It is to the benefit of the card holder in that you're less likely (assuming it works the way they say it does) that your card will be frozen while you are travelling in another country (or another state).
And once they've got millions of people signed up, then they change the privacy policy to "we will sell anything we feel like to the highest bidder, because those millions were the entire point anyway."
They eyes don't see it as a rectangle. But we don't with our eyes, we see with our brains.
In a theater, the screen covers a much larger percentage of your field of vision, and the difference in distance to the center vs the edges can easily be several feet if the screen is flat. This is enough to be noticeable. In the living room, the difference will be millimeters, and you'd need a ruler to detect it.
As has been noted, this is snake oil intended to generate patent revenue.
Charlie's a smart guy who knows the publishing trade inside and out, and I generally agree with him. But to keep this entirely in perspective, let's keep in mind Amazon's dispute is with Hachette, which is Charlie's publisher, with whom he has a very friendly relationship. He's not an impartial observer, even as an author.
The differences between sentencing for crack users (who are predominantly black) and regular cocaine users (who are predominantly white) is well documented, and enshrined in law.
Actually, between the equal protection clause of the 4th amendment and the cruel and unusual clause of the 8th, it isn't difficult to argue that it does, in fact, mean just that.
Every single person I have ever talked to who has been involved in a real life political campaign disagrees with that. Professional politicians can tell you to the dollar what it costs to get elected to various offices, and people who do not listen do not get elected.
And, again, go look at the example of India, where reforms similar to what's proposed here have been enacted, and increased corruption considerably, because reducing the amount of legitimate money available does not reduce the cost of getting elected.
I know that, and you know that, and a lot of other people know that. Unfortunately, we are a minority, and most people are, as noted, lazy, stupid and passive.
Honestly, I can't see that it makes any difference at all who gets elected. I really can't tell the two parties apart without a score card. They all want the same thing: to go through our pockets for loose change they missed last time. Everything else is decoration.
There are two possibilities with a plan like that:
1) Everybody, and I mean everybody becomes a candidate, and hires their friends to milk the system for every penny it's worth. Instant government bankruptcy. Or
2) Somebody will have to decide who is, and isn't, a "legitimate" candidate. That somebody will be . . . the people currently in charge. Which is to say, your "reform" would make real reform literally impossible, ever, short of violent revolution.
Nice job, Tex. You've solved all the world's problems in one swell foop.
We just want to change the *incentives* of our politicians. In short, we want politicians to have to worry about what the voters think first, and right now they have to worry about what the funders think first.
Which is what I said. The way to get politicians to care about what voters think first is to get voters to care about what voters think, or get them to think at all.
Good luck with that. People are lazy, stupid, and passive. Ranting wingnuts who obviously don't get it will do nothing to change this.
Anybody who wants to ban corporate political speech needs to carefully study similar reforms in India, where about 1/3 of national political candidates are under criminal indictment (and 3% of sitting members of their congress) for campaign finance crimes. Despite what some will claim here, that is notand improvement.
The problem isn't corporate money in campaign finances, the problem is stupid, lazy voters who can't be bothered to find out what or what they're voting for, and just doing what the Magic Box in their living room tells them to. And no amount of campaign finance reform will ever fix that.
And remember, the real cash cow with Google fiber is that they can track absolutely everything those customer do online, all the time, and sell that data to advertisers. It's win/win/win for them.
Someone caving in isn't a problem with the terms, it's a problem with someone caving in.
All it takes is one noisy person, and the smell of money will bring in a law firm that specializes in class action lawsuits, and GM is in trouble that only tens or hundreds of millions will buy them out of. They may write a nasty email or two - I doubt even that was the actual intent in this - but that's it.
That actually makes it better. It makes it so much more ridiculous that enforcement would be impossible even if there weren't extensive case law regarding such idiotic things. And there is. Contracts require informed consent, not one side just saying "neener neener you didn't see what I didn't show you."
