Not only does v3 not require an API key, as of Sept 28 (a couple days before the rate limiting went into effect) sending a v2 API key to v3 will cause the request to fail:
I am confused about this too. It seems like 99% of sites using maps would be doing it client side in which case the cost change wouldn't be a big deal, but maybe I am missing something.
They are talking about client-side APIs, but the limits are not per client IP address. They can look at the referer header to see what site embedded the map.
Google blocks you from seeing referred search terms and you flip it around so they can't see what server the requests on their API are coming from. Seems kind of fair, right?
So you think that the Geocoding API will work via IP limits as described in the link I provided, but regular Maps API calls will be subject to domain limits?
IE is worth a lot to Microsoft because of Bing. Google pays Mozilla for Google search being on the toolbar. Chrome is Google. IE is the only browser that would have Bing be the default search engine. That's worth a good amount of money to them - I can't seem them throwing up the white flag.
They could easily release a WebKit-based browser with Bing search built in and call it MSIE, solving both your/Microsoft’s and schammy’s problems.
(Edit: This is obvious to industry observers and has been “requested” by frustrated devs for years. But Microsoft won’t do it. Pride, probably, is the biggest reason.)
They could bake in Trident (IE’s rendering engine) and allow intranet administrators /IT to declare intranets render in IE7/8/9 mode. They already do something similar with their browsers, and IETab for Firefox essentially does this.
Is Bing really a big source of revenue for them though? I thought something like 90% of their profit was Windows and Office.
Either way, good point in terms of promoting their own search engine, but unless it's a significant source of profit then again I say, what is the point?
That's not at all true. Social Security's issues are massively exaggerated by certain groups. The real problems with regards to our "entitlements" is in Medicare. Unless the price of healthcare can be kept under wraps its going to be a nightmare. But there's too many people out there with a lot of money that don't want to see that problem dealt with.
Suggest you google "Is Social Security Bankrupt" and review the governments own projections. SS receipts are at parity or below obligations. It is, therefore, bankrupt and only maintained by the federal governments ability to run infinite* deficits.
(*) Infinite, that is, until the Chinese and other foreign nations stop purchasing our debt.
The Social Security trust fund has begun selling off it's very large supply of government bonds. This is exactly why the trust fund accumulated these assets. If a person or private pension fund accumulated a large supply of bonds in order to meet their obligations, it would be very odd to describe them as "bankrupt". Indeed, if I had enough bonds and income to meet my obligations for decades to come, I might well describe myself as being in possession of "fuck you money"
Going forward, in general, the Federal Government will not be able to rely on the Social Security Trust fund purchasing the bonds it issues. It can cut spending, raise taxes, or find other buyers who want to purchase bonds.
There is no particular reason to be concerned about the ability of the Social Security system, for years to come, to support it's obligations to the workers who have paid into the system. Unless, of course, you fear that wealthy elites will manufacture a bogus social security "crisis" to dispossess the savings of workers and continue to enjoy (federal spending/tax cuts) that can not otherwise be sustained.
It's an interesting question. I imagine a lot of it has to do with our current world view. I think a lot of people have a tacit understanding of how fragile it is.
The psychedelics for example aren't illegal because of any harmful physical effects - they're some of the safest drugs we know of, physically. They're illegal because of the world dissolving experience you might have on one. For a people like us who have built up an elaborately abstract way of viewing our world, this is quite threatening.
I think it can also speak about why something like marijuana is still illegal yet caffeine is a daily sacrament for us - one makes you go even faster and work even more, the other makes you fairly uninterested in such things.
Something like this is quite dangerous outside the question of sight I think. Someone with these implants will now have eyes that simply don't look right to others. Many people might either consciously or unconsciously look at these people as somewhat other than human, as some type of machine in some ways. The eyes are likely the most important physical feature a person has toward developing a sense of social communication. Perhaps implant recipients will end up wearing sunglasses at most times like the blind.
I think it's important to remember not to make free will vs determinism a binary argument. As I look at it, the truth is both and neither.
For various reasons certain people will be influenced and coerced down the path of least resistance by their environment more so than others. Free will is essentially something you must claim for yourself (of course I mean relatively, no one can ever be <i>fully</i> in control of the developments of their life).
Python, Django, Javascript, Backbone, HTML/CSS
Have been working on Gigsmash (https://www.gigsmash.com) for about a year. Haven't gotten a lot of traction on that yet, so also looking to freelance.
These pages would probably be best to check out as examples, since most search locations on site don't have much data yet.
https://www.gigsmash.com/vt/burlington https://www.gigsmash.com/vt/burlington/map