-se, that could tell you useful stuff.
In the UK, if a CCTV system comprises of more than fixed cameras with a general overview (as found in small shops etc...), it is covered by the Data Protection Act.
If a camera-system can Pan & Zoom or is concentrated on a specific person's activities then
They have a right to know - Signs must be erected saying who records the images and why
They have a right to view suitably anonymised images (ie. passers by removed)
They have a right to contest the results of any automated processing, eg. biometric scanning,
Images cannot be shared without a confidentiality agreement signed by the recipient (ie. promising to keep person-identifying images private and secure)
Images must be erased after a reasonable period unless they are needed for a court case. Recording over the tape is not sufficient - they must be permanently erased. In the case of city centre CCTV, 1 month is considered the reasonable maximum, since any offences should have been notified by then. For banks, 3 months, because that is the maximum period between account statements being received by customers.
A detailed policy must be written and known by operators, listing exactly how, why and when images are recorded, used, and erased. Subjects of the CCTV images must be able to view this policy upon request.
If images recorded are used to cause undue harm or distress to the subject (law-enforcement uses of a video are not considered undue harm...), they must be erased immediately, along with all copies and any subsequent data purtaining to these images
The Data Controller at the company recording the images must be registered with the Information Commissioner's office in London.
In addition, even if only fixed cameras are used, the above provisions apply if the images are not being used for law-enforcement alone.
The Information Commissioner can order that any non-compliance be rectified, and since not complying with an enforcement notices is a criminal offence, the Information Commissioner can take the company to court - the fine is unlimited. If harm or distress was caused, they can also order compensation be paid.
If a camera overlooks property not normally visible from the street (back gardens, house interiors, or anywhere you could reasonably expect privacy), the camera owner MUST receive permission to film from the current residents - including tenants, or must ensure the system cannot film these areas. This includes Landlords filming tenants inside the house...
Just to put people in the know - the Data Protection legislation does cover CCTV, and reasonable expectation of privacy is included in the provisions.
At the moment there are two editions of XP, as mandated by the EU - XP (with media player) and XP N (without) (yes I know there's Pro/Home/Media Ctr...)
I suspect the situation that the EU wants is: - no more than basic firewalling in Vista, unless you buy more - APIs documented, so other firewall/AV/system maintenance vendors can hook into the necessary parts of the Kernel to do their job as well as microsoft products can - Not going back to the issue that got them into trouble with Office/Windows, whereby the Office team knew more about the Windows APIs than any other vendor, thereby allowing them short-cuts - no strong-arming OEMs to not cut a deal with other software vendors, particularly in the Security field, either by
a. making all other vendor's products de-facto crap by keeping them out of APIs and Kernel hooks that MS OneCare have access to
b. confusing end-consumers by installing Windows AntiVirus trials/adverts/icons by default, without any way to remove this by an OEM.
The problem with this security area is that currently AntiVirus is the big area where there is still competition for OEMs. You find OEMs including AV from McAfee, Symantec and others, with the standard Windows/Works/Word combo.
Again, I'm not saying this should apply to every OS vendor. Microsoft has been found guilty of using its monopoly in the OS market to gain extra leverage in other software markets. They've been punished for this in the past, so they know the drill, and are only stalling because they want to see how far they can push.
As for the debacle with the "extra [political] delay" in Europe, MS knows the drill and has done for a while, but still they push for leniency from the legislators. What they're upset about is that legislators in the EC won't be drawn into pre-approving any of the bundling MS want to do with Vista. I think they've made it pretty clear by recent judgements - If you have a monopoly - don't close out competition by obfuscation of system protocols or bundling independent products. It's not very hard to extrapolate that reasoning. And they've even offered MS copious amounts of advice over Vista, albeit with the proviso - "This is friendly advice, not legal definitions. We reserve the right to prosecute if you leverage your monopoly again"
Certainly when I was younger - my BASIC programs were neither stunning (even compared to the games of the day), nor particularly well written. They did, however leave a certain "I made that" feeling - which is what pushed me onwards to make bigger, better programs.
