Who wants to go through the trouble to put themselves at big legal risk just to be right?? With no possible payoff. And guaranteed loss of time and money.
That is in the EULA though. There is still plenty of publicly available data where the EULA doesn't apply at all. Ignoring the fact that EULAs are completely unenforceable besides for the transfer of knowledge (checking it shows you read it but you don't have to follow it).
I believe the split is the jump from just concealed wep permits to full registration type setups. Don't quote me on that though.
"both the highest and lowest crime rates are found in the 'low gun control' states" true enough. I think that speaks more to the weakness of the correlation and the majority of states falling under 'low gun control'. But doesn't say there is NO correlation. I think if we controlled for variables the graphs could swing either way 30% still.
Why couldn't it be applied at the compiler option level? A checkbox and recompile isn't so terrible. It could probably be done at the OS level but it'd be more of a pain.
Also support Reuters! (also AP and AFP and other good news wire feed goups). They need the money and they are the true source of news from which people like msnbc/fox take parts they like and editorialize over. Wikileaks is great but they are not going to take the place of something like reuters any time soon (They have over 50,000 in more than 100 countries as of 2009). Wikileaks has around 5 employees.... yep. And it isn't clear if they are paid... So far they don't seem to be but they hope to pay core employees in the future. Good read: http://stefanmey.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/leak-o-nomy-the-economy-of-wikileaks/
They aren't super far away. They seem to get dust on the camera from dust coming off their gunfire.
And having not been on an apache airship I assume that they don't have to look through the shitty b/w camera. I also assume that there are multiple people in the heli which could look. I also assume that they could use shitty regular 10$ binoculars if they didn't feel like using their high quality army binoculars that i assume they have. I think all of these are fairly safe assumptions. And if you watch the video you will see the problem. They are itchy trigger finger CoD playing young guys. You can hear the excitement and impatience in their voice. Also, from video:
"Come on, buddy. All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." - to crawling wounded guy
"I think they just drove over a body. HAHA! Yeah!" - talking about humvee driving over a body.
"I have about twelve to fifteen dead bodies." - Gunner from video. It isn't a concert hall but it isn't a few people. Not sure when specifically the switch happens.
# Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
# Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm.
- Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B)
I realize they were army not marines but the rules are likely similar. The armies rules seem to change based on the military action? Either way I couldn't find it online, tell me if you can.
Fight only enemy combatants.
Collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.
Do not attack medical personnel, facilities, or equipment. Destroy no more than the mission requires.
Treat all civilians humanely.
I would contend that the family in the van hadn't been shown to be enemy combatants hence civilians. The unnarmed guy crawling in the dirt has been effectively neutralized and wounded. And I would certainly argue that they destroyed more then REQUIRED.
Soldier talking to self in regards to wounded reuters reporter crawling on the ground: "Come on buddy, all you gotta do is pick up a weapon" (there is no weapon for him to pick up regardless)
After a van (obviously with kids (soldiers get a much better picture than the shitty b/w pic we get)) arrives to pick up the almost dead crawling guy. At this point they blow away the van, the crawling guy and people that were trying to help him.
So they weren't medics but people/some family trying to help him out.
"I don't think anyone would argue that more guns leads to more gun-related deaths"
OP:"Let the law abiding citizens carry guns like the constitution allows them to do and you'll see gun crime drop dramatically."
So the guy I was responding to (who was modded UP at the time) would argue that and people agreed. Though mods can be insane, your well constructed post modded to 0 atm is an example... unless you happen to have shit karma I guess.
Suicides I'll give you, but accidental shootings are a danger and an unintended consequence I would argue that it should count. No one would argue that highways besides parks are safe just because most of the deaths are accidental... But back to the numbers.
In the graph for murder rates the correlation is -.10 so stricter laws do have a weak correlation to lower murder rates still. Violent crime(-.01) and property crime(-.25) seem to have almost no strong correlation. Robbery (+.29) seems to increase a bit with less guns while rape (-.48) rates drop fairly clearly.
