"They reported back that they had no complaints," Clark said at last week’s meeting. "I asked, ‘Why?’ They said because they weren't required to write them down."
There is a logical fallacy... The can't claim they have "had no complaints" they can say they "have no record of a complaint" but they can not say a complaint was not made. Even if it was resolved within a single call a Complaint was made (and then "resolved").
Go to the Colosseum and watching people battle to the death...[ OK ]
Cheering at a Bull Fight when the fighter kills the bull.. [ OK ]
Watching a boxing match where chair and ladders are acceptable.....[ OK ]
Watching a 24-hour of Marathon Bond / Die-hard Movies...[ OK ]
Play 2 Hours of Video Games....[ Go Ape-Shit ].
well since every conversation had to be with at least 1 other person de-duplication could reduce this to $100 per person... but then you need a backup... so your back to $200/person... Then don't forget government procurement markup of 600%.
The market is ready, Google is set to do it, only leaves disruption.
Once a few years of Google Fiber numbers come in, new businesses (read Copy Cats... (Read Pirates.... Read dirty thieves))) will leverage Google's business model as a "proven model" to secure loans from investors and will deploy similar solutions in other areas the country.
Once these startups hit a high enough percentage market share the big ISPs will have to compete (probably only in those areas) or buy out these smaller companies... Both have their headaches, buyouts require will gov't approval, and competing is a new concept to them.
Especially when you laid out your SC2000 city for SimCopter, strategically placing police/fire/hospitals all over the place (on a grid) to make sure you can rush people back to where they needed to go in no time.
Luckily, "Reasonable Efforts" is loosely defined. I mean I posted an ad on craigslist: "Found pile of plastic parts and trash, probably not worth anything, I do not respond to emails or phone calls, carrier pigeons only"
Totally agree, The fact that THIS sentence isn't a problem, is a problem: "The whole idea that law enforcement can search your mobile phone is based on the idea that they can search items in your possession"
"secure in their persons" I don't feel 'secure' in my person if they are allowed to search anything I have on my person. as said above, I think they need to be able to take steps to make sure they are safe, removing weapons from a suspect while they talk with them, or arrest them, but that doesn't open up the right to search anything in sight
Having your phone stolen vs the data you carry is a calculated risk each person would have to evaluate on their own, living in a more rural area, street crime is relatively low, the convenience outweighs the risk. However this is completely different than the issue of law enforcement breaching the 4th amendment, the topic of the article. I may have to live in fear from street criminal beating me up and stealing my phone... I Should not have to live in fear from the police doing it, they are suppose to be on my side.
Your right let me see what other useful features I can turn off just in case that sometime in the next two years (lifespan of a phone) the chance occurrence I actually get pulled over for a traffic stop and that officer happens to be a douche and searches the content of my mobile phone... OR we could just say what this is, an illegal breach of security in their persons, e-papers, and effects (read: phone). The ONLY search that should be allowed by the Constitution without a warrant is... wait the Constitution didn't allow for any.
An Aside: I do believe officers should be able to search suspects for their own safety (IE, remove knives, guns, weapons to ensure their and public safety at a scene... but unless the next Galaxy S IV comes with a built in Taser phone should be off the table.