It's the Dilbert Principal at work. Companies tend to promote their least-competent employees to management in order to limit the amount of damage they are capable of doing.
Heaven forbid vehicles that stress the road more should have to pay more to use said roads... You're argument applies the same as those that say it's unfair shifting away from a fuel-based tax.
The road still needs maintained, maybe even more so due to heavier vehicles. Why should those owners get to pay less of their share because they purchased a fuel efficient vehicle?
Don't worry. They already addressed this. From the article:
For those who use the GPS, the state and private vendors will destroy records of location and daily metered use after 30 days. The program also limits how the data can be aggregated and shared. Law enforcement, for example, won't be able to access the information unless a judge says it's needed.
See. Nothing to worry. No chance the government would abuse this. Besides, I'm sure it's just the metadata of your trips, not the actual details of the trip.
Not to mention make it so that it only is compatible with proprietary signals, has a new "standardized" connector that no one else uses or will use since it's encumbered by patents and licensing fees, and the only remote compatible with it is an Apple Watch.
Monster Cable's lawyers called. They'd like to have a word with you regarding their patented business process...
So remove the air from the fiber. Make it a vacuum. God do I have to think of everything?!?!
A number of businesses actually had accommodations for him - he would have simply had to ask, which is very much allowed under the ADA.
That's more or less my understanding of the law. A business doesn't HAVE to install a ramp, make doorways accessible, etc if they have always been that way prior to ADA becoming law.
If the business remodels or alters the front facade for instance, then that results in the need to bring things up to code/compliance or make alternate accommodations. A front door doesn't have to be made accessible if a side door can be made so at a cheaper price. A restaurant doesn't have to have braille menus if a waiter can read the menu. Etc.
Given that they're all probably not disabled, I'm wondering what grounds they have to sue in the first place.
I would imagine that most lawyers that file legitimate ADA lawsuits aren't disabled. They file them on behalf of someone who is. From the article:
Hansmeier registered the Disability Support Alliance in Minnesota in July 2014 and listed himself as the nonprofit's agent. Its members, all of whom live with a disability, include Wong, of Minneapolis, and three Marshall residents.
He's finding disabled people who get paid to complain, creating the "legitimacy" of the ADA complaint. According to the article, Minnesota in their infinite wisdom made it possible for a plaintiff to file criminal misdemeanor charges against someone for ADA violations with penalties up to 90 days in jail and up to a $1000 fine.
The goal should always be about accessibility to all, not making money through settlements because of inconvenience. Only the most egregious cases of non-compliance should result in any criminal charges, and even then it shouldn't be done on the behalf of the filing plaintiff.
Why does Apple feel the compulsion to plow money into an inferior map service?
Because Google is the competitor, plus they want full control over the experience. Is it a smart decision to rely on your competitor to provide a service to all your customers because you're too lazy and cheap to do it yourself? Whatever they paid for Coherent Navigation was less than couch change.