The point of regulation like that described in the featured article is to make this no longer the case.
As long as chargers and cables are relatively cheap compared to the cost of the phone, manufacturers will continue to include them. Customers expect it, it costs very little, they don't have to worry as much about a cheap charger charging their nice new phone either too fast or too slow or a bunch of other things. It just makes for a better customer experience and costs very little. Same reason that many phones come with headphones.
Of course, it seems like they are assuming that all this electronic garbage is being generated due to the non-standard phone charger, which is silly. In my experience, cables fail routinely - what connector is at the end of the thing is irrelevant.
My experience is the opposite but ends up with the same result. Every device comes with a free charger and free cable. After a few years, I have dozens of usb chargers and microusb cables. I have an entire box of microusb cables and I occasionally cull and throw out perfectly good chargers because I have more than I need. For phones, it's basically a non-issue. There are basically 2 cables, lightning and microusb, and then different chargers rated at different amps. I've noticed that some of my older chargers don't have enough amps to charge some of the newer devices. Either way, things are mostly compatible. As long as chargers are cheap enough to be given away free with a new device, they will continue to be landfilled regardless of whether or not they are compatible with the new device.
Google and facebook can't violate net neutrality because they are not ISPs. No one is letting them off the hook. Net neutrality is about having free and open access to the internet pipe. It says that an ISP can't give preferential treatment to Netflix or penalize bittorrent. It's a work in progress as plenty of ISPs violate it with zero rating and other nonsense but facebook and google aren't the offenders
Are they one of those groups that sends out unsolicited physical mail with a real nickel explaining how much a nickel can help? If so, I wonder how much they could save by simply not wasting their donations on that? It's great that a nickel can do so much, but maybe instead of giving it to me you should keep it for yourselves?
They are more clever. They send a dime. I have actually donated to march of dimes but it annoyed me when they sent me a dime and tried to guilt trip me into sending the dime back to them.
Yes becauss robots can't be sentinent you incompetent buffoon.
What law of physics says this? Please share. There is absolutely no reason to believe we can't eventually model the human brain in silicon. We don't even have to understand it completely to model it. It would be hard to argue that a copy of a human brain in silicon that answers the exact same way as a human would is not sentient.
Things are things and people/animals are living beings. Making a robot play back a recording behaving as if it's fearing for it's life is manipulative.
Although we are no where near there yet, I'm not sure the average person knows that. At what point does a robot become a "living thing" because saying that a robot can never be living because of the material it is made out of is a little short sighted. Is a perfect silicon replica of a human brain not living? Does it not have rights just because it is a simulation on silicon? This would make the ideal slave force but I'm not sure it's ethical to clone human brains to silicon and then command them to work for you 24/7.
I don't see how blockchain helps in most situations. It's great for untrusted parties but for Nestle as well as most other companies trying to deploy blockchain, it seems like a secure centralized database would have less overhead. What advantage does giving each tomato a blockchain address have over giving each tomato a serial number? What advantage does recording each step a tomato takes in a blockchain have over just recording each step in a centralized database?
The reasoning is that if they teach at one school yet live in a different school district then they can choose which school their kids attend.
Why should teachers be allowed to choose, when "normal" citizens can not?
Giving special privileges to insiders, thus shielding them from their own system's problems, doesn't seem like a good way to get those problems fixed.
The reasoning is that they are legally allowed to attend their home district but it might be more convenient to have them attend the school their parent teaches at. Basically, their child gets the right to attend that school not because they live in that district but because their parent works there. Most private schools, daycares, colleges, etc.. have similar policies where employees get free or reduced tuition as perk for being employed there. Where I live, it's not too uncommon for a teacher to live in a town 30 or 40 minutes away from where they teach. They have to cross multiple school districts to get to the school they teach at. Their kid would not normally be allowed to go to that out of district school without that particular employment perk. In most cases where I live the school districts are similar quality. The teachers that opt for it usually do it for the convenience of being able to stay after school and work a little without having to rush home to get their kid.
I don't understand. How can we possibly use more than the Earth can provide? Where's the extra coming from? Mars?
