netfire

United isn't the first US airline to do this. I believe Spirit, Allegient and Frontier all charge for carry-on luggage -- but you can get flights for $20-40 one way, if you buy direct. You get what you pay for though...

This is just not true. Both Trump and Clinton had some of the most unfavorable ratings of a presidential candidate for a major party in recent history.

"will likely" vs "will"

The title is a little misleading. The screenshot shows that Google is showing that "prices will likely increase" which is different than the "fares will increase" in the title. "fares might increase" would be more appropriate here.

I think there is a big difference between working completely remote vs working an hour or two a day remote. Some companies provide flexibility to work remotely when a person is sick or has to be home to get a package or be there for a repair, but still want people in the office most of the time to be available for in-person collaboration.

I'm wondering if it will continue to decrease as demand decreases. If the amount was eventually lowered to go up by something like $5, it might be sustainable for quite a while...

This just isn't true. Small businesses can't afford to hire accountants and set up and manage global offices and tax codes. That means small companies are disproportionately taxed for their profits.

In addition, isn't the whole point of corporate taxes to provide money to the country in which that business is making a profit? We may live in a global economy, but we don't all live in a single country. Businesses should be taxed appropriately for their revenues in a country or not be taxed at all. Saying that it's okay to avoid paying taxes because you can afford to move money offshore is hardly a level playing field and gives money to countries based on their advantageous tax codes, not to the profits achieved in that country.

It's relevant because companies that are not multi-national can't afford to engage in these sort of tax reducing practices. If you want to get rid of corporate taxes altogether, that would be different, but suggesting that it's okay for Facebook to pay less than other companies because their employees pay income tax doesn't make sense. The tax code should provide a level playing field for all companies. You shouldn't get a break just because you can afford to move money around the globe.

Couldn't Colorado just use the additional tax income for more long-term projects (building new schools or upgrading existing ones, for example) or products that could enhance education in schools (more computers, tablets, textbooks, etc), that wouldn't require an ongoing commitment of funds every year?

It would be interesting to see a cost breakdown of the police, EMT and fire department labor, transit and equipment costs too see the potential savings (or lack thereof). Given that the SFFD is only responding 1.5% of the time to fire-related incidents, you could probably reduce the number of fire department stations, trucks and employees considerably if they only responded to fire-related emergencies.

You've got to draw the line somewhere. There's always situations where having more people/resources would have made the difference between life and death. In an ideal world, you've have a fire station on every block, dedicated traffic lanes just for emergency vehicles and you'd use a helicopter to get someone to the hospital as quickly as possible when it might be slightly quicker than regular ambulance transit.

It just not reasonable to use that many resources in 1 in a million scenarios like you are mentioning (where a 1-2 police officers and 2 EMTs couldn't handle the situation, the person calling couldn't provide enough information to determine whether fire fighters were needed and making it to the hospital 5 minutes sooner would have made a significant difference in the outcome of the victim)

Per the article, only 1.5% of the incidents the SFFD responded to involved fires and they had a budget of 330 million dollars. How much money could be saved by using police and EMTs in those situations? (and used in more effective programs that are actually going to help the homeless get off the street).

The EMTs aren't going to sit around, they are going to be performing first aid and calling the fire station for additional assistance. Do we really need to incur such additional cost on the odd chance that first responders will need to carry someone the weight of a sumo wrestler down stairs and that whoever is calling 911 won't be able to give them a physical description of the victim.

Yes, it makes sense to have firefighters with better equipment/muscle power present in those cases (the smashed car is also a potential fire hazard).

Those seem like more edge cases (most people don't weigh 600 lbs and most car accidents are minor collisions with little to no fire danger). That doesn't justify the extra expense of using them in other situations like the ones mentioned in the article which could easily be handled by police and EMTs.

Right. I'd definitely share the video feeds not only with the 911 dispatchers, but with local fire, police and EMT workers, so everyone is on the same page and could provide additional insight from their knowledge of the area and/or specific people.

Why use firefighters at all in situations where there isn't the potential for a fire to happen? It seems like police and any needed EMT workers could handle the situation without needing bigger fire trucks that are more expensive to run and more disruptive to traffic. I'd think the police would also be closer to respond to such situations as they may already be on the street or in a nearby police vehicle.

Agreed, that's what I would choose as well, but would the people that are already homeless make that decision as well?

It seems like part of getting someone off the street is building a support system to help them stay on the path to recovery. If you establish that system in the bay area (maybe with local friends, family, social workers, etc) and then ship that person out of the city or state, what are the chances that they will return to homelessness when things get tough?

You obviously need to address the core issues of homelessness first. But then what? Once someone has marketable skills, mental health treatment and is in a better condition to contribute to society, do you ask them to leave the city because there isn't anywhere they can afford to live?

Unaffordable housing may not be the reason someone is on the street, but its definitely a problem on the path away from that situation.

Requiring a picture seems like a little much, but having the option of some sort of video chat for 911 calls (maybe like Facetime with a cellular audio call fallback) seems like it could provide a number of benefits, both in eliminating false alarms, and giving first responders more situational information that would help them respond appropriately.

Taking it a step further (in the tech can solve anything world), it might be interesting if emergency responders could send some sort of push notification to people inside a certain geofenced area and ask them to provide a live video feed of the situation as well.

"By the end of this year 500 new single-occupancy units will be built and existing homeless resources will be expanded."

Are these units temporary housing for people on the street? What does the path away from homelessness look like in the bay area, with real estate costs and rent as high as they are?

Its hard to see how someone living on the street is going to be able to afford $1,000+ rent just for a studio apartment on whatever employment they can get coming off the street.

