Jill Stein lost the election before it started. By all means vote your conscious, but your choices aren't everyone on the ballot, but anyone who can win. Usually that's two candidates, but sometimes it's more.
You want to learn the facts and the truth, do your own research.
And research to back up that research, and so on and so forth. I have to go replicate a bunch of seminal physics experiments now so that I can believe E=mc^2
I have finite time, and frankly for most things, finite levels of giving a shit. I want a best opinion going forward. "Just research everything yourself" doesn't work as a philosophy.
There might be a super-duper secure, non-spyware version of Windows floating around in a Microsoft lab, but if no one gets to use it, it doesn't count.
I think there is a supersecure version of Windows, but reserved for government use. Although I think it's the same actual version of Windows with optional processes deactivated.
None claim to be altruistic (and DDG displays its owner's name somewhere.) They all claim not to track you. I know StartPage has 3rd party auditors, not sure about the others.
But disconnect.me asks for cash. StartPage shows ads tailored to your search but not you. I don't recall how DDG makes money, but the guy who started it is a serial entrepreneur who knows that to make any headway into search, even getting people to try his product, he needs an edge (like privacy.).
I know StartPage (probably the others as well) has an FAQ specifically dealing with "how do you make money and why should I trust you."
I get the difference. Candy Crush puts interstitial ads up when you take certain actions. Opera lets you schedule your ad anytime you want. But that means that the ad isn't incidental to using the product, you have to go out of your way to select it. Which means that Candy Crush feels like it has ads, whereas Opera feels like you have to opt into using it (and also see an ad.) Opera's way is definitely objectively better for the consumer, but can be spun in a worse way.
. Those of us outside the tinfoil community prefer to send Google our search terms as indicators of personal interest over paying the $150/month that the service costs to provide.
Or you could use DuckDuckGo.com, Startpage.com, or Disconnect.me for free. Note, none of those track you. Also, one of those wraps Google, another Bing and the third can produce better results sometimes.
And if it would cost $150 to provide, that means that they're making over $150 some other way. Which means higher costs to me somewhere down the line.
Google has a history of just releasing the exploit with regard to companies where Brin/Page aren't majorly invested (e.g. Microsoft), when they need extra time to finalize the fixes. One of them (I forget whcih) was on the apple board until the Android release made them competitors.
Uh, no. If she were to drop out now, the ballots couldn't be undone, but Tim Kaine, as the surviving member of the ticket, would become president if the Dems win
You are correct that there would not need to be a write-in candidate. However, until Dec. something (9th?) when the electors vote, there's no way of knowing who will win. It's possible that if Hillary asked electors not to vote for her, that someone like Biden may be selected to replace her. Now, after the electors vote, the slate is locked in.
You definitely don't, because the constitution is a set of restrictions on what the government is allowed to do to its citizens.
Sure, hence the government cannot discriminately advertise. In a related story, the government extended legal protection over advertisements with regards to jobs and housing.
But, yeah, I probably should have made that clearer in the response to the original poster who mentioned constitutional rights. Kinda wasn't thinking about the stupid semanticpart when I could address the meat of the moral issue.
Hollywood would be constantly violating [equal employment law] by only offering roles to actors that matched the race/sex of that role
Well, you are allowed to discriminate if its relevant to your ability to perform the job. For instance, a handicapped person could not sue under the ADA for a construction job (assuming they were incapable of doing it.)
Why not just make a law against advertising in general?
Because that would be an unconstitutional abridgment of your right to free speech. Targeted advertising, by definition, involves my right to privacy.
That's only true for a subset of encryption schemes - those where you cannot demonstrate that breaking new scheme X entails breaking proven scheme Y. That is, any encryption scheme that includes as a step "XOR the data with a never-reused onetime pad known only to you and your recipient" is secure, because breaking that scheme entails breaking OTP technology.
Do you have a constitutional right to be advertised to?
You have a constitutional right to not be not advertised to because of your race/religion/gender/other protected status. It's strange, but readily obvious. Imagine a smart billboard that advertised available CEO jobs only to men, and only advertised maid/schoolteacher/cook positions to women. Can you not see how fundamentally messed up that is?
Basically, you have a right, as always, not to look at advertising.
Frankly, I hate targeted ads, and would be quite happy with a law against targeted advertising. If for no other reason than it eliminates like 95% of the well-funded efforts to violate my privacy.
It's more like neighbors are so sure it's going to be terrible, that even if nothing happens, they'll still complain because they were on edge the whole time.
Which seems valid. I mean, even if they never accidentally released it, you wouldn't want your neighbor to do small pox experiments.
Flood insurance is an example of an idea that seems good that may not be so good after all
You didn't ask for "things that are good" you asked for "things that are made more affordable by the government". I mean, I should throw in government services, I suppose (e..g education, roads).
you ought to be free to make such decisions for your private associations. You ought not to be free to impose such restrictions on other property owners.
Government, esp. city government, is in essence a longterm homeowner's association. I defy you to draw a line between a city government and an HOA, with the exception that the city also maintains a police force (which is the same police force that would enforce the HOA's rulings anyway.)