More than sustainable. For example if there are a million fish in the ocean, you could technically harvest all 1 million of them in a single year but then you wouldn't have any the next year. This makes sense for renewable resources like fish and even water tables but not sure how this relates to gold or oil. Both are fixed quanities. In the case of gold, very little of it is really consumed. In the case of oil, once it is gone, it is gone. In both gold and oil, there isn't a sustainable level that we can extract either resource. We can keep extracting as little or as much as we want and there will still be a day when there is no more. For stuff like fish, this is a very real number as if we continue to extract fish faster than they can repopulate then we are creating a disaster.
The goal of your plan is that poor kids with 2 working parents working hourly jobs won't have the time or money to transport their kids across town to the rich neighborhood school.
Wealth segregation under the guise of "freedom" for all.
Then provide free transportation. It would cost very little to set up direct busing between schools. The city I live in already does it for teacher's kids, ESL kids, and other kids that need specialized services that are only at a particular school.
Forced public school AND free market school vouchers?
You are like the brain dead child of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx.
The rich already opt out of the system. Instead of spending the money and lobbying to fix the schools, they find a way to send their kids to a school that doesn't suck. If their kids were forced to go to the same schools as everyone else then they would have an incentive to fix the broken schools. Likewise if poor kids had the ability to choose a better school then the crappy schools would either fix themselves or cease to exist. The way it stands now, there is noone with political clout with any skin in the game at the crappy schools as only the rich have school choice.
Who's going to fund the extra transportation costs?
The USA is one of the few countries in the world that provides free transportation for their students. A few countries have free or reduced prices for public transportation. Parents aren't totally worthless. Most parents would gladly pay $20-$30 per month for transportation and/or drive their kids to school if it meant their kids would go to a better school. Heck, many savvy kids would willingly walk a couple miles if it meant they get to go to a better school. In most cases the driving distance between the "good schools" and the "bad schools" is minimal. It's just artificial lines gerrymandered to keep the rich kids and the poor kids in separate schools.
But I do not believe the city of SF can change the exemption status of employees since state and federal laws set those guidelines.
To my knowledge it has not been tried. Generally a more restrictive rule is allowed. For instance, there are a bunch of cities with higher minimum wage than the state/federal so I don't see why a city couldn't say that overtime has to be paid on any hours over 40 regardless of status or to raise the dollar amount where exemption falls. Many states have a different amount for exemption status than the federal.
Funny how the people with the ability to choose get their kids good educations, isn't it?
The real question is why do you want to keep poor kids trapped in what even you acknowledge is a failed education system.
The reasoning is that because the parents with ability to choose are opting out, they are not putting pressure on the schools to improve. I grew up in a small town with only one school option. There was a rich family in town who bought a new floor for the school gym because their son wanted to play basketball. They also singlehandedly got a coach fired so it wasn't all perfect but the point is that because that was the only school for their kid they had an incentive to make sure that it was a good one.
Eliminate them entirely for a voucher system that covers everyone.
Covers everyone fully? Including autistic and other special needs students? I.e., one voucher pays for one kid, if a school accepts vouchers it can't demand additional funds or selectively decline kids? Because otherwise all a voucher system does is provide a private school discount for the wealthy and the easiest to educate. The poor and the toughest to educate get concentrated in the remaining public schools.
There is already a psuedo voucher system in place for special needs kids. A school gets extra from the federal government for kids that are special need, on free lunch, and a bunch of other stuff. Where I'm from it's not uncommon for schools to fight to keep special needs kids and to push for kids to sign up for free lunch because they get extra funding. Using the existing amounts for special needs kids would be a good start for a voucher system. A voucher system should also be an all or nothing program. You shouldn't be allowed to accept a voucher and then charge on top of that. We don't even need a true voucher system though to fix the public education, all we really need is to allow any student to register to attend any public school regardless of where they live.
By then where would the schools be poor area of they city? People in poor areas will be left without a school or only a very bad school, because none of the rich people will send their kid to a poor neighbourhood, and none of the good teachers will want to teach in the poor neighborhoods full of underperforming students.
With a proper voucher system, those kids could choose any school of their choosing so they would not be left without a school. A simple solution to the "bad school" problem is to allow any kid to enroll in any public school anywhere regardless of where they live. There are obviously some practical limits as it would be hard to attend a school 2 hours away but some people commute for work that long every day so if a parent wants to drive their kid that far each day they should be allowed to do it. But in most cases we are talking city schools where there are plenty of good schools within a short distance and usually decent public transportation. Capacity would be another issue but that's a short term problem that could easily be handled by lottery and waitlists until the good schools have the chance to increase their capacity.