No attempt will ever, ever be made to enforce this, because no lawyer in his right mind, or with any interest in continuing to make his boat payments, will touch it even if the honchos at GM are insane enough to try.
What your attacker uses isn't up to you. What you use is.
And frankly, if someone attacks me - at a felony level - even with their bare fists, yes, I'd rather have a gun. Unlike so many, I have little experience at fist fighting. But I'm an excellent shot.
And even a 98 pound grandmother can stop a hulking thug trying to steal her social security money - if she has a gun.
Your method disarms, and renders helpless, anyone how has no experience at personal violence. Which is to say, it is far more likely to leave the victim helpless than the career criminal. Many find that desirable. Civilized people do not.
I'd rather shoot the guy trying to rob me than be beat up and robbed.
"Gun control is the theory that a woman found in an alley, raped, beaten and strangled with her own panty hose is morally superior to that same woman explaining to the police how her attacker got those bullet holes in his chest."
Those who do not believe in self defense do not deserve to be allowed it.
I'd rather be in a place where I'm allowed to defend myself. I realize that's irrelevant to a lot of people, who are too afraid to even try, but not to me, and not to a lot of Americans.
It's a "clarification" that makes it literally completely without meaning. A militia that doesn't allow its members to carry weapons is not a militia, it's a sit com. And the historical documentation on the 2nd amendment is extensive and very clear: it is intended as an individual right.
The biggest debate over the Federal Militia Act of 1794 was whether or not the government would be required to buy weapons for any able bodied male under the age of 45 who couldn't afford one on their own.
all of the evidence makes plain that owning a gun is more of a threat to the gun owner and his family than it is to any criminals or gubmint agents
That claim is based on a study by Dr. Kellerman, the "23 times as likely to be killed with your own gun as to kill an intruder." When someone examined his methodology, it turned out that he counted anyone who died within a mile of their own home - even of natural causes - as having been killed with his own gun. Needless to say, Dr. Kellerman stopped publishing his methodology with his results after that, meaning he stopped even pretending to do science.
That's the kind of lie needed to make such a claim.
According to the NCVS data - the FBI - if you are the victim of a felony robbery or assault, you are half as likely to be injured or the robbery successful if you have your own gun - even if the attacker initiates the violence. Those are real facts, backed by real data, from the FBI, who generally speaking, are more inclined to skew stuff in the other direction (they do not really approve of self defense).
Sounds like you'd rather argue about word definitions than talk about whether or not it's wrong to use someone else's photography without permission, and lie about it being your own.
If I didn't know better, I might think you were trying to change the subject or something.
NPR mentioned this morning that one officer has been disciplined since the new policy went in to effect. I assume it's the same one. They did not say how, and likely didn't know (and couldn't find out, as California has pretty strict privacy rights for employees being disciplined), but I seriously doubt it was more than a slap on the wrist for the first time. I suspect it was also made clear to the officer, and everyone else, that future offenses would have escalating consequences. Because, you see, this embarrasses the politicians, and costs the city money. LAPD has only very recently gotten out from under a federal supervision arrangement, and they do not want to get back. Even the unions are reluctant to push that.
Slashdot Mirror
So it'll be like any other virtual world computer game (and with its currency being of similar value, which is to say, not all that much).
It is to the benefit of the card holder in that you're less likely (assuming it works the way they say it does) that your card will be frozen while you are travelling in another country (or another state).
And once they've got millions of people signed up, then they change the privacy policy to "we will sell anything we feel like to the highest bidder, because those millions were the entire point anyway."
Do you really want to be behind the guy in line at the cash register waiting for that kind of confirmation?
They eyes don't see it as a rectangle. But we don't with our eyes, we see with our brains.
In a theater, the screen covers a much larger percentage of your field of vision, and the difference in distance to the center vs the edges can easily be several feet if the screen is flat. This is enough to be noticeable. In the living room, the difference will be millimeters, and you'd need a ruler to detect it.
