No they won't. They'll do what they typically do raise rates until the demand goes down enough to meet their supply. And if they get regulated, then they'll just kick off anybody that they deem to be fully utilizing the promised service.
WiFi for this sort of thing is probably dead, but it won't be 3G or cell services that kills it, more likely a new technology that's more appropriate to the challenge. But, just because it's probably not going to be city wide doesn't mean it's shouldn't be a part of the solution, there's lots of places where it can be useful. I'd love to have access in the bus tunnel and at the various major transfer points as well as some of the more open parks. And I really hope that once the current budget crisis is over, Metro could go back to putting it on our buses, that always seemed like a great idea, just probably not yet cost effective.
And as long as you use Sun's ODF plug in, it shouldn't matter to anybody at all. Using MS Office isn't necessarily bad, but using their file formats causes a lot of head aches. And for some things like email, the format is just not safe. Ideally everybody would be using some sort of open or well supported format so that it wouldn't make any difference.
I wouldn't recommend making that bet. States that allow detectors do for a reason, it's usually because they use the same band as other common motion sensors and the duration is typically very short. Additionally, in parts of the state, they monitor for speeding via helicopters, which renders that sort of technology moot.
More often than not you'll be doing what the police really want, which is slowing down, they don't really care whether they issue tickets or not, if people drive the posted speed limit and obey the traffic laws without it.
That's what insurance is, you're paying somebody an agreed upon amount for the insurance that you're not going to be out more than that. You pay them typically a bit more than you expect because over the pool it evens out. If you knew ahead of time what the real costs would be there'd be no point, you'd just save your own money.
Whether you call the losing out or not is a matter of opinion, but you're paying the company in most cases for piece of mind. There are times when that's not the case, such as with the derivatives market where in a rare move one could take out insurance against somebody else's loss. A move which should have been illegal.
Only in the sense that there's a grain of truth in a Ponzi scheme or in insurance fraud. What happened was they got caught gaming the system and didn't have sufficient capital to back up their leveraged positions as they unwound.
The best advice I've ever seen is to stay further back the more "innovative" the wall street "geniuses" get, it's almost certainly either a confidence scam or horribly risky. Remember, they make most of their money gaming the system and trading with information that isn't yet available. Wall street traders have been doing it since at least the 30s, they'd buy stocks with the knowledge of what the price would be the next day, and steal from everybody else in doing so. The difference now, is that you're talking about a time frame of a few seconds rather than hours, but the principle is still the same.
Then something breaks the pattern and since most of the heavy lifting is based on dumb computer algorithms, you end up with a black hole. That's been remedied somewhat with the automatic breaks at a threshold, but it's still causes all sorts of headaches for everybody else. Then they get a bailout, and everybody else loses again.
It's more than that, corrupt politicians in the US have pretty much always gotten more done than ones doing things legally. Never has the US government been so responsive to the citizenry than during the period where the boss system was in force. It was beyond a doubt incredibly corrupt, but at least they got you a job if you didn't have one, sent a doctor if you weren't well and actually considered the people's well being, you just had to show up on election day, hell they'd even drive you there and provide free drinks.
Obviously, it's horribly corrupt and has serious issues, but they did get a lot done, and try getting the government to give a damn about you now. Not going to happen as long as the Republicans are trying their hardest to stop living wages and health care and the Democrats are so horribly incompetent.
Or you know a procmail script which automatically diverts one copy of an email to a storage mailbox and one to the recipient. Inconsequential emails can usually be weeded out fairly quickly later on if needed, and spam isn't that tough to remove via a filter if you don't have to do it immediately.
The only issue then is storage space and backups, which any decent IT department can handle given a reasonable amount of funding. And it's something that should be done either way.
If I'm not mistaken, they've been into solar for some time, it's just now that they're apparently planning to create some of their own hardware for parts of it.
The problem is that, if I'm remembering correctly, is that they don't really give you a choice in the matter. Basically use our WGA or don't get our patches. If I'm remembering correctly, refusing to use the WGA would make it impossible to use the Microsoft update to properly keep things up to date. I can't recall specifically whether that included security patches or not.
Clearly, you've never voted by mail. It's nice, you can sit around for a few days, looking into particular items and voting as you make the decisions and have plenty of time to go over your ballot without inconveniencing other people. And you can sit on it for a few days if you wish in case you change your mind.
There's also the matter of people that have to work on election day, one of my co-workers is stuck working a full twelve hour shift and would have a huge amount of trouble voting if not for absentee voting.
You're missing the point, on a very shallow level you have a point, if you want to be elected, you're probably going to have to be either a Democrat or a Republican. But as a side effect of having only 2 parties, you get unintended consequences like the people within the party being less likely to go along with the party platform on any given issue.