The point is that these companies try to suck you into their corporate culture and never let you escape by doing everything they can to entice you into staying ever longer and longer in the office. This is why they do everything they can to make it as convenient as possible to stay in at lunch. And while I am not sure that the practice ought to be made illegal, I do think that is prevalence ought to be discouraged. It is unhealthy to sit at your desk all day and far into the night.
But that isn't why they are doing it. They don't appear to be doing it to protect the workers but rather an attempt to removed the walled communities within a city. If they want to protect the workers then they need to get rid of the exempt status and require time and a half for anything over 40. Personally myself, I don't take a lunch break because I would rather have that extra hour at the end of the day. I work 8 hours and go home versus having to spend 9 hours away from home. Most techs on these campuses are likely spending even longer than 9 hours on campus.
If you actually wanted to integrate the tech population (or any of the upper middle class in most cities), the best way to do that would be to force everyone to send their kids to the public school system (and make sure the individual districts are uniform). I've read several papers stating that that is probably the best way to fix the public school system. Right now, anyone with any money in most big cities quickly opts out. It's similar to the brain drain that merit based immigration systems cause to 3rd world countries.
Immigrants do respect the laws, learn the language, and integrate into culture and society. The technical term for that is "assimilation", and it's why America is called a "melting pot".
You're behind on the times. Haven't you heard that the term "melting pot" is now a trigger word because it implies someone must give up their previous identity? It is no longer acceptable to expect someone to learn your language (or even come here legally) in order to become a citizen.
I was working at a tech company when they closed their cafeteria to do some renovation. Even though we had flex hours and could easily have left campus to eat, to my knowledge practically no one did. The company let a vendor come in and sell boxed lunches, a few people would order delivery but mostly people just brought their lunches. Unless the campuses are extremely small and there are nearby restaurants within an easy 5-10 minute walk, no one is going to leave for lunch. The onsite cafeterias are a convenience and that is it.
In Facebook you could say "it's because of network effects," but it's not really true with search engines. When freed, we just kind of......flock together.
With search engines I think it is likely enonomy of scale and probably some patents thrown in there. Because google is so huge, they can afford to index more of the web, they can afford to hire thousands of PHDs to analyse their results. They also have some of the network effect that allows billions of clicks to give them realtime feedback about how good of job they are doing. They now have billions of dollars of R&D most of it behind closed doors that runs their search engine and they are receiving billions of dollars in advertising revenue each month that allows them to continue to improve it. They also have inertia. In order for a company to compete with google they would have to be significantly better so people actually want to switch and that's going to be really hard for any company without very very deep pockets.
Once the government can force a business to be interoperable... then all businesses will have to become interoperable. Big businesses with money will quickly increase the complexity of this interoperability so that it will not be easy or cheap for competitors to be interoperable making it easy to squash them and simultaneously raise the barrier of entry.
Requiring them to allow and not inhibit interoperable is not the same as requiring them to have a specific interface. Although it would be nice to have a standard like email or ftp, it would be enough for them to not outright ban or block it. Facebook does already have an api so it's already possible if they would allow it but it would be easy enough for a company to reverse engineer and/or scrape a website for the needed information for an end user. If anyone tried it though they would get sued. It would be enough for the government to say that the end user owns their own data so if they want to give their credentials to a third party so that third party can download or post on their behalf then that end user is allowed to do that.
There needs to be some serious thought on how to best address data migration and pseudo vendor lock-in. Data migration is easy. I should have the ability to download all my data from facebook and upload it to google plus (or some other competitor) and vice versa.
Pseudo vendor lockin is a bit trickier. If all your friends are on facebook then you can't move to a new platform without convincing all your friends to move too. I think the solution for this is to require companies to allow interoperability between sites. If I want to create a facebook clone, I should be able to allow my users to sync their account with facebook so that posts on my new site are crossposted on facebook, etc... There are already some marketing tools that allow this to a limited extent but it should be explicitly allowed so that people can more easily hop from platform to platform. Currently, trying to do a true sync of facebook with a facebook clone would be against facebook's TOS.
The constitution and the bill of rights is restrictions on what the federal government can and cannot do. There is nothing in the constitution that says that a state couldn't completely outlaw guns if it wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
The point of regulation like that described in the featured article is to make this no longer the case.
