Yeah, the prices would have to predictably high, or high for an extended period, for new drivers to actually sign up and be approved before those rates are gone. So the potential increase is near 0.
Driver "shortage" isn't a factor. So many people don't know anything about business, and just believe whatever they're told during the "business" unit of the TV news that it is about "Supply and Demand." But in this case, there is a surplus of supply, and the prices are set arbitrarily depending on whatever the market can bear.
There wasn't a shortage of drivers when it was just regular taxis, either.
If people spent the time to go into the weeds of the various local taxi rules and the legislative battles that led to current styles of regulation, they'd discover that the current rules are designed to prevent competitive pricing, while maintaining competition in other areas of service. This is because invariably, the downsides of the service quality that results from lowest pricing are rejected by communities. Driving isn't that hard, and if you let them, lots of people will offer the service for below minimum wage. Then there is increased criminality; too many drivers become pimps, drug dealers, etc. on the side, because they're not making a living wage. There are lots of ways to force taxis to pay well enough that a generic taxi is safe; the typical method is to set minimum rates.
People get really caught up in the maximum rates and neighborhood service requirements, because the heads on the TV told them to. But I encourage people to look at the complete regulations in any city. The actual theme of the regulations will become apparent.
And they make money by ensuring that there are drivers.
Oh, there's going to plenty of supply of drivers if you charge a whopping $357 for 14 miles. What sane person would ride during surge pricing times?
You can rent a car for 3-5 days, with insurance, for that much money. Surge pricing is more about ripping people off when they need something the most than it is about maintaining a supply of drivers.
I'll bet in a blizzard you could go door to door and get the ride for half that much, and in less time. Lots of people who would never drive for Uber, especially at the normal rates, would do it for under $200. I doubt you'd need to go to the third house.
Hold on, hold on, if everybody else gets it first, then not having it yet makes them part of an exclusive group. You just don't have the right mindset.
Anyways, they can just say, "Yes, it is so great the masses got Google Internet first, because they can't afford the Business Class service that everybody in my neighborhood has. Now they can shop online, or engage in remote-learning opportunities to increase their market value." Don't cry over the death of snobbery just yet.
Portland already gave out a second cable franchise, and has fiber rollouts in progress, just from the threat of Google coming. They're not waiting for it to happen to improve competition.
Interestingly, we don't have government-sponsored cable monopolies in Oregon. People just assume that. But there isn't a hard limit of franchises that can be granted; certainly not a limit of 1. It is just that the companies have decided on their own to only apply in places where there is no competition. Until now.
We already have good utility pole access here, too. Even private parties can (and sometimes do) run their own networking lines on them. I've heard of multiple rich people in my area paying $30k+ to have private fiber run from the data center to their rural mansions.
My ISP may be a stodgy old fart incumbent telecoms company, but at least it's not got an advertising agency as its main profit center.
That's why your preferred company sells information about you. If they had their own advertising company, they could do like google, and keep their information about you to themselves, and use it to target the ads directly.
It really isn't hard to understand the difference, and I'm sure you've been told dozens or more times. Too complicated for you, eh?
People who jump to strong (presumably political) conclusions like that based on almost no information other than speculation of un-named people in a local newspaper article... are unlikely to become executives.
Google hasn't said they are concerned. And none of the people inside the loop have said anything about it they are willing to put their name next to. Nobody has claimed that Oregon has a higher tax burden on internet providers than the places that have received Google Fiber. You can't make any determination about if there is a problem without doing a full analysis of all the taxes. Oregon actually has exceptionally low business taxes; in 1980 we had about 50/50 individual/business tax burden split. Now it is over 80/20 individual/business. So it is highly unlikely they would have some sort of high tax burden here that would chase them off. That is probably also why even your fellow right wingers who are behind the un-named "city officials" the newspaper talked to won't put their names next to it; somebody might actually start doing the math of they made the claim.
The linked story gives better reasons; one of our big non-cable internet providers just got a cable franchise license in Portland, so there will be actual cable competition in Portland very soon, and another is rolling out fiber to various Portland neighborhoods and suburbs. Comcast actually doubled the speeds of their service, for the same prices.