As a non-programmer today, I would say that learning BASIC definately helped my abilities in being a "power user". When I was a clerk, my bosses truly appreciated my understanding of Macros and scripting that came out of my BASIC experiments as a child. When "can you take these spreadsheets and generate this monthly summary?" turned to "if you give me a little extra time, I'll make a button that will do that automatically, so it will take 30 seconds to produce each subsequent summary", they were pleased with the results - and often gave me a raise.
To add to that, GSM towers at the moment (at least in the UK) prioritise calls to the emergency number, and *will* throw non-emergency calls off-air if the tower is full. Competitor's towers will also take an emergency call, regardless of any roaming agreements, and you do not need to have a valid phone service - even without a SIM card, the emergency number should still work.
As an aside, the TETRA system is being deployed in a number of european countries for the emergency services, and this system allows both direct peer-to-peer calling when network contact has been lost, and will also allow any handset to act as a relay (or part of a chain of relays) between the network and an inaccessible area. The cited example is rescuing someone from a cave, but I imagine it will suffice in other situations. You can also use peer-to-peer direct communications in day-to-day usage, so for example, a Police helicopter can be put in direct contact with officers on the ground, and telephone calls can be routed to/from the handsets, meaning that police officers never need to carry a cell on duty.
Yes, but it doesn't mean that the bundled software is under Windows' license, just because MS says you can or can't pre-install competitor X's products.
If (as many OEMs do) you bundle MS Office with MS Windows on a PC, that doesn't mean that MS Office is governed by the MS Windows license, or vice-versa. It is "mere aggregation".
The problem is not that companies want to prioritise certain kinds of traffic (eg http is more important than bittorrent, so gets higher priority), but that they want to be able to (for example) prioritise traffic from msn search over google search, because they've done a deal with MS.
The other main reason is to keep Skype et al. out of their captive markets.
When it comes to telecos, as I understand it, the competition is in reality an illusion - If your only two choices for high speed net are CableCo and Bell, then you as a consumer don't actually get to choose - particularly if (as often happens) they operate on nod-and-wink basis. It's also highly unlikely that you will know which companies the CableCo and Bell have made deals with for better access before you sign 12 months of your money away - they are hardly going to list such "commercially sensitive" information on their adverts.
To use the UPS/FedEx analogy - Imagine UPS don't serve your town, so you have to use FedEx. You place an order with Borders for some books, to discover that because they have done a deal with UPS, FedEx refuses to provide any better service than 1-week parcels. Amazon, however, have a deal with FedEx, but charge a little more for the books you want. You can get Amazon books next-day though. It means you are paying more, unless Borders decides to increase their overheads by doing a deal with every carrier. It means UPS and FedEx now have leverage in the market for selling books. Now you might say I'm making a false arguments here, because there's nothing stopping UPS from delivering. However, in the case of the internet, generally once you have a connection, you are tied down for a fixed period with one supplier - regardless of the level of service you get, and in many towns you only have a few choices anyway
There are fairer ways - put download limits on the cheapest contracts - impose traffic shaping based on packet type (but not source/destination) - make it abundantly clear in the TOS what traffic shaping you do - regulation to ensure providers who have a monopoly don't use discriminatory traffic shaping polocies
If some traffic shaping based on source/company etc. is ever allowed - force companies to issue a list of which companies' services will recieve higher QoS, and which will receive lower QoS, so consumers can actually choose.
I'm not making any comment on the technical merit of net neutrality, rather the consumer issues.
The thing to remember is that in the case of services like this, the only consumer protections are in the law that governs the service - because the contracts themselves are written to benefit the company, not consumer (since you can't get service without signing their contract, and unless you have $millions you have absolutely no power to negotiate). It's also worth noting that once one company finds a legal (but fairly subtle) way to screw their customers for more money, you can rest assured that the rest of them are not far behind.
Slashdot Mirror
When you create software, what do you do?
Do you write software or do you make software?