There's no reason to dump the current system rather than make a couple of minor adjustments to remedy the worst of it. Moving to a system like we have in WA or they have in IA where the winners don't get to do the districting is a substantial step towards genuine democracy. Taking another step by moving to a form of primary such as the top two where the candidates that best appeal to the voters get advanced rather than getting an automatic opportunity for all parties is another significant step.
It's also worth pointing out that Canada and the various EU member states have their own problems. Sure they have a huge number of parties, but it doesn't magically improve the quality of the legislation or legislators. That takes a lot of work and for the population to be both informed and care.
It's a legal obligation for somebody to look into it when the information appears credible as in not made up. In this case the officers looked into it and made what appears to be the correct call not to press things further. I'm sure that people would've been outraged had the officer not looked into it and it turned out that a crazed gunman had taken up residence in Bungie believing that nobody would look into things until somebody was shot.
That's not entirely correct. The reason for that clause is primarily because the military was mostly disbanded after the revolutionary war, and the signers of that amendment wanted to ensure that somebody had firearms available. Possession of firearms was clearly linked, for that reason, to membership in a militia.
Now you can argue about the purposes of the militia, your theory there is as valid as any other, but it was definitely not ever intended to be interpreted the way that the NRA interprets it.
They want to ban them because of the ability to convert them to functioning in the fully automatic sense. If people would take the time to be informed, they'd realize that a lot of the efforts to restrict firearm ownership really only affect a minority of gun nuts who don't have a valid reason for needing the fire power. There are certain parts for guns that can only be purchased by licensed gun smiths in this part of the country for similar reasons.
It definitely does happen, the UK was having a genuine problem with that a while back, a string of shootings was traced back to an individual who was modifying replicas to actually function. It's not likely to happen here, mainly because it's much too easy to get the real thing as is. But that aside, if you get yourself shot because you were being stupid with a replica, that's kind of your own fault.
I'm wondering what's going to happen when somebody sues because the ad content offends them. A woman that hates girly things or perhaps a black person that likes golf, or possible a gay man that gets sick of the inappropriate ads for jewelry for the wife.
This sort of technology may be an advertiser's wet dream, but it's pretty screwed up.
It's not admissible in court, but it might lead his attorneys to somebody that does have direct knowledge that could vindicate him. Of course that's assuming he's really innocent, but even if he is guilty, they might track somebody down that can get him off death row, or at least that's the operating theory.
You do realize that, you're totally taking that and twisting it around, right? DARPA and the NSA demand results, they don't necessarily care what the cost is, but they do demand technological advancement or they will go elsewhere to get it. As opposed to the government tinkering in failing businesses giving them cash and pushing them around as to how to produce things for purchase by consumers.
So, is it also ignorant to assume that if I take a few steps off my roof that I'll fall and hurt myself? I mean it's only about 15 feet, I suppose if I fell correctly, I might not break anything.
This is a pretty well known problem, and there's a very good reason why the assumption is valid. Innovating and coming up with new ideas is both hard and expensive. If you don't believe that government intervention of this sort kills progress, just look at the various Russian industries that have and are going nowhere.
Now look at industries in the US that have been messed with in a similar way by our government, surprisingly there isn't that much difference beyond what corruption explains. What you're arguing against is a pretty fundamental element in economics, and while I question a lot of ideas that economists have, this one has a lot of merit to it.
Of course, where do you think these patents come from that patent trolls buy and use? Somebody has to think ahead with some overly vague and generic idea.
But, if your search uncovers the patent that you're accused of violating, wouldn't that be about as willful as you can get?
But you're talking about software patents presumably, those along with the kind that the OP are talking about tend to be the worst in terms of vague and impossible to implement on the basis of the information supplied to the patent office. In a normal review, the examiner looks at what the patent is and will generally insist on seeing it actually function and go with the application that is the most specific in cases where there's duplicates.
This is one more reason why it's a good thing to treat software patents more like physical patents. If they can't tell the patent office what they did and how, then they don't deserve to have a patent, that's why older patents tend to be so much harder to troll.
This is exactly like the first successful mission to the Moon. The significance wasn't getting men to the Moon, the significance was getting them back again. It's a lot easier to do a lot of these difficult things if you get to just assume that whoever's going to do them isn't going to come back alive.
The difficult thing, and the one that's of potential value is getting somebody to Mars and getting them back home safely. Sure it's expensive, but there isn't that much in this day and age that a probe couldn't do. in fact I'd be surprised if somebody at NASA couldn't figure out how to get a probe to travel to Mars and return.
Slashdot Mirror
No they won't. They'll do what they typically do raise rates until the demand goes down enough to meet their supply. And if they get regulated, then they'll just kick off anybody that they deem to be fully utilizing the promised service.