As long as chargers and cables are relatively cheap compared to the cost of the phone, manufacturers will continue to include them. Customers expect it, it costs very little, they don't have to worry as much about a cheap charger charging their nice new phone either too fast or too slow or a bunch of other things. It just makes for a better customer experience and costs very little. Same reason that many phones come with headphones.
Of course, it seems like they are assuming that all this electronic garbage is being generated due to the non-standard phone charger, which is silly. In my experience, cables fail routinely - what connector is at the end of the thing is irrelevant.
My experience is the opposite but ends up with the same result. Every device comes with a free charger and free cable. After a few years, I have dozens of usb chargers and microusb cables. I have an entire box of microusb cables and I occasionally cull and throw out perfectly good chargers because I have more than I need. For phones, it's basically a non-issue. There are basically 2 cables, lightning and microusb, and then different chargers rated at different amps. I've noticed that some of my older chargers don't have enough amps to charge some of the newer devices. Either way, things are mostly compatible. As long as chargers are cheap enough to be given away free with a new device, they will continue to be landfilled regardless of whether or not they are compatible with the new device.
Google and facebook can't violate net neutrality because they are not ISPs. No one is letting them off the hook. Net neutrality is about having free and open access to the internet pipe. It says that an ISP can't give preferential treatment to Netflix or penalize bittorrent. It's a work in progress as plenty of ISPs violate it with zero rating and other nonsense but facebook and google aren't the offenders
Are they one of those groups that sends out unsolicited physical mail with a real nickel explaining how much a nickel can help? If so, I wonder how much they could save by simply not wasting their donations on that?
It's great that a nickel can do so much, but maybe instead of giving it to me you should keep it for yourselves?
They are more clever. They send a dime. I have actually donated to march of dimes but it annoyed me when they sent me a dime and tried to guilt trip me into sending the dime back to them.
Yes becauss robots can't be sentinent you incompetent buffoon.
What law of physics says this? Please share. There is absolutely no reason to believe we can't eventually model the human brain in silicon. We don't even have to understand it completely to model it. It would be hard to argue that a copy of a human brain in silicon that answers the exact same way as a human would is not sentient.
Things are things and people/animals are living beings. Making a robot play back a recording behaving as if it's fearing for it's life is manipulative.
Although we are no where near there yet, I'm not sure the average person knows that. At what point does a robot become a "living thing" because saying that a robot can never be living because of the material it is made out of is a little short sighted. Is a perfect silicon replica of a human brain not living? Does it not have rights just because it is a simulation on silicon? This would make the ideal slave force but I'm not sure it's ethical to clone human brains to silicon and then command them to work for you 24/7.
I don't see how blockchain helps in most situations. It's great for untrusted parties but for Nestle as well as most other companies trying to deploy blockchain, it seems like a secure centralized database would have less overhead. What advantage does giving each tomato a blockchain address have over giving each tomato a serial number? What advantage does recording each step a tomato takes in a blockchain have over just recording each step in a centralized database?
The reasoning is that if they teach at one school yet live in a different school district then they can choose which school their kids attend.
Why should teachers be allowed to choose, when "normal" citizens can not?
Giving special privileges to insiders, thus shielding them from their own system's problems, doesn't seem like a good way to get those problems fixed.
The reasoning is that they are legally allowed to attend their home district but it might be more convenient to have them attend the school their parent teaches at. Basically, their child gets the right to attend that school not because they live in that district but because their parent works there. Most private schools, daycares, colleges, etc.. have similar policies where employees get free or reduced tuition as perk for being employed there. Where I live, it's not too uncommon for a teacher to live in a town 30 or 40 minutes away from where they teach. They have to cross multiple school districts to get to the school they teach at. Their kid would not normally be allowed to go to that out of district school without that particular employment perk. In most cases where I live the school districts are similar quality. The teachers that opt for it usually do it for the convenience of being able to stay after school and work a little without having to rush home to get their kid.
The city I live in already does it for teacher's kids ...
Why should the children of teachers get special treatment?
The reasoning is that if they teach at one school yet live in a different school district then they can choose which school their kids attend.
I don't understand. How can we possibly use more than the Earth can provide? Where's the extra coming from? Mars?