I think that is the fundamental question that needs to be asked. If you make it, it should be patented. If you write it it should be copyrighted. The issue here is that the software industry (in part) wants to go double-dipping.
Indeed you are right. Over the kind of commute distances in the USA, and given the vast urban, suburban and semi-rural sprawl that characterises large parts of the US, it's very true. Mass transportation doesn't work in large parts of the USA, due to the low densities of housing. Unless you count Aircraft. Which seem to work fine as a mass transit system (see later!)
High speed rail (and by high speed I mean anything that goes at 100mph+) can help with shrinking the sprawl effect though. If you do high speed right, you can co-ordinate express commuter and long distance high-speed trains. The Japanese do it on the Shinkansen. The British on their High Speed routes. The Germans... need I go on.
I used to commute about 20 miles (in each direction) every day, from a commuter village near a small city to a business park in a much larger city. That involved a 10 minute bus ride, followed by a 12 minute train ride, followed by a 5 minute metro ride, followed by a 10 minute walk. That journey took an hour, including all changes, door-to-door. In rush-hour traffic, you're talking about 50 minutes drive. So, despite all those changes - what kept the journey time down? Spending those 12 minutes on the train at (or near) 100mph. It meant I could do 16 of those miles in 12 minutes. I tried going the whole way on the (more frequent) bus. Add 30 minutes.
So High Speed rail can help in the daily commute. In the UK, daily commuters to London come from as far away as Yorkshire (170-200 miles). They can do the bulk of their commute in 1hr 45 minutes.
The big trick with commuting using high-speed rail is plumbing the high-speed rail system into the cities' mass transit systems at either end. By doing this you can start to make longer-distance commutes effective by public transport. Most European cities have their subway, light rail and bus networks closely tied into the intercity train system, usually sharing station sites. That makes a difference. Even just making the nearby city bus routes stop at the front of the station can make a huge difference to this. That's where I think agencies like RTD in Denver have the right idea - bring the trains and the buses into the same place.
The other important thing is that the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) need to get their heads out of their backsides and quit imposing utterly ridiculous crashworthiness standards on the trains. On a high-speed rail system you put the crashworthiness (or lackofcrash-worthiness) into the infrastructure itself, not the trains. That's what the entire rest of the world does. It means you can use light, efficient train sets, allowing the commuter trains to accelerate all the way to 100mph+ at the same rate as a light rail vehicle. It also reduces the maintenance required to the route, making both the trains and tracks cheaper to run, because of the reduced axle-loadings and lower energy costs. The imposition of a "Positive Train Control" system over the entire existing intercity networks will go a long way to preventing crashes, and once it is implemented, the FRA really need to reconsider their approach.
To be honest, any approach to high speed rail would likely take 20-30 years to truly bed-in. "Transit oriented development" needs to be more than a buzzword - it needs to become second nature - for a true change to work. That means people need to get in the habit of thinking "I will buy this house because it is near a good bus route" or "This house is only 10 minutes walk from the station" in the same way that people currently think of "only 5 minutes from the interstate". That's when the big changes will start. But to get there, you need to reduce the barriers to using transit, and consider raising the barriers for running a car. High Speed Rail can form a part of that.
The final question is what is being competed against? In most of the developed world, the high-speed train networks are often geared around being competitive with airlines on journeys in the 100 - 400 mile area. If you site your stations well, and use
He is essentially saying that he could not get AT&T to give him the price INCLUSIVE of ALL taxes and fees, on a fixed-rate monthly plan, before his bill turned up in the mail. At the point that the bill arrives, he will have already used the service, and likely be contractually bound to pay the fees for 18-24 months.
As an aside, I still think the checkout is too late of a stage for the inclusive prices to be shown to you -- if there's a huge queue of people behind you, you have essentially reached the point of no-return when the operator asks you for payment. Technically you could walk away, but in reality that would be socially unacceptable in many cases. And heaven forbid you say "actually I don't want these two items after all", given the ease of accessing a supervisor to deduct the items from the bill (at least in my experience, you can add 5 minutes to your checkout time for that alone). It's worth noting also that people from other states/cities may well not be able to predict the final price -- although the sales taxes are a matter of public record, it's impossible to know all the applicable taxes for everywhere, so it hurts tourists and migrant workers particularly.