Murky at best and without doing a MUCH larger study taking into account a far far wider range of variables to control for we can't learn much at all. I didn't have any huge believe that anti-gun laws had any major protective effect. But OP argued that the correlation was the reverse which is just wrong. And my graph compared exactly the two things he mentioned. (BTW I think trading rape for robbery is a good deal even if the other stats are more murky)
And thanks for putting effort and research into it, using figures is how it should be. Another stat you might want to look up is murder rates/gun crimes before and after various strictness laws were passed to help control other variables (though the effect may take a few years). Also, an interesting control (not really do-able) is looking only into murders of passion, though i'm sure you could argue it doesn't matter I still wonder how strong the correlation between gun laws and passion murders is.
You are entirely right. And I apologize. I haven't done stats in a long time (my understanding is ok, I haven't produced any graphs in many years). The failure wasn't intentional. And it was really rushed. In that one the x-axis is states in order (i just highlighted and used w/e excel's standard settings were). Anyways, here is a fix:
States are obviously the various diamonds. I labeled a few outliers (unreadable if I labeled them all).
And here is the data. If my graph still sucks graph it how you like. No matter how you graph it there will still be a negative.558 correlation. Which may not be super strong BUT it is the complete opposite of what OP said which was my problem. And I do realize that 'law strictness' is an unnatural measurement so it isn't a perfect reflection of actual strictness (unmeasurable), which makes the correlation value matter less as well.:
-*/*/%$&*/*/state laws deaths
-*/*/%$&+-+*/*/Alaska 4 20
-+*%$&/*/-+*/*/Louisiana 2 19.5
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/Wyoming 9 18.8
-+*/%$&*/-+*/*/Arizona 6 18
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/Nevada 11 17.3
-*/*/-%$&+*/+*/Mississippi 5 17.3
-*/*/-%$&+*/+*/New Mexico 6 16.6
-*/%$&*/-+*/+*/Arkansas 6 16.3
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/Alabama 15 16.2
-+*/%$&*/-+*/*/Tennessee 7 15.4
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/West Virginia 4 14.7
-*/*/%$&+-+*/*/Montana 8 14.5
-*/*/%$&-+*/+*/South Carolina 9 13.8
-*/*%$&/-+*/+*/North Carolina 20 13.6
-*/*/%$&-+*/+*/Georgia 7 13.4
-*/*%$&/-+*/+*/Kentucky 2 13.1
-*/*/%$&-+*/+*/Oklahoma 2 13.1
-+*/*%$&/*-+*//Missouri 4 12.3
-+*/%$&*/*-+*//Idaho 6 12.3
--*/%$&*/+*/+*/Indiana 8 11.7
--*/*%$&/+*/+*/Colorado 16 11.5
-+*/*%$&/-+*/*/Maryland 53 11.5
-*/*/%$&--+*/*/Florida 6 11.1
-*/*/-%$&+*/+*/Virginia 18 11.1
-*/*/+%$&-+*/*/Texas 9 11
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/Michigan 22 10.9
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/Oregon 18 10.5
-*/*/+-+*/%$&*/Pennsylvania 26 9.9
-*/*/+-+%$&*/*/California 79 9.8
-*%$&/*/+-+*/*/Illinois 28 9.7
-*/*/+-+*%$&/*/Kansas 7 9.7
-*/*/%$&-+*/+*/Utah 4 9.7
--*/%$&*/+*/+*/Vermont 9 9.6
-+*/*/-+*%$&/*/Ohio 13 9.3
-+*/*/%$&-+*/*/Washington 18 9.3
-+*/*/-+*%$&/*/Delaware 22 9.1
-+%$&*/*/-+*/*/North Dakota 4 9.1
-+-*/*/+*%$&/*/Wisconsin 12 8.1
-+-*%$&/*/+*/*/Nebraska 10 8.1
-+-*/*/+*/%$&*/South Dakota 6 7.9
-+-+*/*/*%$&/*/Iowa 16 6.7
-+*/%$&*/-+*/*/Maine 12 6.5
-+-*/*/+*/%$&*/Minnesota 11 6
-+*/%$&*/-+*/*/New Hampshire 11 5.8
-+-*/*/+*/%$&*/Rhode Island 47 5.1
-+*%$&/*/-+*/*/New York 51 5.1
-+*/*/-+*/*%$&/New Jersey 63 4.9
-+%$&*/*/-+*/*/Connecticut 54 4.3
-+*/*/-+*%$&/*/Massachusetts 54 3.1
-+*/*/%$&-+*/*/Hawaii 43 2.8
(I had to add dashes and shit before each state due to the/. spam filter, I apologize for the ugliness)
My point was that the system is re-fucking-tardedly overpriced. In fact I would look at the 51 cities that have approved use of this system and guess that the MAJORITY of them have been bribed to implement this. If you wanted this you could embed a microphone in a telephone post every block which would likely drop the cost to 1/100th?