Some people see "Oregon" and think, oh, that is some rural backwoods state, without realizing that we've been one of the top internet-connected States since the internet went public. And before that, we were among the best-served by multi-line local BBS systems, FIDO, etc. We don't have the level of competition we want, but we have more than most places, and they've responded to the mere threat of Google Fiber by proactively expanding real competition.
Oregon has one of the highest rates of broadband service in the country, even though nearly half the population is rural. Portland itself has free wifi all over the place, and has had since the late 90s. They could do really well in Oregon, but the uptake won't be as high as in cities who want to be as well connected (or better) than Oregonians already are, but nobody has built it out. Places like Oregon where everything is already well built are a second tier of potential profit compared to those places that have slow speeds and limited access.
Portland will get into one of the next few groups, because people really hate the existing companies, not so much because they lack access.
We have other existing advantages, for example the regional Comcast network was built by AT&T Broadband before the Comcast merger. AT&T had a lower profit margin because they spent more on infrastructure. The customer service sucks the same as anywhere, but the physical network service works very well.
Nonsense, obviously the point is that the person doesn't like the President and wants him to be exposed to assassins. If Presidents had to use public transit in powerful nations, there would be no living Presidents, and Mr Coward would have the random authoritarian dictatorship he dreams of.
Because none of those systems let them play Murdering Hoes In Defense of Ethics in Journalism at the highest frame rate.
I'm actually trying to offload as many tasks as I can to network-connected microcontrollers using Harvard architecture. Given the importance of networking, it might make sense to move the whole application API to a dedicated Harvard chip. There is really no reason for things like gethostbyname to be frequently updated. And then the network processor can have a direct connection to the ethernet or other network chips. And if you need to update, you can just include an In System Programmer on the MB, and then you can update the network API firmware by connecting a cable on the board, allowing an updater to run on the main system.
If eyes didn't see it, it actually tells us nothing about the theory of what happens when many eyes do look at it.
The theory was never, "if you open source it everybody will read it." The theory was, things that are closed source can't be read by the public, and things that are open source are sometimes read. When they are read by more people, there are more chances to see the bugs.
If you didn't know even the basics of what you were talking about... why talk?
You tried. Lots of people died, but the Union won the war. Trying again won't turn out better for you; you'll all die and your communities will be burnt to the ground.
The Civil War was a real thing. Us Americans are still willing to fight for our nation if you want to go that route again.
Regular taxi companies don't gouge anybody in a natural disaster. And in my community, when there is a disaster or disruption people work together to get through it, businesses that choose to stay open keep their regular prices, even if a hot meal might be able fetch a higher price when half the restaurants are closed. But gouging your customers in an emergency, just because you can, is not a required aspect of business, or even necessarily profitable in the long run.
Somewhat of a bait-and-switch. First you propose it as a problem that the law doesn't prevent law-breaking, then you switch to complaining that private parties would seek justice if the law is broken.
I'll give you a hint; if you don't have money for a lawyer to take action against parties that are harming your online business by sending false takedown requests for public domain works... then your website is tiny, and you're not actually losing money from drowning in false notices. The problem solves itself. Companies that have enough traffic to be in that situation can first of all adjust their process of handling takedown notices based on the level of false submissions they get. Second, if it is done persistently, or by parties trying to gain commercially from said actions, they can sue them because they already have staff lawyers.
No, you can't call 911 to report "stolen" photos you placed in the public domain and then tried to take back your promise on. But that has nothing to do with the scenario you had presented.
As for "a for-profit entity that scoops up public domain IP" that is just sort-a "woowoo" kindof, "the truth is out there" stuff. There is no scoop for that. They won't have the IP simply by sending false takedown requests, and the takedown process won't result in them owning anything. They might get things temporarily removed, but they'll be restored after the process gets to the next step.
Yes. If you gaze upon the heavens at the exact right moment... sorry, you still die at some point. This is not any exception to the turning of the wheel.
As for the claim in TFS, this asteroid isn't even visible. I've seen better.
