I only use one phone; why does it matter if what I write for myself only runs on the one phone I have.
I'd happily pay $3,500 out of pocket for 5 lights to get safer streets in my immediate neighborhood.
But then you would have to take on any liability lawsuits privately if the poles ever fell and caused damage to vehicle/ property/ injury. And cost of their eventual safe removal.
They already have the poles with light fixtures on them, they just don't pay to power them. The only difference here is which fixture housing the bolts go through.
Unless you are talking about insurance on injury to the workers performing the installation in place of the city workers when the city had the option of underbidding the labor contract? In that case, like the city, the company performing the installation has its own insurance, which is part of the cost of the work.
How do we prevent Facebook from pressuring the officer, or his superiors, to abuse his power? E.g., force protestors off the sidewalk, or stop legal filming. Remember that, in addition to money, there is political credibility on the line here; if this situation goes sour, the representatives who allow it stand to have their political careers suffer.
I think we have to do it using the same techniques we use to prevent those same actions by state police on Occupy Wall Street protestors and Tea Party protestors, and protestors at large financial and banking summits, and the same way we prevent people protesting politicians like Gorge Bush and Barack Obama from being relegated to so-called "Free Speech Zones".
Which is to say, we disobey the illegal orders, get arrested, and fight the legality of the actions in court. They we file civil lawsuits against the guilty parties for recompense.
Salary amplification in... states with no income tax:
- South Dakota
If you have no dividend or interest income, add:
- New Hampshire
What actually matters here is not where you want to live to work, but where you want to live eventually/retire to, and how long you are willing to work before you can safely retire, which is how much money you are effectively able to sock away each year.
Austin is still something of a deal, since compared to California, you get about 25% of your salary back through not paying income taxes, but the other places in the article are less of a deal, regardless of the cost of living, because what matters is not the cost of where you are, but the cost of where you end up when you and your money eventually move there. And that includes differential real estate pricing.
Washington is not so much of a deal, unless you live near the Oregon border; Washington makes up for its lack of income tax through sales tax, and Oregon makes up for its lack of sales tax with an income tax, so if you can get salaries in Washington, and buy your consumables, furniture, cars, and other items in Oregon, you can get a pretty good deal. A lot of Microsofties take this option, and have no problem with job transfers, which are more of a problem in Austin than Silicon Valley, but less of a problem than if you took a job at some data center in Iowa.
The problem is that by paying for the cop, they tell the city "there'd better be a cop right here".
I expect the conversation went more like this:
FB: "We are building new housing in a ghetto area and we plan to have 10% of it go to our employees, and 90% of it to be rented at below market rates do that people can have better housing; all of this will be worthless, however, if no one wants to live there due to the high crime rate in the area. We'd like to see periodic patrols by a police officer in the area"
MP: "Sorry, we don't have enough officers to guarantee periodic patrols in the area that you're requesting"
FB: "Have another officer, on us, then, so that you can periodically patrol the area"
They're black, you mean. Scary black people.
You wish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
"The 2010 United States Census reported that Menlo Park had a population of 32,026."
You don't have to be a particular race to live in a slum, you just have to have bad neighbors who make things miserable for everyone else.
"If the service isn't good, fix it for everybody"
They earmarked the funds for a cop, instead of just giving the city money to spend on whatever stupid, politically motivated bullshit worth maybe $25,000 some city councilman's brother in law could get away with selling the city for that same $200,000.
I rather approve of earmarks like this.
If I could earmark donated funds for specific uses, like solar powered LED street lights that pretty much never need service for 20+ years, I'd probably buy several for my neighborhood, as they are ~$500 each, and labor to put them up couldn't be more than ~$200 each (and if it was, I'd hire the private contractors to do the work instead of city employees). I'd happily pay $3,500 out of pocket for 5 lights to get safer streets in my immediate neighborhood.
I'd push greater commitment to keeping the essential components of the system under FOSS licenses onto the head of that list.
Except such a thing is irrelevant to all but a microscopic minority of nerds.
I totally disagree.
It's also really important to regulatory agencies like the FCC in the U.S., the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the Ministere de l'Econonie des Finances et des L'Industrie in France, the Federal Network Agency for Electricity, Gas, Telecommunications, Post and Railway in Germany, the European Radiocommunication Office in all of Europe, the Commission for Communications Regulation, and other government agencies.
Because they will damn well not let a software defined radio with source code be legally imported into their jurisdiction, and they all require that the firmware load on SDRs be cryptographically protected from being replaced by the end user, and they certify radio units as bundles of software + hardware, and any attempt to sever the relationship between the two renders the equipment illegal to use.
It's a nice pipe dream, though.