You could buy shitty old phones 20$ each, 5per mile, 150$ install cost each (likely about 30mins w/ a team of two per phone since they are doing 1000s of these) leave them on all the time and have software do the locating. Give 100$ a mnth to run these phones all the time. Around 1000th the cost. I don't really care if I've underestimated the cost of leaving these phones on. At 1000th the cost there is wiggle room... You could probably fab JUST a microphone for less than the cost of a phone too... if you are going to be buying 3300 of them you can probably get a deal.
Vermont is the only state that has no gun licensing or permits of any kind. They would have low gun crime because they are vermont. But you did say freely carry so I digress. Also you would be wrong anyways unless you have some good citations. Below I provide links allowing you to compare gun law strictness to gun deaths by state.
How long are these expected to last? If it is only like 10 years.... It would be cheaper to hire 'listeners' at minimum wage and spread them across the city. And that money gets better distributed and helps employ people. Give em a walkie talkie or a cellphone w/ a camera.
TBH though I can't imagine how it could possibly cost so much. For that price you could say.... Create a city wide wifi system and stick a microphone on the top of every third telephone pole in the city. Which would be more accurate. The microphones don't need to be good at all. And really there are far cheaper things than this I just figured having city wide wifi would make it not totally worthless.
BTW this audio system would cost 150M to do chicago's city center (600km^2). CCTV setup for london costs 200M (over 10years), they obviously get quite a bit more and london is a lot bigger(1700km^2).
More than twice the cost of cctv for audio only for a system that hasn't proved its self? Fuuuuuck that.
My 2nd idea on adding to the price tag of the vehicle wouldn't have that problem. It could actually lower the cost of driving by funnelling a tax on innefectual cars to efficient ones. I thought for sure they could come up with an interesting name for that to ram it through.
But yeah, I guess ignorant people + cowardly politicians is as good a guess as any.
I'm ok with taxing them, perhaps not in the same manner though. BUUUT this is clearly something that supports large corporations and screws over little guys that don't have cayman island accounts. Which is an advantage that they don't need.
I believe the problem is that input lag would move from 5~12 to 180~220ish. Which is a really big jump. The reason online games work is because you experience the 7~12 ping, most things are done on your computer, and people entering the map or talking are the things 220ms behind which is acceptable.
So it is safe to say that this won't happen for a long time. Long after we all have oc48 to the home with up/down of 5GBs/5GBs.
the largest data service revenues Highlighted the word that made it statistically crap. Prices vary madly between these countries. And as others have mentioned most japanese people use wifi, likely south korea (I assume they didn't mean north here:p) as well.
Multiply by two. For webpages you upload a very tiny request and dl that 900kB page. In voice you upload and download. Though with my parents it sometimes feels one way.
Thank you! 40posts below my original post and you are the only one to answer my question. Interesting system... I suppose it works unless a company is really shitty at predicting the market. Then I guess they are just fucked.
Mind you! I still don't get how it'd work for like Mazeratti or anything. If all their cars are uber sports machines.
I believe a far less arbitrary method would just be to tax gas (much more) and then allow for market economics to kick in. Or if you don't like that then there is a better idea. Add a graduated tax to vehicles based on MPG(obviously give credit to busses or w/e) so that efficient cars would not be taxed at all, possibly even given a light credit. That way you can't call it a government money grab. And it allows for much more vehicle freedom.
Really who the fuck thought up fleet averages. Is there any advantage to it over taxing vehicles that you know of? (since you seem to be informed)
Slashdot Mirror
Who wants to go through the trouble to put themselves at big legal risk just to be right?? With no possible payoff. And guaranteed loss of time and money.
That is in the EULA though. There is still plenty of publicly available data where the EULA doesn't apply at all. Ignoring the fact that EULAs are completely unenforceable besides for the transfer of knowledge (checking it shows you read it but you don't have to follow it).
There.
I just assumed Windows needed the help more, my bad!