Lie is still a lie, no matter how many times you say it. You say I can't read, and yet you posted a link to support your position, and the link doesn't do any such thing; doesn't even talk about non-Apple OSes. That isn't just a minor comprehension failure, it is a major one.
You actually think that Apple computers get 50% more battery life than Linux computers. You then claim "everyone" has proven that. My advice is do just 1 google search to check out that claim. Just one. That is all it takes. Because it is just not true. You misunderstood a version update increasing a certain type of small efficiency as being in comparison to everybody else, but it was only in comparison to past Apple versions. And it didn't even address the question of how anybody else does it, and how the different ways of doing things compare.
You seem to assume that other OSes just have stupid kernel programmers, and only 1 company made use of the power-saving features of the various CPUs. The funny part, if it was true then data centers and cloud providers would all run Apple computers. Oddly, they don't, even in places where electricity is expensive.
The one thing that is true is that OSX has a lot more battery life than windoze on the same hardware. `doze is more popular than *nix, so it is a more common case. There, yes, OSX gets better battery life... as does linux, BSD, almost everybody. There are conflicting reports as to the reason.
Just one web search, that is all it takes. "OSX linux battery life" Just one search. You'll quickly find what "everyone" actually tested and proved.;)
I would generally prefer C, and certainly have more experience with it, and yet it is obvious that Pascal is more "readable." It may be that for any qualitative word, any two programming languages will be more, equally, or less that thing.
C is a lot of things. My own C is very readable to me. Somebody experienced in C knows that somebody else's random few lines of code might be totally impossible to understand. Without additional non-language-required constraints on methods and practices, you would have to read and memorize the entire codebase before even attempting to claim what a particular few lines do. With best practices this is not a problem, and yet with a lot of the code in the wild it actually is a major problem.
The law never prevents, it only takes action afterwards. Various parties may apply various laws if you engage in deceptive practices that harm the companies receiving these hypothetical bogus and covetous notices.
Their theory seems to rely on "public domain" having been invented by the Copyright Act. Therefore, they can find no provision except copyright expiry for it exist.
I recall that a number of years ago on slashdot there was some lawyer explaining it, but I'd have to find my medicine to go looking for a link.
Since it isn't a contract or a license, the promise gets evaluated using traditional common law analysis. If a reasonable person would believe the promise, and breaking the promise would be unfair to you, then it is unlikely they will be able to sue you over your continued reliance on it, especially if some time has passed where lots of people know about about and make use of the promise. It isn't so much that they are held to their promise as that breaking it makes it hard for them claim to be harmed, to claim to be in need of justice to make them whole. IANAL
Your link doesn't claim that OSX uses 50% of the power that linux uses. Your words are carefully parsed to say Apple is better at the way they do it, but then you want to jump ahead and claim also that the final result is less power usage. But that is simply not true, and the margin of victory you would claim for Apple is laughable.
If my CPU spends 50% less time in low power states, (something you don't and can't know based on what OS I use, especially when it is a highly configurable OS) then why do they use the same amount of power?
You're right at least that the link has graphs. And yet, none of those graphs are of your claim. They're not even talking about linux, they're comparing a past OSX version... to the OSX version before it, and explaining why the older version really sucked.
You seem to have made up the whole comparison to linux out of whole cloth, just extrapolating what you misunderstood from the ars story. If your thesis had been, "OSX used to have worse power performance and made up for it with larger battery capacity, but now they have *nix-average power performance" then it would make more sense in light of your source.
According to the internet, Google only has ~ $60B in their war chest. But they could always sell stock to raise cash, it wouldn't have to be all stock.
I'm seeing more use of Google+ all the time. Especially for political discussions. 9% of 2.2B is... a lot!
Slashdot Mirror
If you think the USA is a lot like the USSR, you probably just hate Freedom.
Yeah, the prices would have to predictably high, or high for an extended period, for new drivers to actually sign up and be approved before those rates are gone. So the potential increase is near 0.
