Dumb that cars that should be targeting a 15-20 year life span are larded up with the current flavor of the month that will be obsolete in a fraction of that. Wish it had WIFI so I could maintain the remote pre-heat functionality at home at least.
I agree. I had a Nissan Leaf on a lease and I liked the car, but life changes made me need to get to one car and with distant relatives I need to visit I couldn't really make the Leaf work for me as an only vehicle. My lease ended with 2G still working, but a co-worker recently had his modem replaced. I think there was some charge for labor for doing the work. The problem is that AT&T has done this kind of thing before and businesses go with it because it's cheap with no long term thought that AT&T might dump the service down the road. In the first half of the previous decade I had a job that for a while made me use a work provided cell phone ("mobile phone" for you non-Americans) and it was on some crappy non-GSM network. My company got a really good bargain on the phone service because AT&T was trying to drive business into this crappy network, but eventually AT&T gave up and closed it down. Only then did my company start letting us use our own phones and expense them. I'm sure Nissan simply saw the 2G as a cheap network that big ol' AT&T would probably support forever and nobody considered the problems that would be caused if they stopped supporting this old technology.
He's been in custody for over 6 months and is not a minor so why keep his name a secret?
This is the EU. He was arrested 6 months ago, but he may not actually be being held. I have no idea. Remember, in the EU (OK, the UK and maybe France are exceptions) the emphasis will be on figuring out why society failed him so that he turned to crime, not about making the point that what he did was a bad thing. I'll predict he'll at most get 2 years in the cushiest jail they can find and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he pays no fine and they don't even take his ill gotten gains from him. After all, he might feel bad if he was actually punished for his crime. Once he gets out of jail he can apply for the crime to be legally "forgotten" so he can work in the IT industry again and maybe do the same thing all over again. Publishing his name might make him feel bad. Can't do that.
Keep in mind that in most or all of the EU criminals have the right for nobody to ever find out that they were criminals but you can be jailed for years for saying certain things. No for doing things. Merely for saying things. Things that don't threaten anybody's safety or well being. Yep, those guys really have a good sense of justice and what's important over there.
I'm genuinely curious as to how it damages / inconveniences / hurts you to just call her a her?
That's not the reason. Some people object to calling humans with penises "she". That's the reason. But if you want play by a different rule, you can do so, madam.
Go to your card provider (Visa/MC/Discover/Amex) and tell them to remove the charge because the service was not rendered and/or the charge was improper.
Actually that was how things work. But I'm not so sure that this is how things are any more with credit card companies. And I speak from personal experience.
Things definitely did work that way in the past, but they changed after the "Great Recession". I never lost a dispute until the Great Recession happened. Short version - I bought 2 airline tickets on a small foreign carrier and through various circumstances could not make the trip. I called the carrier and asked for a credit against a future flight or a refund. They refused both. I protested the charge with my credit card company. I provided evidence that the tickets were never sold to me as non-refundable and non-changeable and I mean I had real evidence to back this up. I had an attorney friend check out my submission and he expected me to win. The airline never provided any evidence that the tickets they sold me, were in fact, non-refundable or non-changeable. At every step the airline simply refused to refund my money or allow any changes. After months of disputing this with the airline never, ever disproving my contentions my credit card company gave up and refused to eat the charge and refused to demand that the airline give them the money back. They just told me to work it out with the airline, which was impossible because the airline's position was that the tickets were non-refundable and non-changeable and if I and my (at the time) girlfriend couldn't make it, we were simply out of luck and out of money. So I can tell you that if AT&T fights back, your credit card company may just give in and refuse to help you, their customer. It's possible that this is a small enough amount of money that they may just do you a favor here, but the days of credit card companies having the backs of their customers are gone for sure for charges that are more than a mere pittance.
There is no reason to use tape aside from "retro hipsterism". (isn't that redundant?) Tape sucks on SO many levels. Anyone who thinks it doesn't isn't old enough to have had to live with tapes. I can see it being kind of novel to someone once or twice but the charm will wear off fast. Seriously, tape has some use cases but playing music shouldn't be one of them. We used it back in the day because there wasn't anything better available.