The problem is, things get worse if there are differentials in the sales tax rates, say for luxury and essential items. Most consumers would not be able to look in their trolley and say which items are liable to a higher rate of taxes, which means they can't predict their checkout price, and certainly could not predict "if I remove this item, will I have enough money to buy the rest?" From personal experience, I have had to survive for periods when I've got £8 to last a week (for groceries and essentials), and therefore I have gone round the shop, totting up the prices of everything I need so I can work out whether I can afford it or not. I don't have to ask a checkout assistant to run up the total so I can find out the actual price to pay. Although if I lived in the US I probably would, just to spite the supermarkets.
That's what the OP was saying.
There is nothing to stop retailers from giving the detailed breakdown on the bill or receipt, or even showing both prices on the shelf ticket, but the inclusive price must be shown.
That way, retailers get to say "but that much is tax", and companies can use the receipts to claim their taxes back (companies are not liable to sales tax), but the average consumer doesn't get any surprises at the check-out.
In the case of a contract for service, I would be very reluctant to pay for something that wasn't spelled out at contract negotiation. As it is, the service provider is legally obliged to collect the tax on behalf of the government, but I would still say it forms part of the contractually agreed payment sum, and thus you should be entitled to, at the very least, the formula by which they are calculated, and their current rates (particularly levies which are kept by the provider and not passed on to the govt.)
Thing I don't understand in the US is why the prices on the shelf-tickets (or their electronic equivalents) aren't required to include all applicable taxes.
I can see why it would be difficult to include those on an advertising billboard, because as you rightly say, taxes change from city to city. However, the billing system or Point-of-Sale computer CAN calculate the price inclusive of local taxes. There is, therefore, no excuse for the shelf ticket or final offer price not to be shown inclusive of all relevant taxes and fees. It inspires consumer confidence, as a shopper can add up the contents of the basket in his head, and work out the total price he will pay, without having to uplift it to account for taxes.
The UK's Freedom of Information Act was enacted in 2000.
a. No SMS has a subject line, it is a "Short Message Service" (max 160 chars)
b. How the hell does the network know whether you have opened the message or not -- either it has been sent to your phone, or it has not. Any other way, and people would be publishing "free-SMS" hacks for phones.
At least here in the UK, Telemetry and control signals are carried over the National Grid itself, nowadays using an optic fibre that runs alongside the earth wire. Case Study.
I see no reason why all telemetry and control signals should not be carried in narrow- or broadband communications along the power infrastructure itself, and then restricted to a physically separate infrastructure when being processed. Data links to business systems can be provided using a one-way connection (Serial or optical). If you then want to have a real-time billing system, you can join all the business networks up, either along the same fibre-way (atop the pylons), or through the olde-fashioned interweb.
For telemetry, TCP/IP may often be your worst choice, since it has a high latency. If you want to protect your infrastructure from lightning strikes, you need to respond at the speed of light. Literally. Other control signals (demand etc.), may be able to wait a second or two, but you can't afford to risk the kind of packet loss you may receive if the teleco or ISP is having a bad day. So all the control stuff will need to be on multiple route redundant circuits anyway. Note I said circuits - you have to have whole circuits to yourself.
TCP/IP may have been well designed for critical communications networks. But it sure as hell ain't designed for critical real-time communications. Ergo you have to have a dedicated infastructure, so there is no excuse for having any connection, even firewalled from t'internet to the power station control systems.
If you really must share infrastructure, then for pete's sake, use the time-honoured TDM.
The really ridiculous thing is that Germany already knows how to do it right.
The ICE is an excellent high speed train, capable of 320kph (200mph), and it is well integrated into the existing German Intercity network.
They are throwing all this fine integration out at the expense of sexiness.
