Sure, the US intelligence services really give a shit about you compared to advertisers who want to bleed you dry.
Besides, the US government already knows what you look like from photo IDs. (gathered from whichever government issues yours.) And they're straight on ideal for biometric identification
That would be fine. The number of times I wanted a machine translated story in the past... I dunno, ever. 0. The number of times I wanted a technical paper, or instructions or tech specs are significant. Or even news. Storytelling, jokes and wordplay are the least interesting thing to translate, because there are people who actually already do that.
What's the feature set that will take longer for Facebook to reproduce than for you to get even 100 million users (where "even" is used to indicate in comparison to facebook's size, not to indicate that it's a small number)? Heck, it's hard to imagine the feature set that will take Facebook longer to reproduce than it took for their competitor to get as many total users as Facebook uses as an internal test group.
Except the FCC not doing their job doesn't magically give the FTC jurisdiction. It takes an act of Congress to do that. Your argument would be just as valid if you said the FCC wanted to reverse limited amounts of over-the-air bandwidth by just "letting anyone broadcast whatever". Them not regulating doesn't change the physical or legal framework of the underlying world.
The average criminal isn't going to do that. Frankly, if they were as smart as you say, they would just leave the cell phone at home while committing crimes.
This case is seeking to overturn the "we signed away the data". As in, we signed away the data cause the telcos needed it to do a job. This is trying to reverse that law so just giving them access to do a job doesn't mean they own the data.
Also, you do not need a search warrant to get telco data. Since it's their data on you, you have no 4th amendment rights. And, since it's their data on you, they have no 4th amendment rights. I mean, they can charge something because it costs them money to comply, but that 's it.
Can you imagine the difficulty when you have millions of addicts who need a fix? It will make alcohol's prohibition or the war on drugs look like uncontested victories for the government.
have any of you comprehended that net neutrality as a policy (as it wasn't "law" it was just a policy) only started in February of 2015? How did we survive before that year?
Before that the FTC had similar rules. Then the courts decided the FTC didn't have jurisdiction, the FCC did. The FCC then implemented net neutrality rules. There was a brief period in between when a lot of shenanigans, esp. by Verizon, were started.
That last point is mostly correct. Customers don't make purchasing decisions based on security, but it's not usually because of desire. It's usually ignorance. And there's no way to know which product is more secure before the breech.
Any ISP which degraded Netflix's speeds as part of a ploy to extort money from Netflix would be shooting itself in the foot
Because people make the decision of provider frequently and that's the only point of difference?
Look at cell phones. How was Verizon hurt when it was revealed that it exposed your name and history to websites you visit? Not at all, because most people don't understand what's happening and those that do are locked into multiyear contracts and forgot when it was time to renew them.
Also, here's the part that confuses me with your story. Why would that second (or third) company compete on features/prices? Why even expand the capital to compete in a new market if you cannot make outraged profits? How would it be any different than the situation with the airlines?
Somewhere. It ends somewhere. But, leaving aside that the slippery slope is a fallacy, you used an even worse one. You moved the goalposts. Namely, we're talking hate speech as non-specific threats, and you're talking about completely different bullshit and claiming I have to meet or have met some standard that you just invented. I'll respond as soon as you post something responsive to my posts, but I'll only post meta-responses to off-topic bullshit
Asking Facebook to "regulate" itself by limiting the information it collects is akin to asking it to limit how much profit they make. It ain't going to happen.
Oh, see I read that and I thought about how we limited how much profit companies made making planes in WWII. The government just told them their max profit margins. Similarly, the government could just tell Facebook how creepy they were allowed to be.
I imagine this was from before the web became a spying/ad mess. The idea back than was you were loading third-party content because it didn't make sense for everyone to have a huge copy of those images/a javascript library (probably predates JS).
That's beyond retarded. We already disallow specific threats while believing in free speech. According to the poster you are responding to, hate speech is a non-specific threat aimed at a group of people to coerce an action (the examples given were moving away or not exercising civil rights.) Now, it may be difficult to prove that was the intent, but that's hardly a matter of it "contradicting free speech" instead of "makes prosecution difficult. Or you may disagree with that definition, but in that case your response was comically poorly communicated.
The thing is, the tuition waver is the vast majority of their income. So, it eats up like 60% of their annual cash to pay their tax bill. And they already have most of their cash going to rent and food. Its a "blood from a stone" thing.
The problem is if the vast majority of your income is in-kind, and then most of the rest of your money is going ot food/shelter, where do they get the cash to pay the government?
Maybe they should be allowed to defer their payments on tuition until they make a higher (cash) income?
Nonsense. The 99% don't need to wait 10 years out. The first part of the fuckery happens now, to something like half of them (but sprinkled through the 99% based on deductions, etc.)
Plus, I'm pretty sure my TV is going to have a really hard time connecting to the internet for some unknown reasons.
This is not over the internet. If you are watching channel 40, the box will broadcast back over the air on channel 40.X, owned by the transmitting channel and sublicensed to you for that purpose. You cannot just disconnect it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, the US intelligence services really give a shit about you compared to advertisers who want to bleed you dry.