Yep. Back in the days before CDs, I only bought tapes if I had no choice - something went out of print on vinyl and was only available on tape. I've got a small number of old commercial cassettes sold by various music companies. These are real legitimate releases, not bootlegs. Some have long been completely unplayable. I've got a somewhat larger number of cassette tapes I made myself in that era. They all still work, although I rarely do anything with them. Commercial cassette quality was known to be awful. Maybe if you were lucky they used Dolby B noise reduction which helped the sound suck less, but on home cassette recorders you could use the superior Dolby C. And worse, manufacturers didn't always tell if they used Dolby B when they did, so all you could do was play the tape and try to figure out if it sounded better with it on or off. Vinyl had a lot of problems, mostly because the US industry used really cheap and low quality vinyl at the time, but cassettes were pretty much always crap. I have no idea why anybody would want to buy these by choice nor how a young person could even find a player. I've got a player I almost never use, but I bought it more than 20 years ago.
Like I said, one can fiddle with the numbers to swing the accounting a fair bit in one direction or the other. As you've demonstrated, if one makes optimistic assumptions about the age of the donor and maximizes the number of recipients by assuming a strict one-organ-per recipient (include just one lung at a time, and no multiple-organ transplants--bear in mind that the vast majority of pancreas transplants are actually pancreas-kidney, for example) and 100% organ recovery and transplantation, one can choose to make the math give you the result you're looking for.
It's very sticky if you want to score tissues that aren't necessarily lifesaving or for which artificial or animal alternative sources exist. (It's ethically problematic to suggest, for example, that more dead motorcyclists are a good thing because it will improve the supply of cadaveric ACL replacements, especially given that many patients could instead receive an autograft of their own tissue.)
It doesn't help that you're neglecting the last and most important part of my comment acknowledging that a very substantial fraction of potential organs won't be converted into actual transplants: helmetless motorcyclists who die too far from care or too quickly for their organs to be recovered; ones who have communicable diseases, malignancies, or other medical conditions that exclude them from donation; and so forth. (Going forward, helmet laws will only be suspended if you're over 40, free of hepatitis and HIV infection, have recently been screened for cancer, and are biking in an area with excellent ambulance service within 1 hour of a major transplant center. Hmmm...) Each dead motorcyclist is only "worth" 60 years multiplied by the fraction of viable organ recoveries--which probably comes out to well under 50%.
Finally, we're using "accounting" in a couple of different ways, here. I was using it purely to refer to life-years saved or lost. If we actually want to look at dollars and cents, it gets really ugly really fast. In the United States, the total billable costs for a heart transplant (including 30 days of pre-operative screening and prep, organ procurement, the transplant operation itself, and the subsequent 6-month period of recovery and rehab) comes out to about a million bucks. A single lung or a liver transplant are both well over half a million apiece. Kidneys are well clear of the quarter million mark.
From a purely financial perspective, it's waaaaay less costly to just let the motorcyclist survive and the potential transplant recipients die in a few months or a year, rather than let them be brutally expensive surgeries with steep and ongoing maintenance costs. Amortizing that heart transplant over the likely life of the recipient (or the transplanted organ) runs a hundred grand plus per year. Oh, and don't forget the cost of care and rehab for all those brain-damaged motorcyclists who don't manage to actually die from their head injuries....
ransomware purporting to be a FBI message a notice that suspicious files were found and the user has been fined.
That people believe such "warnings" in large enough numbers to make it worthwhile for the crooks to make them, is a sign, that FBI has an image problem.
I disagree. It's really a people problem, such as people not understanding technology very well. I know a guy who is a blue collar worker and he can barely use a PC enough to read and send email and surf the web. He has admitted to me that he's clicked on one of those "We've found a virus on your PC. Click here to pay for our scanning program to save your PC!" popups and sent money to those people. People often don't understand the technology well enough to know what's real and what isn't and they're often too embarrassed to ask for help from people who do understand. This same guy if he ever has a PC problem, it's a bad, time consuming one to fix. I've had to tell him he's got to go to Geek Squad for this kind of thing. I have a better friend who is a middle school teacher and he's not much better with PCs. He doesn't know how to save any file to a location other than the default location that comes up. There are lots of people who just don't get technology very well.
You won't need it. This is a classic nuisance suit. I watched a lawsuit much like this in court once. A driver of a bobcat wasnt wearing his seatbelt when he lifted a load too high digging out a house foundation, and it fell into the foundation and he was crushed. He got absolutely nowhere.