If they built a normal high speed line to the airport, they could extend the benefits to a far wider area, just as Frankfurt did. As it is, anyone coming from outside Munich city centre will have to change onto a Maglev, wasting 15 minutes in connecting time. If they built a traditional ICE line, the benefits of direct fast services to the airport from Nürnburg, Würzburg, Augsburg, Stuttgart, Mannheim, and places further afield could be realised. They could also use the money saved to build another section of high-speed track, as a number of ICE routes in the area are only upgraded classic rail lines, at 200kph (125mph), thereby extending the benefits of the link to domestic (non-air) passengers.
It's a short-sighted decision, and it surprises me because traditionally Germany have been very good at realising the network benefits of their public transport improvements. Much better than the French are, who tended to use the TGV to replace existing links (thereby denying intermediate and regional passengers the benefits, and often reducing service levels), rather than augment and accelerate existing routes (which is what DB do with ICEs), and provide new high-speed sections where flows warrant it.
Given that the US GSM carriers (and particularly T-mobile) have approximately zero coverage over pitchforkland Kansas, asswipe Colorado and buttfuck Nevada, probably not (along with the rest of the midwest and mountain states).
Of course, Montana has the best coverage of the lot, I mean those elk need to be on-line 24/7 in them there hills.
It is laughable that there is no non-computerised backup for the system. (How about filling out the forms and scanning them in later?)
This is why, in the EU, it is an offence to collect "Personal Data" without consent, except where there is a legal, contractual or public interest reason for collecting and processing the data.
In addition there are requirements that a data controller has to inform a subject of what the data is to be used for, and to whom it will be given, regardless of whether the subject gave the data or a 3rd party did (except in the case of some law enforcement). The data controller should ensure your personal data is as accurate as possible.
There are requirements that the data not be stored for a period longer than is necessary to perform the processing, and that you can always refuse your data to be used for marketing. You also have the right to appeal any automated decisions made with the data. You have a right that your data is held securely, and the directive clearly states that a company holding data should be aware of the "state of the art" of security procedures, providing cost is not prohibitive.
You can't export personal data to a country that doesn't provide equivalent legal protections (e.g. the USA), regardless of any contract between companies.
And finally, there is a right to judicial remedy if the directive is breached by a company, including compensation.
I note that a normal person is not bound by the directive, but any EU-based organisation storing such data is (company, charity etc.).
I am pretty sure (IANAL) that if organisations like Polar Rose worked out of the EU, any personal data they collected would count as controlled data, regardless of who supplied it to them, and they would have a duty to inform the subject etc.
EU Directive 95/46/EC
Article 1: (part)
1. In accordance with this Directive, Member States shall protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data.
Article 2: (part)
(a) 'personal data 'shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;
Article 7:
Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if:
(a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or
(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; or
(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject; or
(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or
(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed; or
(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection under Article 1 (1).
Well, there is already an exemption that covers battery powered TVs. I would imagine that this applies here too.
Essentially, if you have a battery powered TV (eg. in a Trailer/Caravan, Motor-Home, or a pocket TV), your home licence covers you while you are out and about.
What if...
a. You don't want Windows hoovering GB of drive space and RAM just to run Office?
b. You want to run Windows software seamlessly with Linux software - not on a different VM
c. You are trying to reduce your licensing fees, or don't want to buy OEM Windows on your new PCs, and currently have OEM Windows on the old PC.
The market they are making the big push into is companies, governments and schools switching to Linux desktops, not home users.
For these people, the point of moving to Linux desktops is to reduce their costs. So they won't be forking out for Windows Licences.
Typically these people are 90% happy with OpenOffice. However, they may have management software, or current database systems that would be expensive to port to Linux (or Mac). Crossover Office provide software that means they don't need to change their existing systems. It also means that Linux desktop users don't have to switch to another "screen" (Windows Terminal Server, VM, etc.) to use this "Windows" software - a nice friendly icon can be placed on the corporate menu, which works just like the one in the start menu.
Most importantly, though, Crossover Office comes with a full Support Contract, unlike WINE, making it corporate-friendly.