Besides, the US government already knows what you look like from photo IDs. (gathered from whichever government issues yours.) And they're straight on ideal for biometric identification
That would be fine. The number of times I wanted a machine translated story in the past... I dunno, ever. 0. The number of times I wanted a technical paper, or instructions or tech specs are significant. Or even news. Storytelling, jokes and wordplay are the least interesting thing to translate, because there are people who actually already do that.
What's the feature set that will take longer for Facebook to reproduce than for you to get even 100 million users (where "even" is used to indicate in comparison to facebook's size, not to indicate that it's a small number)? Heck, it's hard to imagine the feature set that will take Facebook longer to reproduce than it took for their competitor to get as many total users as Facebook uses as an internal test group.
Except the FCC not doing their job doesn't magically give the FTC jurisdiction. It takes an act of Congress to do that. Your argument would be just as valid if you said the FCC wanted to reverse limited amounts of over-the-air bandwidth by just "letting anyone broadcast whatever". Them not regulating doesn't change the physical or legal framework of the underlying world.
The average criminal isn't going to do that. Frankly, if they were as smart as you say, they would just leave the cell phone at home while committing crimes.
This case is seeking to overturn the "we signed away the data". As in, we signed away the data cause the telcos needed it to do a job. This is trying to reverse that law so just giving them access to do a job doesn't mean they own the data.
Also, you do not need a search warrant to get telco data. Since it's their data on you, you have no 4th amendment rights. And, since it's their data on you, they have no 4th amendment rights. I mean, they can charge something because it costs them money to comply, but that 's it.
BS Alert. The FCC was ordered to get involved in 2015; until then it was the FTC.
Except the FTC was legally barred from doing exactly that, and the FCC assigned the role of overseeing ISPs.
Can you imagine the difficulty when you have millions of addicts who need a fix? It will make alcohol's prohibition or the war on drugs look like uncontested victories for the government.
Before that the FTC had similar rules. Then the courts decided the FTC didn't have jurisdiction, the FCC did. The FCC then implemented net neutrality rules. There was a brief period in between when a lot of shenanigans, esp. by Verizon, were started.
That last point is mostly correct. Customers don't make purchasing decisions based on security, but it's not usually because of desire. It's usually ignorance. And there's no way to know which product is more secure before the breech.
Because people make the decision of provider frequently and that's the only point of difference?
Look at cell phones. How was Verizon hurt when it was revealed that it exposed your name and history to websites you visit? Not at all, because most people don't understand what's happening and those that do are locked into multiyear contracts and forgot when it was time to renew them.
Also, here's the part that confuses me with your story. Why would that second (or third) company compete on features/prices? Why even expand the capital to compete in a new market if you cannot make outraged profits? How would it be any different than the situation with the airlines?
Not surprised. But that's also why I've never had an Android phone. Also, phones are only $10 if you just want a phone.
Somewhere. It ends somewhere. But, leaving aside that the slippery slope is a fallacy, you used an even worse one. You moved the goalposts. Namely, we're talking hate speech as non-specific threats, and you're talking about completely different bullshit and claiming I have to meet or have met some standard that you just invented. I'll respond as soon as you post something responsive to my posts, but I'll only post meta-responses to off-topic bullshit
How is your S-Corp affect whether Uber/Instacart/Lyft contractors unionize?
Yeah, why try to fix a problem through a negotiated settlement? Don't talk to people, don't solve problems, just break up. That's how adults operate.
That's a good thing. Free time is good. Why not have a maximum of 40 hours a week of work in all jobs?
Oh, see I read that and I thought about how we limited how much profit companies made making planes in WWII. The government just told them their max profit margins. Similarly, the government could just tell Facebook how creepy they were allowed to be.
I imagine this was from before the web became a spying/ad mess. The idea back than was you were loading third-party content because it didn't make sense for everyone to have a huge copy of those images/a javascript library (probably predates JS).
That's beyond retarded. We already disallow specific threats while believing in free speech. According to the poster you are responding to, hate speech is a non-specific threat aimed at a group of people to coerce an action (the examples given were moving away or not exercising civil rights.) Now, it may be difficult to prove that was the intent, but that's hardly a matter of it "contradicting free speech" instead of "makes prosecution difficult. Or you may disagree with that definition, but in that case your response was comically poorly communicated.
I think Google cheerfully providing a map and schedule is more a problem with the data you let Google amass on you than the access a thief might get.
The thing is, the tuition waver is the vast majority of their income. So, it eats up like 60% of their annual cash to pay their tax bill. And they already have most of their cash going to rent and food. Its a "blood from a stone" thing.
The problem is if the vast majority of your income is in-kind, and then most of the rest of your money is going ot food/shelter, where do they get the cash to pay the government?
Maybe they should be allowed to defer their payments on tuition until they make a higher (cash) income?
Nonsense. The 99% don't need to wait 10 years out. The first part of the fuckery happens now, to something like half of them (but sprinkled through the 99% based on deductions, etc.)
This is not over the internet. If you are watching channel 40, the box will broadcast back over the air on channel 40.X, owned by the transmitting channel and sublicensed to you for that purpose. You cannot just disconnect it.