My observations are that the more the government gets involved in making things "affordable" the less affordable those things are.
Ummm... except for vaccines, flood insurance, home loans (if black/latino), fire protection, car insurance, phone service, food, GPS, postal services, etc.
There's no way not to subsidize housing. Or at least, there's no way to make housing a free market. Between zoning, building codes, property taxes, tax-deductablity of mortgage interest. and numerous other things, the housing market is locked into being government regulated or at least influenced.
Also, housing does not consist of primarily interchangeable goods, which is pretty much required for most free market goods to get their huge benefits.
We make laws in part to stop people from having to knock on people like you (let's call them "assholes") door at all hours to complain about stuff. "I just parked in their driveway, and they didn't complain." or, more politically, "I just grabbed her by the pussy".
Zoning laws are your neighbors registering issues. Passing laws is your neighbors registering issues.
justification for this law is to control housing prices
But just because you don't like the justification, that doesn't mean you can ignore the law. I mean, if you want to commit civil disobedience and take your lumps, okay. If you say "the odds/cost of getting caught are low and the benefit high (ala speeding)" its consistent. But you don't get to ignore laws because you dislike their motivation. Or, if you feel you have that right, please let us know and we won't send the police when a communist takes + uses your stuff while you are gone.
will continue to rent out my room in short terms. But I will now call it...
This is why the law is (a) huge and (b) interpreted by people, not computers. Call it what you will. If that's how it was clearly supposed to be interpreted, expect to be dragged before a court. Ultimately, that's one of the reasons for a jury. Because if 12 people call "bullshit" on your excuse...
When you meddle with the free market, you only make things worse
What makes you think things are worse or less fair? Obviously, any distribution of resources, compared to any other distribution is going to be good for some people and worse for others. I'll say, not only does this rule make things better for the far majority of people, it also makes things far better for the vast majority of people who can vote in NYC elections.
Winnners:
Hotels - Obvious
Neighbors of AirBnB rentals (at least many) - Many neighbors dislike being next to an AirBnB. This keeps them from having to
NYC - NY gets a cut of hotel rates (but not AirBnB), hotel rates going up is good for them.
Renters - AirBnB was driving up rental prices, because it was introducing an alternate demand for the resource (apartments) to turn into microtels.
Law and Order - Many of these AirBnB rentals were in violation of the very leases that the free market provided to the people subletting on AirBnB. (Note, a lot of those rules were because of the 'neighbors point above')
Law and Order (2) - There are many rules about leasing short-term accommodations that were not being followed.
Losers:
AirBnB - This one's obvious.
Non-rent-controlled landlords - Rents are going to go down.
Visitors to NYC who stayed in hotels - Prices are going up.
Uncertain:
Visitors who were going to stay in AirBnBs - They'll either have to not come or get pushed to a hotel. However, they also get all the benefits of a regulated experience, which may be worth it. That's a big question mark.
Why shouldn't a city be able to look at those tradeoffs and make a decision?
never forget it's you that pays for that bullshit.
Nope, it's Comcast/Google who pays. See, notice how when the law passed, Google Fiber's announced prices didn't go down. Sure, if the costs get too high, they'll have to raise their rates, but until then prices are determined by many factors other than cost of production. In fact, I don't think anyone really looks at cost of production to set prices, just to determine if a product should be discontinued because its unprofitable..
Slashdot Mirror
Jill Stein lost the election before it started. By all means vote your conscious, but your choices aren't everyone on the ballot, but anyone who can win. Usually that's two candidates, but sometimes it's more.
And research to back up that research, and so on and so forth. I have to go replicate a bunch of seminal physics experiments now so that I can believe E=mc^2
I have finite time, and frankly for most things, finite levels of giving a shit. I want a best opinion going forward. "Just research everything yourself" doesn't work as a philosophy.
And in 1995, I could have said of Microsoft's monopoly - There is BSD Unix, Linux, Solaris, Sol, OS/2 and whatever Apple had.
Monopolies are not stupid absolute.
I think there is a supersecure version of Windows, but reserved for government use. Although I think it's the same actual version of Windows with optional processes deactivated.
Technically, all he's saying is that's not more than 14 billion Android devices....
With one exception, it's been a while. Now, that one exception was a SpaceX flight last year, so of all the people to want to do this....
None claim to be altruistic (and DDG displays its owner's name somewhere.) They all claim not to track you. I know StartPage has 3rd party auditors, not sure about the others.
But disconnect.me asks for cash. StartPage shows ads tailored to your search but not you. I don't recall how DDG makes money, but the guy who started it is a serial entrepreneur who knows that to make any headway into search, even getting people to try his product, he needs an edge (like privacy.).
I know StartPage (probably the others as well) has an FAQ specifically dealing with "how do you make money and why should I trust you."
I get the difference. Candy Crush puts interstitial ads up when you take certain actions. Opera lets you schedule your ad anytime you want. But that means that the ad isn't incidental to using the product, you have to go out of your way to select it. Which means that Candy Crush feels like it has ads, whereas Opera feels like you have to opt into using it (and also see an ad.) Opera's way is definitely objectively better for the consumer, but can be spun in a worse way.