Also, office PCs don't come with high-spec hardware suited to VMs. Businesses particularly seem to skimp on the RAM - something that is essential if you are using VMs.
As to the personal user...
For power users, like myself, it is very rare that I need "Windows" for anything. Once in a blue moon I need to access a site that's IE only. BUT In some areas, Excel is far ahead of the others. So I need Excel for some tasks. OpenOffice.org Impress also has problems with some Powerpoint files.
I don't fancy spending £100 on a new Windows Licence (my old one is OEM, and thus stuck on my old - and dying - PC)
I do need Office and IE occasionally.
At £25, Crossover Office saves me money, and lets me do almost anything MS Office on Windows can do.
No. SuperKaramba will be built in (think Apple OSX Widgets). So your calendar, inbox contents, local weather, PC stats, whatever can be displayed on your desktop. Active Desktop was IIRC just a way of putting HTML or Animations on the desktop - they weren't programs per-se, that could tell you useful stuff.
In the UK, if a CCTV system comprises of more than fixed cameras with a general overview (as found in small shops etc...), it is covered by the Data Protection Act.
If a camera-system can Pan & Zoom or is concentrated on a specific person's activities then
In addition, even if only fixed cameras are used, the above provisions apply if the images are not being used for law-enforcement alone.
The Information Commissioner can order that any non-compliance be rectified, and since not complying with an enforcement notices is a criminal offence, the Information Commissioner can take the company to court - the fine is unlimited. If harm or distress was caused, they can also order compensation be paid.
If a camera overlooks property not normally visible from the street (back gardens, house interiors, or anywhere you could reasonably expect privacy), the camera owner MUST receive permission to film from the current residents - including tenants, or must ensure the system cannot film these areas. This includes Landlords filming tenants inside the house...
Just to put people in the know - the Data Protection legislation does cover CCTV, and reasonable expectation of privacy is included in the provisions.
At the moment there are two editions of XP, as mandated by the EU - XP (with media player) and XP N (without) (yes I know there's Pro/Home/Media Ctr...)
I suspect the situation that the EU wants is:
- no more than basic firewalling in Vista, unless you buy more
- APIs documented, so other firewall/AV/system maintenance vendors can hook into the necessary parts of the Kernel to do their job as well as microsoft products can
- Not going back to the issue that got them into trouble with Office/Windows, whereby the Office team knew more about the Windows APIs than any other vendor, thereby allowing them short-cuts
- no strong-arming OEMs to not cut a deal with other software vendors, particularly in the Security field, either by
a. making all other vendor's products de-facto crap by keeping them out of APIs and Kernel hooks that MS OneCare have access to
b. confusing end-consumers by installing Windows AntiVirus trials/adverts/icons by default, without any way to remove this by an OEM.
The problem with this security area is that currently AntiVirus is the big area where there is still competition for OEMs. You find OEMs including AV from McAfee, Symantec and others, with the standard Windows/Works/Word combo.
Again, I'm not saying this should apply to every OS vendor. Microsoft has been found guilty of using its monopoly in the OS market to gain extra leverage in other software markets. They've been punished for this in the past, so they know the drill, and are only stalling because they want to see how far they can push.
As for the debacle with the "extra [political] delay" in Europe, MS knows the drill and has done for a while, but still they push for leniency from the legislators. What they're upset about is that legislators in the EC won't be drawn into pre-approving any of the bundling MS want to do with Vista. I think they've made it pretty clear by recent judgements - If you have a monopoly - don't close out competition by obfuscation of system protocols or bundling independent products. It's not very hard to extrapolate that reasoning. And they've even offered MS copious amounts of advice over Vista, albeit with the proviso - "This is friendly advice, not legal definitions. We reserve the right to prosecute if you leverage your monopoly again"
Certainly when I was younger - my BASIC programs were neither stunning (even compared to the games of the day), nor particularly well written. They did, however leave a certain "I made that" feeling - which is what pushed me onwards to make bigger, better programs.