More than sustainable. For example if there are a million fish in the ocean, you could technically harvest all 1 million of them in a single year but then you wouldn't have any the next year. This makes sense for renewable resources like fish and even water tables but not sure how this relates to gold or oil. Both are fixed quanities. In the case of gold, very little of it is really consumed. In the case of oil, once it is gone, it is gone. In both gold and oil, there isn't a sustainable level that we can extract either resource. We can keep extracting as little or as much as we want and there will still be a day when there is no more. For stuff like fish, this is a very real number as if we continue to extract fish faster than they can repopulate then we are creating a disaster.
The goal of your plan is that poor kids with 2 working parents working hourly jobs won't have the time or money to transport their kids across town to the rich neighborhood school.
Wealth segregation under the guise of "freedom" for all.
Then provide free transportation. It would cost very little to set up direct busing between schools. The city I live in already does it for teacher's kids, ESL kids, and other kids that need specialized services that are only at a particular school.
Forced public school AND free market school vouchers?
You are like the brain dead child of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx.
The rich already opt out of the system. Instead of spending the money and lobbying to fix the schools, they find a way to send their kids to a school that doesn't suck. If their kids were forced to go to the same schools as everyone else then they would have an incentive to fix the broken schools. Likewise if poor kids had the ability to choose a better school then the crappy schools would either fix themselves or cease to exist. The way it stands now, there is noone with political clout with any skin in the game at the crappy schools as only the rich have school choice.
Who's going to fund the extra transportation costs?
The USA is one of the few countries in the world that provides free transportation for their students. A few countries have free or reduced prices for public transportation. Parents aren't totally worthless. Most parents would gladly pay $20-$30 per month for transportation and/or drive their kids to school if it meant their kids would go to a better school. Heck, many savvy kids would willingly walk a couple miles if it meant they get to go to a better school.
In most cases the driving distance between the "good schools" and the "bad schools" is minimal. It's just artificial lines gerrymandered to keep the rich kids and the poor kids in separate schools.
But I do not believe the city of SF can change the exemption status of employees since state and federal laws set those guidelines.
To my knowledge it has not been tried. Generally a more restrictive rule is allowed. For instance, there are a bunch of cities with higher minimum wage than the state/federal so I don't see why a city couldn't say that overtime has to be paid on any hours over 40 regardless of status or to raise the dollar amount where exemption falls. Many states have a different amount for exemption status than the federal.
Funny how the people with the ability to choose get their kids good educations, isn't it?
The real question is why do you want to keep poor kids trapped in what even you acknowledge is a failed education system.
The reasoning is that because the parents with ability to choose are opting out, they are not putting pressure on the schools to improve. I grew up in a small town with only one school option. There was a rich family in town who bought a new floor for the school gym because their son wanted to play basketball. They also singlehandedly got a coach fired so it wasn't all perfect but the point is that because that was the only school for their kid they had an incentive to make sure that it was a good one.
Eliminate them entirely for a voucher system that covers everyone.
Covers everyone fully? Including autistic and other special needs students? I.e., one voucher pays for one kid, if a school accepts vouchers it can't demand additional funds or selectively decline kids? Because otherwise all a voucher system does is provide a private school discount for the wealthy and the easiest to educate. The poor and the toughest to educate get concentrated in the remaining public schools.
There is already a psuedo voucher system in place for special needs kids. A school gets extra from the federal government for kids that are special need, on free lunch, and a bunch of other stuff. Where I'm from it's not uncommon for schools to fight to keep special needs kids and to push for kids to sign up for free lunch because they get extra funding. Using the existing amounts for special needs kids would be a good start for a voucher system. A voucher system should also be an all or nothing program. You shouldn't be allowed to accept a voucher and then charge on top of that. We don't even need a true voucher system though to fix the public education, all we really need is to allow any student to register to attend any public school regardless of where they live.
By then where would the schools be poor area of they city? People in poor areas will be left without a school or only a very bad school, because none of the rich people will send their kid to a poor neighbourhood, and none of the good teachers will want to teach in the poor neighborhoods full of underperforming students.
With a proper voucher system, those kids could choose any school of their choosing so they would not be left without a school. A simple solution to the "bad school" problem is to allow any kid to enroll in any public school anywhere regardless of where they live. There are obviously some practical limits as it would be hard to attend a school 2 hours away but some people commute for work that long every day so if a parent wants to drive their kid that far each day they should be allowed to do it. But in most cases we are talking city schools where there are plenty of good schools within a short distance and usually decent public transportation. Capacity would be another issue but that's a short term problem that could easily be handled by lottery and waitlists until the good schools have the chance to increase their capacity.