This is probably true. But there is some chance you'll be wrong, even if a small one. I'm not a lawyer, but my best friend is and over the years he's taught me a lot about how the US legal system really works. Literally anything can happen in court. I agree that probably this case will go nowhere, but it depends on the judge and their personal biases and how stupid the jury is that gets the case. Believe me, the people suing are going to want a jury to hear this one. For example, a judge may think this is stupid but also feel that a jury, not him, needs to make that determination. Or you could have a crackpot judge who completely buys the argument that Apple is at fault here and it also goes to a jury. If you've ever served on a jury, you'll know that juries are not made up of the best and brightest of us. I've served twice and the last time I served, one day while we were waiting in the jury room for court to start, 3 guys on the jury got into an argument where they tried to top each other by each one of them offering proof that he was far stupider in dealing with new technology than the other 2 were. These are exactly the kind of people who serve on juries. And people who try to "win" an argument that they are stupider than everybody else are the kind of people who might be swayed by the arguments of the people suing.
By the way, you mentioned (but I didn't quote it) fear of the litigants having to pay Apple's court costs. That's almost impossible. Judges and lawyers both think that the US legal system is perfect as it is and doesn't need fixing and as a result judges are extremely hesitant to award legal costs even for frivolous lawsuits. Judges and lawyers believe that awarding such costs will lessen the number of lawsuits, which they universally feel is very bad indeed for them. Fewer lawsuits means fewer lawyers, which means fewer judges. Legal costs are awarded only in very egregious cases to send a message and most likely this case won't be one of them.
I've said for years that helmet laws probably costs lives.
Maybe, but not necessarily. It depends a lot on your accounting. A 20-year-old dumbass male might expect to have around 60 years ahead of him, most of which will be time spent in good health.
His kidneys will probably last about 10 years in each of their recipients, so count 20 years "saved" total.
The median survival time for heart transplant recipients is also about 10 years.
Liver transplants tend to do particularly well; the median survival is closer to 20 years.
Lungs are a lot pickier; the median is closer to 5 years, but is steadily improving.
Add that all up, and we're just shy of breaking even (55 life-years for the recipients, versus 60 life-years lost by the motorcyclist). On can fiddle with the parameters to swing things a bit either way. In some cases, the liver can be split into two lobes; the larger right lobe goes to an adult and the smaller left lobe to a child recipient. Some recipients only need a single-lung transplant, so one pair of lungs can go to two recipients. And we're getting better at keeping transplanted organs functional for longer. And, of course, some dead motorcyclists are 40-year-olds having a mid-life crisis.
On the flip side, some recipients may need multiple organs (heart-lung, heart-liver, etc.).
More important, not all organs will be viable--not every helmet-less fatality leads to a full complement of usable donor organs. For reasons of underlying disease or quirks of the donor's physiology, it may not be possible to transplant some organs. The fatal motorcycle accident may damage some other organs beyond repair. The accident may even occur in a location or under circumstances where none of the organs can be recovered for donation. That is going to tip the scales a long way against the "benefit" of more brain-dead motorcyclists.
Frankly, we have more than enough cadavers now; what we need is for more of them to donate their organs. Presumed consent (an opt-out rather than opt-in) system would be far more effective than suspending helmet laws.
Actually Uber's argument is that their technology is not really fully autonomous and it's more like Tesla calling their system auto pilot.
So if you have Teslas driving on california why can't you have Ubers'?
Aside from the point that you seem to be conflating production vehicles with test rigs, how about the fact that Tesla went and got their $150/year permit in CA?
The following companies have their CA permits. Only Uber is being an uber douchebag about it.
Yes. While there are a very small number of companies listed that I've never heard of, I can understand why the rest of them would be interested in testing autonomous vehicles. This whole fight by Uber against California makes no sense. Uber's business model relies on them pushing costs for car ownership, insurance, maintenance and yearly fees to their drivers. I've not yet seen anybody suggest a good reason why owning autonomous vehicles makes any sense for Uber. I have to ask if this whole idea really makes any sense for Uber. Is it just some crazy idea by an out of touch ans possibly incompetent management that thinks it will somehow lead to greater profits?
I am NOMAD!