Driver "shortage" isn't a factor. So many people don't know anything about business, and just believe whatever they're told during the "business" unit of the TV news that it is about "Supply and Demand." But in this case, there is a surplus of supply, and the prices are set arbitrarily depending on whatever the market can bear.
There wasn't a shortage of drivers when it was just regular taxis, either.
If people spent the time to go into the weeds of the various local taxi rules and the legislative battles that led to current styles of regulation, they'd discover that the current rules are designed to prevent competitive pricing, while maintaining competition in other areas of service. This is because invariably, the downsides of the service quality that results from lowest pricing are rejected by communities. Driving isn't that hard, and if you let them, lots of people will offer the service for below minimum wage. Then there is increased criminality; too many drivers become pimps, drug dealers, etc. on the side, because they're not making a living wage. There are lots of ways to force taxis to pay well enough that a generic taxi is safe; the typical method is to set minimum rates.
People get really caught up in the maximum rates and neighborhood service requirements, because the heads on the TV told them to. But I encourage people to look at the complete regulations in any city. The actual theme of the regulations will become apparent.
Oh, there's going to plenty of supply of drivers if you charge a whopping $357 for 14 miles. What sane person would ride during surge pricing times?
You can rent a car for 3-5 days, with insurance, for that much money. Surge pricing is more about ripping people off when they need something the most than it is about maintaining a supply of drivers.
I'll bet in a blizzard you could go door to door and get the ride for half that much, and in less time. Lots of people who would never drive for Uber, especially at the normal rates, would do it for under $200. I doubt you'd need to go to the third house.
Hold on, hold on, if everybody else gets it first, then not having it yet makes them part of an exclusive group. You just don't have the right mindset.
Anyways, they can just say, "Yes, it is so great the masses got Google Internet first, because they can't afford the Business Class service that everybody in my neighborhood has. Now they can shop online, or engage in remote-learning opportunities to increase their market value." Don't cry over the death of snobbery just yet.
Portland already gave out a second cable franchise, and has fiber rollouts in progress, just from the threat of Google coming. They're not waiting for it to happen to improve competition.
Interestingly, we don't have government-sponsored cable monopolies in Oregon. People just assume that. But there isn't a hard limit of franchises that can be granted; certainly not a limit of 1. It is just that the companies have decided on their own to only apply in places where there is no competition. Until now.
We already have good utility pole access here, too. Even private parties can (and sometimes do) run their own networking lines on them. I've heard of multiple rich people in my area paying $30k+ to have private fiber run from the data center to their rural mansions.
My ISP may be a stodgy old fart incumbent telecoms company, but at least it's not got an advertising agency as its main profit center.
That's why your preferred company sells information about you. If they had their own advertising company, they could do like google, and keep their information about you to themselves, and use it to target the ads directly.
It really isn't hard to understand the difference, and I'm sure you've been told dozens or more times. Too complicated for you, eh?
People who jump to strong (presumably political) conclusions like that based on almost no information other than speculation of un-named people in a local newspaper article... are unlikely to become executives.
Google hasn't said they are concerned. And none of the people inside the loop have said anything about it they are willing to put their name next to. Nobody has claimed that Oregon has a higher tax burden on internet providers than the places that have received Google Fiber. You can't make any determination about if there is a problem without doing a full analysis of all the taxes. Oregon actually has exceptionally low business taxes; in 1980 we had about 50/50 individual/business tax burden split. Now it is over 80/20 individual/business. So it is highly unlikely they would have some sort of high tax burden here that would chase them off. That is probably also why even your fellow right wingers who are behind the un-named "city officials" the newspaper talked to won't put their names next to it; somebody might actually start doing the math of they made the claim.
The linked story gives better reasons; one of our big non-cable internet providers just got a cable franchise license in Portland, so there will be actual cable competition in Portland very soon, and another is rolling out fiber to various Portland neighborhoods and suburbs. Comcast actually doubled the speeds of their service, for the same prices.
Some people see "Oregon" and think, oh, that is some rural backwoods state, without realizing that we've been one of the top internet-connected States since the internet went public. And before that, we were among the best-served by multi-line local BBS systems, FIDO, etc. We don't have the level of competition we want, but we have more than most places, and they've responded to the mere threat of Google Fiber by proactively expanding real competition.
