I feel like we've barely grazed the surface of the potential of crowd funding. I mean, in a real sense here we, as society, are funding self-education - we are funding the education of our own society. That's cool.
If only there were a central organization that could collect all this money, with those who could afford it paying more, and then re-distribute it
Microsoft could have avoided all this mess by simply listening to people who were beta testing and using 8 and complaining about the horrible start screen. I'm sure they got PILES of feedback, but they were so stubborn they even went out of their way to keep people from bringing back the traditional start menu.
They were not listening because the feedback did not feed into their internal narrative. That narrative was that, to establish a position in tablets and phones, the UI had to be common across all types of devices. If your feedback went against this directive, it could not be accepted.
This. Each an every NSL needs to be challenged.
The guy behind Lavabit tried. Look how far that got him. The government effectively denied him the right to have a lawyer. Good luck representing yourself against government lawyers.
it's pitting a highly regulated industry (taxi cabs) with an unregulated variant.
Unregulated versions have existed in many cities for a long time -- for example, private hire cars in the UK. In the US, the equivalent is not unregulated (limo services) but it is much less regulated than taxi services. People were prepared to pay more for the convenience of a taxi.
What Uber brings is the convenience of a taxi combined with the advantages of existing unregulated services. That's where technology comes in -- it provides the convenience.
Taxi services are now suffering because of a combination of historic greed and anti-competitive actions. By that, I mean the sale of medallions, which brought in revenue to cities (greed) and made it difficult or impossible for people to start a taxi business (anti-competitive). However, those medallions are a huge cost of running a taxi which is not incurred by services such as Uber.
Time shifting is perfectly legal under fair use for your own use, but not when you do it for someone else.
Cablevision would beg to differ.
When Google still owned Motorola they tried to make some quality designs that had a lot more polish than the typical Android phone, but the sales didn't follow because it didn't have the bells and whistles that attract tech geeks
Perhaps part of the problem was that (prior to Google ownership) Motorola had already put off many of the geeks by producing the most locked-down phones of any Android manufacturer.
I am not sure what the point of your post was, since it seems to be mostly irrelevant.
As far as I can tell, the person asking the question wants to just get a SIM card and put it into his already unlocked phone. Obviously, he needs to ask for the right size SIM (to match his exisitng phone) when buying.
So, the only question is whether his phone supports the necessary frequencies and standards for either AT&T's or T-Mobile's network.
However, they will still abuse citizens by simply claiming they had probable cause to search the phone
But that's the whole point of the ruling. The police would need to get a warrant. They can't simply claim "probably cause" to search a cellphone without a warrant.
The more severe the parking shortage, the more cumulative distance that driver has driven (i.e. in circles) trying to find a spot by luck. Rather than circling the block a dozen times, the driver looks up a spot and reserves it, then goes directly there.
Which says nothing about the efficient use of parking spaces -- all it affects is efficient use of the roads (at the expense of efficient use of parking spaces).
These people are providing the city the great and valuable service of a functional smart parking grid operating when parking congestion is high.
There seems to be an unwritten premise behind your claim that the space would be unused if it were not for this app. In fact, the reverse is true -- likely the driver "selling" the space will remain in place longer than necesssary so that he/she can sell the parking space. Without the ability to sell a space, it will be vacated more quickly and then immediately filled by another driver who happens to be driving by (because there is a shortage of parking).
For example, in a negotiation, a diplomat can say "we don't need the unions to have disproportionate control over production costs", in reference to potentially giving unions control over tariffs
But there is a huge difference between reporting the content of discussions between the parties and publishing early drafts of the proposed treaty.
As long as the final version (release candidate would be a better expression here) is properly publically analysed (and, if needed, rewritten), there's no problem.
But that's the point. There is no rewriting (which would imply re-negotiation) of the final version -- it becomes a take-it-or-leave-it option. That's one of the goals of the secrecy during negotiation.
Citation needed on point 1
Let me trump your vague "everything" with some actual reporting:
Or how about this:
So, there are your citations. What do you have?
If research is paid for by outsiders, if sports pay for itself, then where is this ever growing cost of education coming from?
1. Sport only pays for itself in a very limited number of institutions. The claim is that somehow the sport gets almuni to gift more money, but I doubt that there are any studies that have investigated this claim.
2. While the pay of the teachers has been going down, pay for administrators has been going up.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
