Nobody else would get away with breaking the law because they were following orders. You try telling that story in court when you run somebody over because your boss wants every email replied to within five minutes and they'll put you behind bars in an instant. If you want to make this sting upwards in the system, do that. But don't pretend he shouldn't be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Tom Lehrer, is that you?
quoting the report:
"a person s negligent if he does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do somethign that a reasonably careful person would do in the asme situation".
"to establish the crime of vehicular manslaughter, the People would be required to prove that Wood's encroachment into the bicycle lane, nuder the circumstances, was negligent."
"the fact that Wood did not apply his brakes or swerve to avoid the collision indicates that he did not see or notice Olin until the moment of impact."
"Wood's entry of 'Yes I...' followed by '][\NOKKO' is also consisten with him utilizing his MDC at the time of collision"
"Based on all of these circumstances, the People cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wood's momentary distraction in the perfomance of his duties constituted a failure to use reasonable care"
So... he was negligent, he was negligent, he was neglegent. But in summary, he wasn't negligent. Either that or texting while driving isn't negligent. Which I'm pretty sure has gone onto the books in most states by now. If he felt he had to respond immedidately to a message with obvious indications of serious urgency (such as keywords like "bro") he should have done like the same advice he would have given anyone else while ticketing them for texting while driving, "next time, pull over and do your texting from the shoulder".
I also found this particularly insulting in the latter part of the report:
"It is significant to note that the driver in the vehicle directly behind Wood's patrol vehicle, Andrwe McCown, also failed to see Olin in the bicycle lane prior to the collision"
Look back at the witness accouns and see "something equally significant that we aren't going to mention again":
Ashley McCown was the passenger in that vehicle. (the one following Woods patrol car) She stated that she noticed Olin in the bicycle lane prior to the collision"
Of course the driver of the following car didn't see Olin, he doesn't have xray vision to look through the patrol car, his passenger is in the correct place to see around into the right bicycle lane. It look s like the person writing that report was making a number of stretches trying to justify not pressing charges?
Someone with more time on their hands needs to type up and post that report online in searchable format. I can't help but wonder if they deliberately put it up in image format to meet their legal requirements without making it easily quoteable and searchable...
Google has so far been completely lackadaisical about doing the legwork with business partners to enable their NFC payments system. What Google has to do is go on a stage with Visa and MasterCard, and talk about how every POS will be accepting Android NFC payments in 6 months, and we'll give a free phone to every merchant in America who can't afford to upgrade.
The business deals are necessary before the NFC hardware is useful. Just because Android phones have an antenna and a chip, it doesn't mean that everyone will be drawn by the gravitational force of Market Share to support Android. What they want is a payments platform, and the hardware is only a small part of a platform -- the important, big parts, are the business deals with credit card companies and bank networks. And Google's general attitude with this sort of thing has been "we'll work with banks but we get to define all the terms of the deal," and if banks don't work with us we'll just use include them without their permission anyways.
This is typical of Google's approach in a myriad of business sectors: they design an open system, but design the business model in such a way that they receive a lions share of the benefit, and then they accuse anyone who doesn't work with them of "stifling openness."
All those companies won.
Dell and Gateway were founded after Apple, Apple saw them born and buried them. If you bough $10,000 of Apple stock in 1990 you'd be a millionaire today; if you'd put it on Gateway 2000...
I mean, that they won once is interesting, but what's changed that keeps them from winning? Many steam engine companies are out of business, so why does Apple, a putative "steam engine company," make so much money? Are computers really comparable to steam engines?
GE used to sell steam engines, GE hasn't gone out of business, why not?
Maybe we could say that laptops and mobiles have replaced desktops in the way that internal combustion replaced steam. Fine, but Apple thrives in those businesses as well.
Apple best smartphone? Because it sells most? Does it? So Justin Bieber is one of the best musicians then?
Ironically, Justin Bieber is merely the cutting edge of sort of meme-generated, metric-driven and ad-supported celebrity Google and YouTube have enabled and profit handsomely from. Justin Bieber is the sort of musician you get when people don't pay for music, and "sells most" is merely one trivial statistic. What matters for musicians now is their Brand Reach, their impact, their ability to steer demographic groups to ads and products; music is a component, but only insofar as it helps create the aura of "celebrity" necessary to create the brand.
And in the same way, Google doesn't care if Android handsets are profitable, if the apps are profitable, or even if the users particularly prefer them, considering they're usually getting them for free. All they care about is moving units, getting activations, getting the ads in your face, and getting the use metrics back to their dataset. Being "good" at anything is a secondary consideration.
The real problem is the lack of standards. Japan has e-wallets, there is Google Wallet and now it looks like there will be a third and incompatible Apple wallet.
There are standards. Japan is its own world, but the Google Wallet and ISIS (a consortium of mobile network operators and banks who created the ISIS wallet -- yes they're looking for a new name) relies on standard EMV payment protocols -- slightly modified by the US Visa, MC, AMEX and Discover organizations, but not incompatibly so. Apple will follow the EMV standards as well, or they'll get nowhere, because retailers are a slow-moving, cost-conscious group.
Visa and MasterCard announced two years ago that they'll implement the "liability shift" the end of 2015, which means that from 2016 onward 100% of fraud will be charged to whichever entity in the chain (merchant, merchant acquirer, clearing house, issuer) does not have the EMV smart chip technology implemented. Since merchants get stuck with 98% of fraud, and other links in the chain are moving slowly, this will provide a huge incentive for merchants to install EMV-capable point of sale terminals. That doesn't require them to deploy NFC-capable terminals, but they will, and many of them are.
Not even Apple is capable of creating an entirely new payment ecosystem. They'll play ball with the banks and card associations, or they'll go nowhere.
I haven't found one.
Ah, you have no sense of humor. That explains a great deal.
The more niche your work are the easier it is to get traction because no one else will bother to cater to that niche.
Traction, yes. Broad attention, no.
Both are garbage, and neither are science.
That the humanities are not science is obvious. To say that the social sciences are not science is crazy, and to say that they both are "garbage" is the bad kind of weird. Admittedly, it does help explain why you think Thunderf00t is rational.
Science limits itself to dealing with only things that are falsifiable and testable. This is precisely why science is so successful and reliable, because it limits itself to things that it can succeed at. However, some things that are important for humans to understand do not currently satisfy one or both of these criteria. For that, other methodologies are required.
Art is important. History is important. Music is important. Literature is important. Morality is important. Languages are important. The law is important. These things cannot be analysed with the same tools that you would use to analyse an atom, or a cell, or a galaxy, but they must be analysed nonetheless.
Ah nevermind, I got it. It's not terribly obvious though...
Look, I'm not picky or anything, and I know headlines are shortened, but what the hell does " Apple Said To Team With Visa, MasterCard On iPhone Wallet" mean?