Oregon has one of the highest rates of broadband service in the country, even though nearly half the population is rural. Portland itself has free wifi all over the place, and has had since the late 90s. They could do really well in Oregon, but the uptake won't be as high as in cities who want to be as well connected (or better) than Oregonians already are, but nobody has built it out. Places like Oregon where everything is already well built are a second tier of potential profit compared to those places that have slow speeds and limited access.
Portland will get into one of the next few groups, because people really hate the existing companies, not so much because they lack access.
We have other existing advantages, for example the regional Comcast network was built by AT&T Broadband before the Comcast merger. AT&T had a lower profit margin because they spent more on infrastructure. The customer service sucks the same as anywhere, but the physical network service works very well.
Nonsense, obviously the point is that the person doesn't like the President and wants him to be exposed to assassins. If Presidents had to use public transit in powerful nations, there would be no living Presidents, and Mr Coward would have the random authoritarian dictatorship he dreams of.
Because none of those systems let them play Murdering Hoes In Defense of Ethics in Journalism at the highest frame rate.
I'm actually trying to offload as many tasks as I can to network-connected microcontrollers using Harvard architecture. Given the importance of networking, it might make sense to move the whole application API to a dedicated Harvard chip. There is really no reason for things like gethostbyname to be frequently updated. And then the network processor can have a direct connection to the ethernet or other network chips. And if you need to update, you can just include an In System Programmer on the MB, and then you can update the network API firmware by connecting a cable on the board, allowing an updater to run on the main system.
If eyes didn't see it, it actually tells us nothing about the theory of what happens when many eyes do look at it.
The theory was never, "if you open source it everybody will read it." The theory was, things that are closed source can't be read by the public, and things that are open source are sometimes read. When they are read by more people, there are more chances to see the bugs.
If you didn't know even the basics of what you were talking about... why talk?
You tried. Lots of people died, but the Union won the war. Trying again won't turn out better for you; you'll all die and your communities will be burnt to the ground.
The Civil War was a real thing. Us Americans are still willing to fight for our nation if you want to go that route again.
Regular taxi companies don't gouge anybody in a natural disaster. And in my community, when there is a disaster or disruption people work together to get through it, businesses that choose to stay open keep their regular prices, even if a hot meal might be able fetch a higher price when half the restaurants are closed. But gouging your customers in an emergency, just because you can, is not a required aspect of business, or even necessarily profitable in the long run.
Which state is Illibera in, again? I'm not really understanding your point.
Is it...
1. I hate hippies ...
2.
3. Profit!
Somewhat of a bait-and-switch. First you propose it as a problem that the law doesn't prevent law-breaking, then you switch to complaining that private parties would seek justice if the law is broken.
I'll give you a hint; if you don't have money for a lawyer to take action against parties that are harming your online business by sending false takedown requests for public domain works... then your website is tiny, and you're not actually losing money from drowning in false notices. The problem solves itself. Companies that have enough traffic to be in that situation can first of all adjust their process of handling takedown notices based on the level of false submissions they get. Second, if it is done persistently, or by parties trying to gain commercially from said actions, they can sue them because they already have staff lawyers.
No, you can't call 911 to report "stolen" photos you placed in the public domain and then tried to take back your promise on. But that has nothing to do with the scenario you had presented.
As for "a for-profit entity that scoops up public domain IP" that is just sort-a "woowoo" kindof, "the truth is out there" stuff. There is no scoop for that. They won't have the IP simply by sending false takedown requests, and the takedown process won't result in them owning anything. They might get things temporarily removed, but they'll be restored after the process gets to the next step.
Yes. If you gaze upon the heavens at the exact right moment... sorry, you still die at some point. This is not any exception to the turning of the wheel.
As for the claim in TFS, this asteroid isn't even visible. I've seen better.
Lie is still a lie, no matter how many times you say it. You say I can't read, and yet you posted a link to support your position, and the link doesn't do any such thing; doesn't even talk about non-Apple OSes. That isn't just a minor comprehension failure, it is a major one.