The point is that these companies try to suck you into their corporate culture and never let you escape by doing everything they can to entice you into staying ever longer and longer in the office. This is why they do everything they can to make it as convenient as possible to stay in at lunch. And while I am not sure that the practice ought to be made illegal, I do think that is prevalence ought to be discouraged. It is unhealthy to sit at your desk all day and far into the night.
But that isn't why they are doing it. They don't appear to be doing it to protect the workers but rather an attempt to removed the walled communities within a city. If they want to protect the workers then they need to get rid of the exempt status and require time and a half for anything over 40. Personally myself, I don't take a lunch break because I would rather have that extra hour at the end of the day. I work 8 hours and go home versus having to spend 9 hours away from home. Most techs on these campuses are likely spending even longer than 9 hours on campus.
If you actually wanted to integrate the tech population (or any of the upper middle class in most cities), the best way to do that would be to force everyone to send their kids to the public school system (and make sure the individual districts are uniform). I've read several papers stating that that is probably the best way to fix the public school system. Right now, anyone with any money in most big cities quickly opts out. It's similar to the brain drain that merit based immigration systems cause to 3rd world countries.
Immigrants do respect the laws, learn the language, and integrate into culture and society. The technical term for that is "assimilation", and it's why America is called a "melting pot".
You're behind on the times. Haven't you heard that the term "melting pot" is now a trigger word because it implies someone must give up their previous identity? It is no longer acceptable to expect someone to learn your language (or even come here legally) in order to become a citizen.
I was working at a tech company when they closed their cafeteria to do some renovation. Even though we had flex hours and could easily have left campus to eat, to my knowledge practically no one did. The company let a vendor come in and sell boxed lunches, a few people would order delivery but mostly people just brought their lunches. Unless the campuses are extremely small and there are nearby restaurants within an easy 5-10 minute walk, no one is going to leave for lunch. The onsite cafeterias are a convenience and that is it.
In Facebook you could say "it's because of network effects," but it's not really true with search engines. When freed, we just kind of......flock together.
With search engines I think it is likely enonomy of scale and probably some patents thrown in there. Because google is so huge, they can afford to index more of the web, they can afford to hire thousands of PHDs to analyse their results. They also have some of the network effect that allows billions of clicks to give them realtime feedback about how good of job they are doing. They now have billions of dollars of R&D most of it behind closed doors that runs their search engine and they are receiving billions of dollars in advertising revenue each month that allows them to continue to improve it. They also have inertia. In order for a company to compete with google they would have to be significantly better so people actually want to switch and that's going to be really hard for any company without very very deep pockets.
Once the government can force a business to be interoperable... then all businesses will have to become interoperable. Big businesses with money will quickly increase the complexity of this interoperability so that it will not be easy or cheap for competitors to be interoperable making it easy to squash them and simultaneously raise the barrier of entry.
Requiring them to allow and not inhibit interoperable is not the same as requiring them to have a specific interface. Although it would be nice to have a standard like email or ftp, it would be enough for them to not outright ban or block it. Facebook does already have an api so it's already possible if they would allow it but it would be easy enough for a company to reverse engineer and/or scrape a website for the needed information for an end user. If anyone tried it though they would get sued. It would be enough for the government to say that the end user owns their own data so if they want to give their credentials to a third party so that third party can download or post on their behalf then that end user is allowed to do that.
There needs to be some serious thought on how to best address data migration and pseudo vendor lock-in. Data migration is easy. I should have the ability to download all my data from facebook and upload it to google plus (or some other competitor) and vice versa.
Pseudo vendor lockin is a bit trickier. If all your friends are on facebook then you can't move to a new platform without convincing all your friends to move too.
I think the solution for this is to require companies to allow interoperability between sites. If I want to create a facebook clone, I should be able to allow my users to sync their account with facebook so that posts on my new site are crossposted on facebook, etc...
There are already some marketing tools that allow this to a limited extent but it should be explicitly allowed so that people can more easily hop from platform to platform.
Currently, trying to do a true sync of facebook with a facebook clone would be against facebook's TOS.
The constitution and the bill of rights is restrictions on what the federal government can and cannot do. There is nothing in the constitution that says that a state couldn't completely outlaw guns if it wanted.