As a non-programmer today, I would say that learning BASIC definately helped my abilities in being a "power user". When I was a clerk, my bosses truly appreciated my understanding of Macros and scripting that came out of my BASIC experiments as a child. When "can you take these spreadsheets and generate this monthly summary?" turned to "if you give me a little extra time, I'll make a button that will do that automatically, so it will take 30 seconds to produce each subsequent summary", they were pleased with the results - and often gave me a raise.
The only issue is, if you need someone to help you, then your vote is no longer secret.
To add to that, GSM towers at the moment (at least in the UK) prioritise calls to the emergency number, and *will* throw non-emergency calls off-air if the tower is full. Competitor's towers will also take an emergency call, regardless of any roaming agreements, and you do not need to have a valid phone service - even without a SIM card, the emergency number should still work.
As an aside, the TETRA system is being deployed in a number of european countries for the emergency services, and this system allows both direct peer-to-peer calling when network contact has been lost, and will also allow any handset to act as a relay (or part of a chain of relays) between the network and an inaccessible area. The cited example is rescuing someone from a cave, but I imagine it will suffice in other situations.
You can also use peer-to-peer direct communications in day-to-day usage, so for example, a Police helicopter can be put in direct contact with officers on the ground, and telephone calls can be routed to/from the handsets, meaning that police officers never need to carry a cell on duty.
Yes, but it doesn't mean that the bundled software is under Windows' license, just because MS says you can or can't pre-install competitor X's products. If (as many OEMs do) you bundle MS Office with MS Windows on a PC, that doesn't mean that MS Office is governed by the MS Windows license, or vice-versa. It is "mere aggregation".
Agreed
It's like saying that everything installed on a (Windows) PC by an OEM is under the Windows EULA.
The problem is not that companies want to prioritise certain kinds of traffic (eg http is more important than bittorrent, so gets higher priority), but that they want to be able to (for example) prioritise traffic from msn search over google search, because they've done a deal with MS.
The other main reason is to keep Skype et al. out of their captive markets.
When it comes to telecos, as I understand it, the competition is in reality an illusion - If your only two choices for high speed net are CableCo and Bell, then you as a consumer don't actually get to choose - particularly if (as often happens) they operate on nod-and-wink basis. It's also highly unlikely that you will know which companies the CableCo and Bell have made deals with for better access before you sign 12 months of your money away - they are hardly going to list such "commercially sensitive" information on their adverts.
To use the UPS/FedEx analogy - Imagine UPS don't serve your town, so you have to use FedEx. You place an order with Borders for some books, to discover that because they have done a deal with UPS, FedEx refuses to provide any better service than 1-week parcels. Amazon, however, have a deal with FedEx, but charge a little more for the books you want. You can get Amazon books next-day though. It means you are paying more, unless Borders decides to increase their overheads by doing a deal with every carrier. It means UPS and FedEx now have leverage in the market for selling books. Now you might say I'm making a false arguments here, because there's nothing stopping UPS from delivering. However, in the case of the internet, generally once you have a connection, you are tied down for a fixed period with one supplier - regardless of the level of service you get, and in many towns you only have a few choices anyway
There are fairer ways
- put download limits on the cheapest contracts
- impose traffic shaping based on packet type (but not source/destination)
- make it abundantly clear in the TOS what traffic shaping you do
- regulation to ensure providers who have a monopoly don't use discriminatory traffic shaping polocies
If some traffic shaping based on source/company etc. is ever allowed
- force companies to issue a list of which companies' services will recieve higher QoS, and which will receive lower QoS, so consumers can actually choose.
I'm not making any comment on the technical merit of net neutrality, rather the consumer issues.
The thing to remember is that in the case of services like this, the only consumer protections are in the law that governs the service - because the contracts themselves are written to benefit the company, not consumer (since you can't get service without signing their contract, and unless you have $millions you have absolutely no power to negotiate). It's also worth noting that once one company finds a legal (but fairly subtle) way to screw their customers for more money, you can rest assured that the rest of them are not far behind.
I understood that German-style civil law took relevant previous judgements into account.