I believe the split is the jump from just concealed wep permits to full registration type setups. Don't quote me on that though.
"both the highest and lowest crime rates are found in the 'low gun control' states" true enough. I think that speaks more to the weakness of the correlation and the majority of states falling under 'low gun control'. But doesn't say there is NO correlation. I think if we controlled for variables the graphs could swing either way 30% still.
It is purple now you insensitive clod!
Why couldn't it be applied at the compiler option level? A checkbox and recompile isn't so terrible. It could probably be done at the OS level but it'd be more of a pain.
Also support Reuters! (also AP and AFP and other good news wire feed goups). They need the money and they are the true source of news from which people like msnbc/fox take parts they like and editorialize over. Wikileaks is great but they are not going to take the place of something like reuters any time soon (They have over 50,000 in more than 100 countries as of 2009). Wikileaks has around 5 employees.... yep. And it isn't clear if they are paid... So far they don't seem to be but they hope to pay core employees in the future. Good read:
http://stefanmey.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/leak-o-nomy-the-economy-of-wikileaks/
They aren't super far away. They seem to get dust on the camera from dust coming off their gunfire.
And having not been on an apache airship I assume that they don't have to look through the shitty b/w camera. I also assume that there are multiple people in the heli which could look. I also assume that they could use shitty regular 10$ binoculars if they didn't feel like using their high quality army binoculars that i assume they have. I think all of these are fairly safe assumptions. And if you watch the video you will see the problem. They are itchy trigger finger CoD playing young guys. You can hear the excitement and impatience in their voice. Also, from video:
"Come on, buddy. All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." - to crawling wounded guy
"I think they just drove over a body. HAHA! Yeah!" - talking about humvee driving over a body.
"I have about twelve to fifteen dead bodies." - Gunner from video.
It isn't a concert hall but it isn't a few people. Not sure when specifically the switch happens.
- Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B)
I realize they were army not marines but the rules are likely similar. The armies rules seem to change based on the military action? Either way I couldn't find it online, tell me if you can.
SFA rules (Hague/Geneva): http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/Repository/FM3071.pdf
Some main points of the above rules from the wikipedia summary which may be of interest (full thing is pretty long):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOAC#Roles_of_laws_of_war_in_the_United_States_military
I would contend that the family in the van hadn't been shown to be enemy combatants hence civilians. The unnarmed guy crawling in the dirt has been effectively neutralized and wounded. And I would certainly argue that they destroyed more then REQUIRED.
Soldier talking to self in regards to wounded reuters reporter crawling on the ground:
"Come on buddy, all you gotta do is pick up a weapon"
(there is no weapon for him to pick up regardless)
After a van (obviously with kids (soldiers get a much better picture than the shitty b/w pic we get)) arrives to pick up the almost dead crawling guy. At this point they blow away the van, the crawling guy and people that were trying to help him.
So they weren't medics but people/some family trying to help him out.
"I don't think anyone would argue that more guns leads to more gun-related deaths"
OP:"Let the law abiding citizens carry guns like the constitution allows them to do and you'll see gun crime drop dramatically."
So the guy I was responding to (who was modded UP at the time) would argue that and people agreed. Though mods can be insane, your well constructed post modded to 0 atm is an example... unless you happen to have shit karma I guess.
Suicides I'll give you, but accidental shootings are a danger and an unintended consequence I would argue that it should count. No one would argue that highways besides parks are safe just because most of the deaths are accidental... But back to the numbers.
In the graph for murder rates the correlation is -.10 so stricter laws do have a weak correlation to lower murder rates still. Violent crime(-.01) and property crime(-.25) seem to have almost no strong correlation. Robbery (+.29) seems to increase a bit with less guns while rape (-.48) rates drop fairly clearly.
Murky at best and without doing a MUCH larger study taking into account a far far wider range of variables to control for we can't learn much at all. I didn't have any huge believe that anti-gun laws had any major protective effect. But OP argued that the correlation was the reverse which is just wrong. And my graph compared exactly the two things he mentioned. (BTW I think trading rape for robbery is a good deal even if the other stats are more murky)
And thanks for putting effort and research into it, using figures is how it should be. Another stat you might want to look up is murder rates/gun crimes before and after various strictness laws were passed to help control other variables (though the effect may take a few years). Also, an interesting control (not really do-able) is looking only into murders of passion, though i'm sure you could argue it doesn't matter I still wonder how strong the correlation between gun laws and passion murders is.