You actually think that Apple computers get 50% more battery life than Linux computers. You then claim "everyone" has proven that. My advice is do just 1 google search to check out that claim. Just one. That is all it takes. Because it is just not true. You misunderstood a version update increasing a certain type of small efficiency as being in comparison to everybody else, but it was only in comparison to past Apple versions. And it didn't even address the question of how anybody else does it, and how the different ways of doing things compare.
You seem to assume that other OSes just have stupid kernel programmers, and only 1 company made use of the power-saving features of the various CPUs. The funny part, if it was true then data centers and cloud providers would all run Apple computers. Oddly, they don't, even in places where electricity is expensive.
The one thing that is true is that OSX has a lot more battery life than windoze on the same hardware. `doze is more popular than *nix, so it is a more common case. There, yes, OSX gets better battery life... as does linux, BSD, almost everybody. There are conflicting reports as to the reason.
Just one web search, that is all it takes. "OSX linux battery life" Just one search. You'll quickly find what "everyone" actually tested and proved. ;)
I would generally prefer C, and certainly have more experience with it, and yet it is obvious that Pascal is more "readable." It may be that for any qualitative word, any two programming languages will be more, equally, or less that thing.
C is a lot of things. My own C is very readable to me. Somebody experienced in C knows that somebody else's random few lines of code might be totally impossible to understand. Without additional non-language-required constraints on methods and practices, you would have to read and memorize the entire codebase before even attempting to claim what a particular few lines do. With best practices this is not a problem, and yet with a lot of the code in the wild it actually is a major problem.
Pascal has its own different problems.
As they say in Sanskrit, vibhakta.
Uhm, wait... "that guy" is still telling the McDonalds hot-coffee thing, after all these years? Wow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Please read the section "Trial and Verdict."
The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case
The law never prevents, it only takes action afterwards. Various parties may apply various laws if you engage in deceptive practices that harm the companies receiving these hypothetical bogus and covetous notices.
Their theory seems to rely on "public domain" having been invented by the Copyright Act. Therefore, they can find no provision except copyright expiry for it exist.
I recall that a number of years ago on slashdot there was some lawyer explaining it, but I'd have to find my medicine to go looking for a link.
Since it isn't a contract or a license, the promise gets evaluated using traditional common law analysis. If a reasonable person would believe the promise, and breaking the promise would be unfair to you, then it is unlikely they will be able to sue you over your continued reliance on it, especially if some time has passed where lots of people know about about and make use of the promise. It isn't so much that they are held to their promise as that breaking it makes it hard for them claim to be harmed, to claim to be in need of justice to make them whole. IANAL
Your link doesn't claim that OSX uses 50% of the power that linux uses. Your words are carefully parsed to say Apple is better at the way they do it, but then you want to jump ahead and claim also that the final result is less power usage. But that is simply not true, and the margin of victory you would claim for Apple is laughable.
If my CPU spends 50% less time in low power states, (something you don't and can't know based on what OS I use, especially when it is a highly configurable OS) then why do they use the same amount of power?
You're right at least that the link has graphs. And yet, none of those graphs are of your claim. They're not even talking about linux, they're comparing a past OSX version... to the OSX version before it, and explaining why the older version really sucked.
You seem to have made up the whole comparison to linux out of whole cloth, just extrapolating what you misunderstood from the ars story. If your thesis had been, "OSX used to have worse power performance and made up for it with larger battery capacity, but now they have *nix-average power performance" then it would make more sense in light of your source.
According to the internet, Google only has ~ $60B in their war chest. But they could always sell stock to raise cash, it wouldn't have to be all stock.
I'm seeing more use of Google+ all the time. Especially for political discussions. 9% of 2.2B is... a lot!
You appear to think that cooperation with "cpu outfits" like Intel & AMD has given Linux an advantage in power consumption efficiency.
No, my argument was that there is parity between major OSes.
And yes, my CPU actually does spend time in low power states, and I get the power consumption predicted by the CPU manufacturer.