Ah, the efficient use of government resources trumps justice. Must be a first!
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
This -- in a small organization the CEO reads their email and forwards to the appropriate people. In a large organization the CEO has a team of people that help them with this. Either way, it is likely to get top down (rather than bubble up) attention.
Along the same lines, it doesn't seem difficult to take control of the system while it's actively driving. It's not hard to disengage cruise controls or stop a car using Park Assist or Lane Assist from turning into something not seen by the sensor system. Why is it hard for me to grab the wheel from the "hands" of the auto-pilot in the Google car?
Here's the best example I can think of -- let's say you are the understudy for a radio actor with narcolepsy. You both have the script, you the understudy are following along word for word as the actor is performing. Suddenly the actor falls asleep and the words stop. How many seconds pass before you pick up where he left off? You are as aware and able as you can possibly be without actually anticipating something you can't anticipate, and I believe it would still take me a few seconds to switch myself from simply paying attention to audibly reading words.
Second scenario is the same except that you are both in sound booths reading the words and the actor is the only one with a hot mic. I believe it would be faster for me to be reading aloud with the actor and trigger my mic to go live at the necessary time -- however in doing so I am saving no effort over doing all the reading myself in the first place, so the application to automated vehicles is somewhat limited.
So what you're saying is that when describing the democrats in office from the 1950s onward, when these franchise laws were made, the term democrats is consistent with today's usage? What a twist!
Well, actually it had an uninterrupted string of Democratic governors from 1872 to 1999.
But surely the goggles do something.
United States is shown as:
VIOLATIONS OF USER RIGHTS 12/40
FREEDOM ON THE NET 17/100
OBSTACLES TO ACCESS 4/25
LIMITS ON CONTENT 1/35
But they don't say what these things are and which ones are violated. Without the context and citations the results are meaningless -- I could create the same thing in Paint.
When asking a detailed question about your employer, try not to include enough information that you can actually identify the company with a pretty good degree of confidence. If they find out who you are you might get a good rheeming out.
So maybe someone can explain this to me because I don't entirely get it.
Right now Level 3 doesn't pay Verizon any additional money for the data being sent its way (yes, requested by Verizon customers, but transport is usually paid by the shipper -- when I order a physical product I pay for shipping to the vendor, who pays the transporter).
The reason Level 3 doesn't pay any more is because they are using settlement-free links established to provide basic bi-directional communication between the two networks. Because of the way they are using them, these links (which are set up to provide balanced access) are saturated in one direction while only 30-60% utilized in the other direction.
The point made by both companies is that fixing the congestion is a simple matter of hooking up a couple ports (which would increase the utilization of Verizon's network).
Level 3 wants Verizon to agree to expand the settlement free ports to allow for the imbalance of traffic. Verizon says "our settlement free ports are sufficient for normal traffic, and if you want to avoid congestion for the additional traffic you are charging Netflix to carry then you're going to need to purchase additional ports and pay for that traffic."
Neither wants to budge and so they fight a PR war about it. Level 3 says "It's just a couple ports and a little cable" while disregarding the downstream impact on Verizon's network. Verizon says "Level 3 is taking undue advantage of our mutually beneficial arrangement and wants us to help them do it for free."
Is this accurate?
Do a little checking -- TW Telecom (TWTC) is a completely separate, publicly traded company from Time Warner Cable (TWC) which is a completely separate (though historically linked) company from Time Warner Inc. (TWX).
Agreed -- any citizen should be able to vote in any publicly funded election. If political parties want to organize their own private elections to determine who they will have run in a public election, then they are free to do so and limit voting to whomever they please. But if my tax dollars are paying for it, I want to be able to vote in it.
No they aren't you dimwit, your magazine is in your rifle and loaded by your clips. Magazines have springs. Clips do not.
Time Warner Cable already offers 2MBps service for $14.99 across its footprint.
It isn't hard to find, it's right next to all the other speed options on their web site.
Customers can buy their own modem from Best Buy or wherever or they can lease a TWC modem for $6 a month.
I have a feeling that most customers who need a $9.99 or $14.99 internet plan probably aren't going to front $300 for Google Fiber to be installed, or even own the place they would be paying for it to be installed in.
Could someone subpoena their data, if say they were charged with crime? Or as part of a civil suit? I would think not since they really aren't a part of the issue unless perhaps the cops used the data to locate someone or in an investigation, in which case this layman's view is the accused would have a right to see the data and challenge its use.
Yes, if it was relied on as evidence in court. However, it wouldn't be -- see "parallel construction."
Police, having determined something via illegal or inadmissible methods, use that information to know exactly where to look to back into an admissible method. It's the second one that gets introduced in court, the first tactic never sees the light of day (or public inquiry).