I'm confused, why does the title state Apple is lobbying AGAINST encryption? It's contradicted by both the summary and article itself.
"Apple has argued in the meetings that as a starting point it does not want the updated laws to block tech companies from using encryption on their devices"
It says right there - Australia wants to limit encryption, and Apple is not in favor of that.
This only makes sense if regular voting is made completely painless - one way to help with this would be to make election day a federal holiday.
Does a student or intern temporarily in another state or country qualify as an 'exceptional circumstance'?
Repeat after me: "Mitochondria is not necessarily the powerhouse of the cell"
It's not just that - BART was simply never meant to be operating on the scale it does today. When BART was built, the creators envisioned a system that would serve about 100,000 people per week and choke points such as the Transbay Tube were built accordingly. Naturally, as the population increased, upgrades had to made. This worked for a while, but eventually lack of funding for serious overhauls caught up with the
constantly increasing ridership. Maximum capacity is heavily influenced by the fact that sections like the tube are single line, with no easy way to expand to double or triple. BART could theoretically be a 24/7 system, but as things stand now their engineers need every minute of the nightly downtime they have to service a rapidly aging rail system.
The rails already in place are almost at capacity, with a train crossing over them every 2 minutes. With the tech booms of the last decades, there's been an even bigger spike in these numbers. Over the last decade alone, passenger alightings at some stations have more than doubled. On busy days, the BART system now serves 25 times more riders than originally envisioned. There's some money for additional trains, but that can only do so much. Eventually, we are going to need to spend money on either more parallel tracks, cars, and bigger platforms or just a new system altogether.
Their administrators are simply being realistic about the situation we're in
Complain to your municipal government.
This is really going to depend on where you live - around here, lobbying groups for taxi companies and their drivers forestalled any attempts at legislated change for over a decade before Uber stepped in, quickly picking up market share due to its reliability. It used to be that even if you called to schedule a pickup (in an hour!) there was only a 30-40% chance a taxi would actually show up. I remember the days of being unable to get home via taxi at night without offering a 100% tip in advance all too vividly and have no desire whatsoever to return to that.
I'm not saying Uber is the best answer here - clearly, the new model comes with its own share of problems - but the previous monopoly (taxis) really screwed themselves out of a future with their own behavior. There was a hotline to call to report problems, but absolutely zero accountability for the drivers at the end of the day. The situation has since improved, but generally falls along the lines of 'too little, too late'.
This is the second in a series of four guaranteed orders NASA will make under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts. The Boeing Company of Houston received its first crew mission order in May.
Boeing's contract is not mentioned because it happened 6 months ago. This is SpaceX's first contract with NASA for a crewed mission.
It warms my heart, however, to see the money I must pay for the tax on air putting panels on the homes of other people.
Did you RTFA? I'm going to assume not, so here's the link again
The program is paid for by cap-and-trade - namely, companies creating environmental waste, not you, are the ones paying for his solar panels. There are plenty of reasons to complain about the CA government misappropriating the tax money you personally give them, but this is not one of them.
I program, therefore I am.
