Traffic furniture (aka concrete obsticles in the road) and anti-traffic flow patterns both work very well.
Yep, the easiest solution is huge speed bumps, the kind that forces a car to slow down to 5 mph. Now the side street has the same speed as the highway.
Why couldn't he have saved $5-6000 working other jobs to buy a used car to use as a cab instead of this renting his cab from a company? Then he could've kept 100% of his earnings, and the fares would also be a lot lower for the consumers.
There are only two choices: total ban of taxis that are not regulated by the govt. or, increase the quota to accommodate taxis like uber's. Even uber can't survive in an unregulated market if other internet taxi companies enter the market flood it with even more taxis.
Or the govt should increase the max limit of cabs allowed in the city. And uber cars should be considered as just taxis with computer-assisted hailing that should be added to the new quota.
More taxis means less food on the table for traditional cabbies... so the quota of total taxis (including uber's) should be strictly enforced.
shady illegal practices after throwing his employer under the bus like this.
How is blocking competitors from your platform shady or illegal? Does Windows support running Linux apps? No. If Real wanted to sell music, it should've built its own music player like the ipod and also an itunes equivalent. Why and how does it get the right to sell music on apple's music platform (itunes/ipod)?
Good question, and I don't know the answer. The money could come from ads or a subscription or a hybrid of those two.
It's not fucked up. If it was not made compulsory, some sites (aka traitors) would offer their news articles to google news for free. Then google would only show news articles they got for free and refuse to show articles from news sites that demand a payment. Pretty soon, the payment news site would die out from lack of visibility on the web. So the law is designed to prevent that -- prevent people from offering free stuff that would destroy the market.
If google won't pay, some other news aggregator will arise and will offer the same service but with payment to news sites.
And the other crime is google replicating news headlines and summary on its site reduces the news site's income and visibility, because while the news site creates the news story, people don't visit the site unless they are really interested in the article. Only google profits from this at the expense of the news site.
In short, since hardly anyone reads TFA (just like slashdot readers), they simply skim the headline and summary, no one will visit the news site. They will instead get their news from google news' summaries and google has no intention of paying news sites for this content.
Whaa? On my machines, the entirety of the space to the left and right are used.
I'm sure the hardware/software use them entirely, but the user does not. Take a typical web page: the left margin contains navigational links and the right side has ads. Both are usually ignored while the user concentrates on the center column. Yahoo! even redesigned their homepage such that ads look like news headlines and are placed in the center column of the page, just like a real news headline. There's no easy way a viewer can ignore the ad without reading it. They played this sneaky trick because readers typically ignore the left and right sides of a web page.
This applies not just to the web, but also to most of your desktop apps.
(And this is good, because HEVC has okayish hardware support.)
Does that mean, no need pay patent licensing fees again to display
All monitors are made to be viewed landscape. It's about biology. Our eyes are by nature more accustomed to view wide scenes instead of tall ones
If nature prefers wide to tall, why do paper books, magazines, notepads, paper application forms, newspapers have narrow and tall dimensions?
Most of the space towards the left and right of a monitor is not used -- the viewer does not pay much attention to those areas of the monitor.
No, those laws similar to feudal fiefdoms. Limiting the supply of taxis keeps the cab fare rates very (artificially) high and sucks the working man's income into the pockets of those controlling these laws.
If you lease a car, do you think you have the right to drive it into a brick wall or sell it on ebay just because you made your monthly payment?
If you owned the car instead, would 10 or 100 other people also be individual owners of that car? Of course not, there is only one car and a 100 people can't all own that one car. You can sell your car only to one other person.
Yet for software, you can "resell/pirate" the software to hundreds or thousands of people. It's like cloning a car a thousand times with your 3d printer and then selling it to a thousand people, thereby screwing the car manufacturer of his potential sales. You don't have the right to do that because you only paid less than a millionth the car R&D and manufacturing cost when you bought your copy of the car.
you HAVE to do the cli a-la cisco if you want in, in the networking biz.
No, you don't HAVE to have it, it's Cisco's. Create your version. Things like UI and command line should have legal protection beyond the vanilla patent and copyright protections. We need new types of protections for each type of IP (command line for example).
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