Yeah, perhaps a better solution might be to have the federal or state government impose fines on local city governments for incidents where citizens' constitutional rights are infringed. I'm not as interested in personal compensation for the injury as I am making sure that cities and police can't violate citizen's rights without consequences that ensure that the activity isn't repeated.

The fact that this city was collecting 61% of their annual revenue through regular police stops (many of which seem to be unconstitutional) is alarming. There has to be a better solution than to just appeal or sue for compensatory damages, which in most cases, will have little to no affect on the city. Even the $30K damages in this case seems small compared to the more than $1 million they collected in 2006 alone.

It seems like they should be subject to substantial fines, if not jail time for the officers or judges that are involved in these stops and cases. It just seems wrong that a city can arrest and jail someone for almost a month for not paying a $1,580 fine, but no one in the city government gets jail time for violating the constitutional rights of thousands of citizens, while making millions from their disregard of the law.

True, but I believe such stops have to be for every car passing through a checkpoint or some other non-discriminatory 'random' way (every 4th car, for example).

The stop in question here was clearly unconstitutional, as the appellate court held in their decision for the defendant. Other non-DUI style checkpoint stops without reasonable suspicion of a crime would similarly be unconstitutional.

Can you sue someone simply for the violation of your constitutional rights? In this case, the defendant had to pay fines, was a victim of false arrest, spent 25 days in jail and changed jobs to avoid driving through the town.

What I'm asking is, if you hadn't suffered such injustices, and had just been pulled over and let go without a fine or charges, would you still have grounds to sue the city simply over the violation of your constitutional rights? (that is, just for the unlawful seizure under the 4th amendment) How much damages would be appropriate in such a situation?

“Godwin’s testimony shows a complete lack of knowledge of the restraints imposed upon police conduct by the U.S. Constitution and the laws and Constitution of the State of Louisiana.”

This. The 4th amendment protects against seizure (which a police stop constitutes) without reasonable suspicion of a crime. The problem is, unless you are fined, as the woman was in this case, and then appeal, what recourse do you have?

Is there some way to seek damages for the violation of your constitutional rights? (even if the inconvenience is minor) It seems like this problem would go away if the police department and city had to pay for their violations of the constitution instead of just forfeiting potential money from fines.

That is the video title on Youtube and is the goal of the project, but the video itself shows a 100K ARM cores machine, not a million.

Aren't they both official sites though, just of their respective versions? (although admittedly, Angular 2 is still in the Developer Preview stage)

Why isn't there a single domain for the angular project?

From what I can see there seems to be 2 main ones: angular.io (for angular 2) and angularjs.org (for angular 1.x) as well as angulardart.org and other sites for angular material design (material.angularjs.org) and angular firebase (firebase.com/docs/web/libraries/angular/). Why not have a single site (or at least a main domain with corresponding subdomains) with similar documentation and navigation?

In addition, searching for "angular" in Google provides no obvious distinction between the different sites. For a Google sponsored project, I would have expected better attention to the search meta-data to make the distinction clear.

Not true, unless the train is only hauling a single container (highly inefficient and impractical). Once a truck is loaded, it can leave. A train may have thousands of containers to load before departing, and may have to wait for other rail traffic before leaving. A truck could be probably be loaded in under an hour. A train would probably still require that the items be loaded on a truck first (unless you have a warehouse on the rail line) and then transferred to a train. That's got to be multi-hour process for both loading and unloading.

I'm not suggesting they should. My alternate solution was a toll based system where the trucks would pay extra for roads that can withstand the extra weight.

You could just increase the weigh station fees, but then you'd have to make all the lanes be able to withstand the extra weight, and you wouldn't have the extra benefits of safety (a car doesn't stand a chance against a truck in an accident) and efficiency (trucks can't accelerate/decelerate as fast as cars, so they contribute more to traffic congestion).

I agree that rail seems ideal and much more economical and environmentally friendly, but is the system designed to handle consumer shipping with its demands for quick delivery with tight deadlines? (Which I'd argue constitutes a large portion of truck-based freight)

How much longer does it take to load/unload a freight train versus a truck? How much slower is the train and how longer does it take to ship? (and how does that affect cost or product quality when shipping items that must be refrigerated in transit?) Is it a realistic option for same-day or overnight shipping required for services like Amazon Prime in the volume that is currently being carried by trucks?

For items where delivery is not urgent, I'm all for using rail, but with expectations from consumers for quick delivery, its hard to see how they will be able to compete on the current system for rail-based freight.

An alternative (at least in the short-term), might be to create truck-only traffic lanes or highways with tolls and fewer exits. (and other lanes or highways just for cars) The lanes could be built to withstand the additional weight from the trucks, and non-truck traffic would run more efficiently and safely.

Unions seem like a good solution on the surface, but it seems like many unions quickly degrade into organizations focused more on self-preservation and expansion than looking after the interests and well-being of their members.

It seems like it also gets ugly, with unions not only striking for better pay and benefits, but also protesting and demeaning individuals and companies who aren't using union labor or putting in policies that work must be done by union workers that could easily be done by others at a much cheaper rate or with much less effort. ("Let's get a union electrician in here to run this extension cord")

I'd be more in favor of unions if it were done completely on a volunteer and donation basis, instead of with mandatory dues, paid leadership and policies that demonize those who choose not to join the union or people that choose not to use union labor.

An alternate solution would be to put laws in place that stops employers from preventing their employees from voicing concerns about policies and treatment publicly. (while still allowing employers to protect intellectual property rights) I'd argue that all these stories about the treatment of former Amazon employees will have more of an effect on Amazon, its hiring efforts and its policies than having a union threatening a strike would.