I'm flattered to have a fan. Impressed you seem to be upset with that particular post. I'm sure I've said far more contentious things in past.
You are entirely right. And I apologize. I haven't done stats in a long time (my understanding is ok, I haven't produced any graphs in many years). The failure wasn't intentional. And it was really rushed. In that one the x-axis is states in order (i just highlighted and used w/e excel's standard settings were). Anyways, here is a fix:
.558 correlation. Which may not be super strong BUT it is the complete opposite of what OP said which was my problem. And I do realize that 'law strictness' is an unnatural measurement so it isn't a perfect reflection of actual strictness (unmeasurable), which makes the correlation value matter less as well.:
/. spam filter, I apologize for the ugliness)
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3007/gunlaws2.png
States are obviously the various diamonds. I labeled a few outliers (unreadable if I labeled them all).
And here is the data. If my graph still sucks graph it how you like. No matter how you graph it there will still be a negative
-*/*/%$&*/*/state laws deaths
-*/*/%$&+-+*/*/Alaska 4 20
-+*%$&/*/-+*/*/Louisiana 2 19.5
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/Wyoming 9 18.8
-+*/%$&*/-+*/*/Arizona 6 18
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/Nevada 11 17.3
-*/*/-%$&+*/+*/Mississippi 5 17.3
-*/*/-%$&+*/+*/New Mexico 6 16.6
-*/%$&*/-+*/+*/Arkansas 6 16.3
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/Alabama 15 16.2
-+*/%$&*/-+*/*/Tennessee 7 15.4
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/West Virginia 4 14.7
-*/*/%$&+-+*/*/Montana 8 14.5
-*/*/%$&-+*/+*/South Carolina 9 13.8
-*/*%$&/-+*/+*/North Carolina 20 13.6
-*/*/%$&-+*/+*/Georgia 7 13.4
-*/*%$&/-+*/+*/Kentucky 2 13.1
-*/*/%$&-+*/+*/Oklahoma 2 13.1
-+*/*%$&/*-+*//Missouri 4 12.3
-+*/%$&*/*-+*//Idaho 6 12.3
--*/%$&*/+*/+*/Indiana 8 11.7
--*/*%$&/+*/+*/Colorado 16 11.5
-+*/*%$&/-+*/*/Maryland 53 11.5
-*/*/%$&--+*/*/Florida 6 11.1
-*/*/-%$&+*/+*/Virginia 18 11.1
-*/*/+%$&-+*/*/Texas 9 11
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/Michigan 22 10.9
-*/*%$&/+-+*/*/Oregon 18 10.5
-*/*/+-+*/%$&*/Pennsylvania 26 9.9
-*/*/+-+%$&*/*/California 79 9.8
-*%$&/*/+-+*/*/Illinois 28 9.7
-*/*/+-+*%$&/*/Kansas 7 9.7
-*/*/%$&-+*/+*/Utah 4 9.7
--*/%$&*/+*/+*/Vermont 9 9.6
-+*/*/-+*%$&/*/Ohio 13 9.3
-+*/*/%$&-+*/*/Washington 18 9.3
-+*/*/-+*%$&/*/Delaware 22 9.1
-+%$&*/*/-+*/*/North Dakota 4 9.1
-+-*/*/+*%$&/*/Wisconsin 12 8.1
-+-*%$&/*/+*/*/Nebraska 10 8.1
-+-*/*/+*/%$&*/South Dakota 6 7.9
-+-+*/*/*%$&/*/Iowa 16 6.7
-+*/%$&*/-+*/*/Maine 12 6.5
-+-*/*/+*/%$&*/Minnesota 11 6
-+*/%$&*/-+*/*/New Hampshire 11 5.8
-+-*/*/+*/%$&*/Rhode Island 47 5.1
-+*%$&/*/-+*/*/New York 51 5.1
-+*/*/-+*/*%$&/New Jersey 63 4.9
-+%$&*/*/-+*/*/Connecticut 54 4.3
-+*/*/-+*%$&/*/Massachusetts 54 3.1
-+*/*/%$&-+*/*/Hawaii 43 2.8
(I had to add dashes and shit before each state due to the
My point was that the system is re-fucking-tardedly overpriced. In fact I would look at the 51 cities that have approved use of this system and guess that the MAJORITY of them have been bribed to implement this. If you wanted this you could embed a microphone in a telephone post every block which would likely drop the cost to 1/100th?