Or you could use DuckDuckGo.com, Startpage.com, or Disconnect.me for free. Note, none of those track you. Also, one of those wraps Google, another Bing and the third can produce better results sometimes.
And if it would cost $150 to provide, that means that they're making over $150 some other way. Which means higher costs to me somewhere down the line.
Sure, and this is an algorithm that includes that step. Maybe I used the wrong word, because 'scheme' or 'algorithm' seem interchangeable to me.
Google has a history of just releasing the exploit with regard to companies where Brin/Page aren't majorly invested (e.g. Microsoft), when they need extra time to finalize the fixes. One of them (I forget whcih) was on the apple board until the Android release made them competitors.
You are correct that there would not need to be a write-in candidate. However, until Dec. something (9th?) when the electors vote, there's no way of knowing who will win. It's possible that if Hillary asked electors not to vote for her, that someone like Biden may be selected to replace her. Now, after the electors vote, the slate is locked in.
Sure, hence the government cannot discriminately advertise. In a related story, the government extended legal protection over advertisements with regards to jobs and housing.
But, yeah, I probably should have made that clearer in the response to the original poster who mentioned constitutional rights. Kinda wasn't thinking about the stupid semanticpart when I could address the meat of the moral issue .
Well, you are allowed to discriminate if its relevant to your ability to perform the job. For instance, a handicapped person could not sue under the ADA for a construction job (assuming they were incapable of doing it.)
Because that would be an unconstitutional abridgment of your right to free speech. Targeted advertising, by definition, involves my right to privacy.
That's only true for a subset of encryption schemes - those where you cannot demonstrate that breaking new scheme X entails breaking proven scheme Y. That is, any encryption scheme that includes as a step "XOR the data with a never-reused onetime pad known only to you and your recipient" is secure, because breaking that scheme entails breaking OTP technology.
You have a constitutional right to not be not advertised to because of your race/religion/gender/other protected status. It's strange, but readily obvious. Imagine a smart billboard that advertised available CEO jobs only to men, and only advertised maid/schoolteacher/cook positions to women. Can you not see how fundamentally messed up that is?
Basically, you have a right, as always, not to look at advertising.
Frankly, I hate targeted ads, and would be quite happy with a law against targeted advertising. If for no other reason than it eliminates like 95% of the well-funded efforts to violate my privacy.
They already tried that. The FAA said "um, fuck no". Or rather, "we have real rules on helicopter services, follow them or shut down."
Which seems valid. I mean, even if they never accidentally released it, you wouldn't want your neighbor to do small pox experiments.
You didn't ask for "things that are good" you asked for "things that are made more affordable by the government". I mean, I should throw in government services, I suppose (e..g education, roads).
Did you read my comment at all where I explained why that's wrong?
Government, esp. city government, is in essence a longterm homeowner's association. I defy you to draw a line between a city government and an HOA, with the exception that the city also maintains a police force (which is the same police force that would enforce the HOA's rulings anyway.)
Ummm... except for vaccines, flood insurance, home loans (if black/latino), fire protection, car insurance, phone service, food, GPS, postal services, etc.
There's no way not to subsidize housing. Or at least, there's no way to make housing a free market. Between zoning, building codes, property taxes, tax-deductablity of mortgage interest. and numerous other things, the housing market is locked into being government regulated or at least influenced.
Also, housing does not consist of primarily interchangeable goods, which is pretty much required for most free market goods to get their huge benefits.
We make laws in part to stop people from having to knock on people like you (let's call them "assholes") door at all hours to complain about stuff. "I just parked in their driveway, and they didn't complain." or, more politically, "I just grabbed her by the pussy".
Zoning laws are your neighbors registering issues. Passing laws is your neighbors registering issues.
But just because you don't like the justification, that doesn't mean you can ignore the law. I mean, if you want to commit civil disobedience and take your lumps, okay. If you say "the odds/cost of getting caught are low and the benefit high (ala speeding)" its consistent. But you don't get to ignore laws because you dislike their motivation. Or, if you feel you have that right, please let us know and we won't send the police when a communist takes + uses your stuff while you are gone.
This is why the law is (a) huge and (b) interpreted by people, not computers. Call it what you will. If that's how it was clearly supposed to be interpreted, expect to be dragged before a court. Ultimately, that's one of the reasons for a jury. Because if 12 people call "bullshit" on your excuse...
What makes you think things are worse or less fair? Obviously, any distribution of resources, compared to any other distribution is going to be good for some people and worse for others. I'll say, not only does this rule make things better for the far majority of people, it also makes things far better for the vast majority of people who can vote in NYC elections.
Winnners:
Losers:
Uncertain:
Why shouldn't a city be able to look at those tradeoffs and make a decision?
Nope, it's Comcast/Google who pays. See, notice how when the law passed, Google Fiber's announced prices didn't go down. Sure, if the costs get too high, they'll have to raise their rates, but until then prices are determined by many factors other than cost of production. In fact, I don't think anyone really looks at cost of production to set prices, just to determine if a product should be discontinued because its unprofitable..