Don't be delusional. What you describe is the exception, not the norm. http://www.fidelity.com/inside...
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Small "n" national, dimwit. If he meant to say what you're accusing of him of saying, he would have put "Nazi" instead, which very obviously doesn't fit in the context.
"will be" dumped back into real estate? Dude, that's been happening for years... Berkshire Hathaway (you know, Warren Buffett, the 4th richest guy on the planet) created an entire division JUST for getting in on single family houses. http://www.berkshirehathawayhs...
I'm quite certain that, if the risk were more easily manageable at scale, he'd make true on his desire to buy up 100,000+ single family homes: http://www.cnbc.com/id/4653842...
But, over and above that, every time you treat the police like the enemy, some people in the police will treat you like the enemy too.
It's pretty much the other way around already.
in order for a police order to be enforceable, it must be a lawful order. A cop cannot order you to stop filming them performing their public duties, because doing so has already been established to be an individual right. It's practically identical to how a police officer cannot order you to answer their questions while you are being detained. They can lie to you about it (whole other argument there), but you do not have to speak at all during questioning. The only exception I know of is identifying yourself when ordered - but if you fail to identify yourself in a jurisdiction that requires it, you don't get arrested for refusing to obey a lawful order - you're arrested for failing to identify, a specifically and highly limited exemption to the 5th Amendment. If a cop arrests you for filming after he tells you to stop, consider yourself lucky - you were just handed a decent payday.
Now, it's not OK to shove a camera in his face, mind you - stay 50 feet away if you can (unless you're the subject of the original police action and are filming for your own safety) so they can't claim that they felt threatened or that it was a matter of the blanket excuse of "officer safety". As long as a reasonable person in the same situation would not feel their safety was threatened by your filming, then you're good to go.
oh, and IANAL.
yes, they would. keyloggers don't care how old your password is, nor does social engineering.
...that's what we call "no true Scotsman"
not entirely sure what you're saying, but AT&T actually (partially) rolled out first, because they already had the infrastructure in place (but it wasn't turned up to capacity).
Have you seen what has happened because of the Google Fiber rollout? Here in Austin, you have AT&T scrambling to match the offer after the mere ANNOUNCEMENT by Google that they intended to offer service, and now there's a local ISP called Grande doing the same (although they already had a few fiber rings around the city to service their business customers, so their entry into the fight was a simple choice). That's right, with nothing other than a statement of intent, we have a virtual land race for uncapped near-gigabit internet for under $80 a month. If that's not competitive economics at work, I don't know what is.
if only you were the first post, we could have avoided a hundred others and a lot of useless debate!
go quicker next time
but, damnit, where will my Quarter Pounder come from if they stop making more due to lack of feed?
wait... Quarter Pounders do come from livestock, right?
at the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, you did cite an Arizona State study, so I must, out of principle, ignore your entire post altogether.
well, Marx did say that Socialism was just the stepping stone on the path to Communism. (paraphrasing)
it's only anecdotal if you have cause to believe he's lying about the facts. He stated his numbers and timeframe, and that's data. It's not something wishy-washy like "since as long as I can remember, we've hardly ever had a failure", which would be anecdotal. Even if you want to stretch it to the point that you require that it be peer reviewed before *you* call it "data", it's still referred to as "data" to the reviewer. Anecdotal evidence is that which is unreliable or untrue due to its basis on opinion and not on facts.
that depends entirely on your geography. If, for instance, you try that in, say, Los Angeles... you're going to die horribly. Try it in a rural country road in England, and you'll be just fine.