It's no secret that innovation in the low-end of the market is high on the priority of manufacturers.
Because everyone wants to compete in the booming low-margin Blackberry/Nokia feature phone market?
I just assumed that they were lumping corporate losses and corporate store profits to make the overall loss look smaller.
This is also assuming that their corporate stores are actually profitable if examined separately from the company as a whole. I don't know if that's actually true or not.
Read their Edgar 10-Q filings: it's not true; the stores are unprofitable when examined on their own, but it is the operational costs of the store vs. the operational profits which counts as ROI on the investment, whether it be operating capitol, inventory, relative cost of flooring, opportunity cost relative to putting the capital to use elsewhere, channel aging, which makes closing them desirable to corporate.
My argument is that if there is a difference between the stores being closed and those being kept open, then it's a correctable difference for the stores being closed, or they might as well just follow Blockbuster into closure of all their corporate stores.
They do not appear to have anything in mind, other than a short term write-off on the closure costs vs. their taxes, and a reduction in operating expenses, and whatever they get from sale of the real estate under the stores being closed. In other words, this is a short term pump for the stock prior to a dump before it goes in the crapper over the long term. Blockbuster did this a couple of times as a leadup to the closure of the rest of their corporate stores.
Ironically, it's pretty clear that Radio Shack is salvageable, just as Blockbuster was, at one point, salvageable.
The other company currently in this crapper is Staples, and I could see some fundamental process model changes that might save them as well, but I'd be a hell of a lot less confident of my own ability to do the necessary work than either the Blockbuster or Radio Shack cases. Staples is probably a long shot, even if they get someone competent at business process engineering in charge, and give her or him carte blanche to try and fix things.
Of course there is. Just to do a completely extreme example: If gas was taxed so it got priced at $1000/gallon, people would hardly drive at all.
I think it would probably be cheaper, economically, to assassinate the people taxing it up to $1000/gallon than it would be to not drive. Just saying, when a gallon of gas can hire a relatively competent hitman, and all subsequent gallons of gas would be cheaper as a result, someone's going to pull out their siphon hose and get themselves a cheap hitman.
"Authenticated" copies of legal documents (and a will and death certificate are legal documents) are considered to have the same... how we say in english? Legal Power?
Send them by snail mail (together with any legal document copy that states you have right over the matter), with proof of delivery (so you can prove they received it).and they *SHOULD* grant you the access you requested - otherwise, they're stalling you and are subject to legal penalties.
Of course, this is applicable to "normal", "real life" things. By some reason, people things that anything "virtual" is beyond the present legislation - even when present legislation money and contracts are involved. Go figure it out.
Right, and at the moment the will isn't authenticated (that's the 'expensive' step involving the court that the family is complaining about). It's not always strictly necessary to do it, but in certain cases like this (or a locked safe, or a family that is challenging the will etc) it is required. That is all Apple is asking for here along with certification that the iPad involved did belong to the dead person.
Now assume that I inherit my father's estate and I add a stolen safe into the
possessions, also made by SafeCo. What happens if they unlock that for me
without a court order?
If it's a stolen safe, it's not yours. (I assume it's not your late father's since if you inherit it it would be yours). So it's registered with someone other than you or your late father's. So SafeCo don't need a court order to know not to unlock it.
Now assume that you inherit your father's estate and one of those possessions is an ipad, made by Apple. Now it's up to Apple to unlock your ipad, since they have your father's details on file, so you have a right to it.
No need for a court order either way, just common sense.
This is exactly what Apple are asking for is this case - proof of ownership, and the standard legal verification of the will. Like I said in other threads, this is a pretty standard part of UK law involving wills and the transfer of property. It's just making waves because it's Apple and the first "edge case" to make news since they made their Apple ID reset procedure much more secure.
1. I don;t know anything about the case you speak of
2. Providing a death certificate and a will is more than proof needed in this case. There was no one to be protected.
2) No it isn't. A court needs to validate the will, which is what is being asked for here. A will can be acted on with a simple executor in most cases, but in areas where third parties get involved (unlocking safes, transferring assets between banks, etc) the will is required to be officially ruled on by the court to ensure that a) it is the only will that will be legally in effect (in case the woman wrote more than one), and that b) she is the actual owner of the iPad and it's not a stolen one that they're trying to pass off as hers.
I remember this, too, and it made an impression on me. I still use PowerPoint (or Prezi, or whatever) but spend a lot of time making sure the deck helps me deliver my message, instead of me just narrating whatever's on the screen. Typically I try to use fewer than 10 slides per hour and no more than two or three bullets per slide.
PPT can be a great tool when used correctly. Hardly anyone does, though. At least where I work.