WiFi for this sort of thing is probably dead, but it won't be 3G or cell services that kills it, more likely a new technology that's more appropriate to the challenge. But, just because it's probably not going to be city wide doesn't mean it's shouldn't be a part of the solution, there's lots of places where it can be useful. I'd love to have access in the bus tunnel and at the various major transfer points as well as some of the more open parks. And I really hope that once the current budget crisis is over, Metro could go back to putting it on our buses, that always seemed like a great idea, just probably not yet cost effective.
And as long as you use Sun's ODF plug in, it shouldn't matter to anybody at all. Using MS Office isn't necessarily bad, but using their file formats causes a lot of head aches. And for some things like email, the format is just not safe. Ideally everybody would be using some sort of open or well supported format so that it wouldn't make any difference.
I take it you haven't been here when people have explained why the BSD and MIT licenses aren't open source.
I wouldn't recommend making that bet. States that allow detectors do for a reason, it's usually because they use the same band as other common motion sensors and the duration is typically very short. Additionally, in parts of the state, they monitor for speeding via helicopters, which renders that sort of technology moot.
More often than not you'll be doing what the police really want, which is slowing down, they don't really care whether they issue tickets or not, if people drive the posted speed limit and obey the traffic laws without it.
That's what insurance is, you're paying somebody an agreed upon amount for the insurance that you're not going to be out more than that. You pay them typically a bit more than you expect because over the pool it evens out. If you knew ahead of time what the real costs would be there'd be no point, you'd just save your own money.
Whether you call the losing out or not is a matter of opinion, but you're paying the company in most cases for piece of mind. There are times when that's not the case, such as with the derivatives market where in a rare move one could take out insurance against somebody else's loss. A move which should have been illegal.
Only in the sense that there's a grain of truth in a Ponzi scheme or in insurance fraud. What happened was they got caught gaming the system and didn't have sufficient capital to back up their leveraged positions as they unwound.
The best advice I've ever seen is to stay further back the more "innovative" the wall street "geniuses" get, it's almost certainly either a confidence scam or horribly risky. Remember, they make most of their money gaming the system and trading with information that isn't yet available. Wall street traders have been doing it since at least the 30s, they'd buy stocks with the knowledge of what the price would be the next day, and steal from everybody else in doing so. The difference now, is that you're talking about a time frame of a few seconds rather than hours, but the principle is still the same.
Then something breaks the pattern and since most of the heavy lifting is based on dumb computer algorithms, you end up with a black hole. That's been remedied somewhat with the automatic breaks at a threshold, but it's still causes all sorts of headaches for everybody else. Then they get a bailout, and everybody else loses again.
It's more than that, corrupt politicians in the US have pretty much always gotten more done than ones doing things legally. Never has the US government been so responsive to the citizenry than during the period where the boss system was in force. It was beyond a doubt incredibly corrupt, but at least they got you a job if you didn't have one, sent a doctor if you weren't well and actually considered the people's well being, you just had to show up on election day, hell they'd even drive you there and provide free drinks.
Obviously, it's horribly corrupt and has serious issues, but they did get a lot done, and try getting the government to give a damn about you now. Not going to happen as long as the Republicans are trying their hardest to stop living wages and health care and the Democrats are so horribly incompetent.
Or you know a procmail script which automatically diverts one copy of an email to a storage mailbox and one to the recipient. Inconsequential emails can usually be weeded out fairly quickly later on if needed, and spam isn't that tough to remove via a filter if you don't have to do it immediately.
The only issue then is storage space and backups, which any decent IT department can handle given a reasonable amount of funding. And it's something that should be done either way.
If I'm not mistaken, they've been into solar for some time, it's just now that they're apparently planning to create some of their own hardware for parts of it.
The problem is that, if I'm remembering correctly, is that they don't really give you a choice in the matter. Basically use our WGA or don't get our patches. If I'm remembering correctly, refusing to use the WGA would make it impossible to use the Microsoft update to properly keep things up to date. I can't recall specifically whether that included security patches or not.
Clearly, you've never voted by mail. It's nice, you can sit around for a few days, looking into particular items and voting as you make the decisions and have plenty of time to go over your ballot without inconveniencing other people. And you can sit on it for a few days if you wish in case you change your mind.
There's also the matter of people that have to work on election day, one of my co-workers is stuck working a full twelve hour shift and would have a huge amount of trouble voting if not for absentee voting.
You're missing the point, on a very shallow level you have a point, if you want to be elected, you're probably going to have to be either a Democrat or a Republican. But as a side effect of having only 2 parties, you get unintended consequences like the people within the party being less likely to go along with the party platform on any given issue.