You could buy shitty old phones 20$ each, 5per mile, 150$ install cost each (likely about 30mins w/ a team of two per phone since they are doing 1000s of these) leave them on all the time and have software do the locating. Give 100$ a mnth to run these phones all the time. Around 1000th the cost. I don't really care if I've underestimated the cost of leaving these phones on. At 1000th the cost there is wiggle room... You could probably fab JUST a microphone for less than the cost of a phone too... if you are going to be buying 3300 of them you can probably get a deal.
Vermont is the only state that has no gun licensing or permits of any kind. They would have low gun crime because they are vermont. But you did say freely carry so I digress. Also you would be wrong anyways unless you have some good citations. Below I provide links allowing you to compare gun law strictness to gun deaths by state.
/. mods don't mod people up unless they've done some homework.
http://newsbatch.com/gc-stateglaw.html
http://newsbatch.com/gc-regionowndeath.html
Since it isn't obvious enough from that picture I bothered getting the raw data and punched it all into excel to make a pretty graph just for you!:
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7756/gunlaws.png
Proving you fairly definatively wrong. Please
How long are these expected to last? If it is only like 10 years.... It would be cheaper to hire 'listeners' at minimum wage and spread them across the city. And that money gets better distributed and helps employ people. Give em a walkie talkie or a cellphone w/ a camera.
TBH though I can't imagine how it could possibly cost so much. For that price you could say.... Create a city wide wifi system and stick a microphone on the top of every third telephone pole in the city. Which would be more accurate. The microphones don't need to be good at all. And really there are far cheaper things than this I just figured having city wide wifi would make it not totally worthless.
BTW this audio system would cost 150M to do chicago's city center (600km^2). CCTV setup for london costs 200M (over 10years), they obviously get quite a bit more and london is a lot bigger(1700km^2).
More than twice the cost of cctv for audio only for a system that hasn't proved its self? Fuuuuuck that.
My 2nd idea on adding to the price tag of the vehicle wouldn't have that problem. It could actually lower the cost of driving by funnelling a tax on innefectual cars to efficient ones. I thought for sure they could come up with an interesting name for that to ram it through.
But yeah, I guess ignorant people + cowardly politicians is as good a guess as any.
I'm ok with taxing them, perhaps not in the same manner though. BUUUT this is clearly something that supports large corporations and screws over little guys that don't have cayman island accounts. Which is an advantage that they don't need.
I believe the problem is that input lag would move from 5~12 to 180~220ish. Which is a really big jump. The reason online games work is because you experience the 7~12 ping, most things are done on your computer, and people entering the map or talking are the things 220ms behind which is acceptable.
So it is safe to say that this won't happen for a long time. Long after we all have oc48 to the home with up/down of 5GBs/5GBs.
the largest data service revenues :p) as well.
Highlighted the word that made it statistically crap. Prices vary madly between these countries. And as others have mentioned most japanese people use wifi, likely south korea (I assume they didn't mean north here
Multiply by two. For webpages you upload a very tiny request and dl that 900kB page. In voice you upload and download. Though with my parents it sometimes feels one way.
(and I am paying attention to b or B, and man I wish this "industry" would pick one and stick to it)
If it is moving we use b (data-stream). If it is sitting there we use B(storage/ram). So there is a system. And yes, it is stupid and arbitrary.
Thank you! 40posts below my original post and you are the only one to answer my question. Interesting system... I suppose it works unless a company is really shitty at predicting the market. Then I guess they are just fucked.
Mind you! I still don't get how it'd work for like Mazeratti or anything. If all their cars are uber sports machines.
I believe a far less arbitrary method would just be to tax gas (much more) and then allow for market economics to kick in. Or if you don't like that then there is a better idea. Add a graduated tax to vehicles based on MPG(obviously give credit to busses or w/e) so that efficient cars would not be taxed at all, possibly even given a light credit. That way you can't call it a government money grab. And it allows for much more vehicle freedom.
Really who the fuck thought up fleet averages. Is there any advantage to it over taxing vehicles that you know of? (since you seem to be informed)