There's no reason to dump the current system rather than make a couple of minor adjustments to remedy the worst of it. Moving to a system like we have in WA or they have in IA where the winners don't get to do the districting is a substantial step towards genuine democracy. Taking another step by moving to a form of primary such as the top two where the candidates that best appeal to the voters get advanced rather than getting an automatic opportunity for all parties is another significant step.
It's also worth pointing out that Canada and the various EU member states have their own problems. Sure they have a huge number of parties, but it doesn't magically improve the quality of the legislation or legislators. That takes a lot of work and for the population to be both informed and care.
It's a legal obligation for somebody to look into it when the information appears credible as in not made up. In this case the officers looked into it and made what appears to be the correct call not to press things further. I'm sure that people would've been outraged had the officer not looked into it and it turned out that a crazed gunman had taken up residence in Bungie believing that nobody would look into things until somebody was shot.
That's not entirely correct. The reason for that clause is primarily because the military was mostly disbanded after the revolutionary war, and the signers of that amendment wanted to ensure that somebody had firearms available. Possession of firearms was clearly linked, for that reason, to membership in a militia.
Now you can argue about the purposes of the militia, your theory there is as valid as any other, but it was definitely not ever intended to be interpreted the way that the NRA interprets it.
They want to ban them because of the ability to convert them to functioning in the fully automatic sense. If people would take the time to be informed, they'd realize that a lot of the efforts to restrict firearm ownership really only affect a minority of gun nuts who don't have a valid reason for needing the fire power. There are certain parts for guns that can only be purchased by licensed gun smiths in this part of the country for similar reasons.
It definitely does happen, the UK was having a genuine problem with that a while back, a string of shootings was traced back to an individual who was modifying replicas to actually function. It's not likely to happen here, mainly because it's much too easy to get the real thing as is. But that aside, if you get yourself shot because you were being stupid with a replica, that's kind of your own fault.
Umm, the FTC doesn't have jurisdiction over that kind of thing. You mean the SEC might call that a violation.
You do, of course realize, that it's spelled "Nigerian," right?
I'm wondering what's going to happen when somebody sues because the ad content offends them. A woman that hates girly things or perhaps a black person that likes golf, or possible a gay man that gets sick of the inappropriate ads for jewelry for the wife.
This sort of technology may be an advertiser's wet dream, but it's pretty screwed up.
It's not admissible in court, but it might lead his attorneys to somebody that does have direct knowledge that could vindicate him. Of course that's assuming he's really innocent, but even if he is guilty, they might track somebody down that can get him off death row, or at least that's the operating theory.
You do realize that, you're totally taking that and twisting it around, right? DARPA and the NSA demand results, they don't necessarily care what the cost is, but they do demand technological advancement or they will go elsewhere to get it. As opposed to the government tinkering in failing businesses giving them cash and pushing them around as to how to produce things for purchase by consumers.
It's not really the same thing.
So, is it also ignorant to assume that if I take a few steps off my roof that I'll fall and hurt myself? I mean it's only about 15 feet, I suppose if I fell correctly, I might not break anything.
This is a pretty well known problem, and there's a very good reason why the assumption is valid. Innovating and coming up with new ideas is both hard and expensive. If you don't believe that government intervention of this sort kills progress, just look at the various Russian industries that have and are going nowhere.
Now look at industries in the US that have been messed with in a similar way by our government, surprisingly there isn't that much difference beyond what corruption explains. What you're arguing against is a pretty fundamental element in economics, and while I question a lot of ideas that economists have, this one has a lot of merit to it.
Hmm, so you're posting via prayer?
Of course, where do you think these patents come from that patent trolls buy and use? Somebody has to think ahead with some overly vague and generic idea.
But, if your search uncovers the patent that you're accused of violating, wouldn't that be about as willful as you can get?
But you're talking about software patents presumably, those along with the kind that the OP are talking about tend to be the worst in terms of vague and impossible to implement on the basis of the information supplied to the patent office. In a normal review, the examiner looks at what the patent is and will generally insist on seeing it actually function and go with the application that is the most specific in cases where there's duplicates.
This is one more reason why it's a good thing to treat software patents more like physical patents. If they can't tell the patent office what they did and how, then they don't deserve to have a patent, that's why older patents tend to be so much harder to troll.
This is exactly like the first successful mission to the Moon. The significance wasn't getting men to the Moon, the significance was getting them back again. It's a lot easier to do a lot of these difficult things if you get to just assume that whoever's going to do them isn't going to come back alive.
The difficult thing, and the one that's of potential value is getting somebody to Mars and getting them back home safely. Sure it's expensive, but there isn't that much in this day and age that a probe couldn't do. in fact I'd be surprised if somebody at NASA couldn't figure out how to get a probe to travel to Mars and return.