As has been noted, this is snake oil intended to generate patent revenue.
Charlie's a smart guy who knows the publishing trade inside and out, and I generally agree with him. But to keep this entirely in perspective, let's keep in mind Amazon's dispute is with Hachette, which is Charlie's publisher, with whom he has a very friendly relationship. He's not an impartial observer, even as an author.
The differences between sentencing for crack users (who are predominantly black) and regular cocaine users (who are predominantly white) is well documented, and enshrined in law.
Actually, between the equal protection clause of the 4th amendment and the cruel and unusual clause of the 8th, it isn't difficult to argue that it does, in fact, mean just that.
Every single person I have ever talked to who has been involved in a real life political campaign disagrees with that. Professional politicians can tell you to the dollar what it costs to get elected to various offices, and people who do not listen do not get elected.
And, again, go look at the example of India, where reforms similar to what's proposed here have been enacted, and increased corruption considerably, because reducing the amount of legitimate money available does not reduce the cost of getting elected.
I know that, and you know that, and a lot of other people know that. Unfortunately, we are a minority, and most people are, as noted, lazy, stupid and passive.
Honestly, I can't see that it makes any difference at all who gets elected. I really can't tell the two parties apart without a score card. They all want the same thing: to go through our pockets for loose change they missed last time. Everything else is decoration.
There are two possibilities with a plan like that:
1) Everybody, and I mean everybody becomes a candidate, and hires their friends to milk the system for every penny it's worth. Instant government bankruptcy. Or
2) Somebody will have to decide who is, and isn't, a "legitimate" candidate. That somebody will be . . . the people currently in charge. Which is to say, your "reform" would make real reform literally impossible, ever, short of violent revolution.
Nice job, Tex. You've solved all the world's problems in one swell foop.
We just want to change the *incentives* of our politicians. In short, we want politicians to have to worry about what the voters think first, and right now they have to worry about what the funders think first.
Which is what I said. The way to get politicians to care about what voters think first is to get voters to care about what voters think, or get them to think at all.
Good luck with that. People are lazy, stupid, and passive. Ranting wingnuts who obviously don't get it will do nothing to change this.
Anybody who wants to ban corporate political speech needs to carefully study similar reforms in India, where about 1/3 of national political candidates are under criminal indictment (and 3% of sitting members of their congress) for campaign finance crimes. Despite what some will claim here, that is notand improvement.
The problem isn't corporate money in campaign finances, the problem is stupid, lazy voters who can't be bothered to find out what or what they're voting for, and just doing what the Magic Box in their living room tells them to. And no amount of campaign finance reform will ever fix that.
And remember, the real cash cow with Google fiber is that they can track absolutely everything those customer do online, all the time, and sell that data to advertisers. It's win/win/win for them.
Someone caving in isn't a problem with the terms, it's a problem with someone caving in.
All it takes is one noisy person, and the smell of money will bring in a law firm that specializes in class action lawsuits, and GM is in trouble that only tens or hundreds of millions will buy them out of. They may write a nasty email or two - I doubt even that was the actual intent in this - but that's it.
That actually makes it better. It makes it so much more ridiculous that enforcement would be impossible even if there weren't extensive case law regarding such idiotic things. And there is. Contracts require informed consent, not one side just saying "neener neener you didn't see what I didn't show you."
No attempt will ever, ever be made to enforce this, because no lawyer in his right mind, or with any interest in continuing to make his boat payments, will touch it even if the honchos at GM are insane enough to try.
What your attacker uses isn't up to you. What you use is.
And frankly, if someone attacks me - at a felony level - even with their bare fists, yes, I'd rather have a gun. Unlike so many, I have little experience at fist fighting. But I'm an excellent shot.
And even a 98 pound grandmother can stop a hulking thug trying to steal her social security money - if she has a gun.
Your method disarms, and renders helpless, anyone how has no experience at personal violence. Which is to say, it is far more likely to leave the victim helpless than the career criminal. Many find that desirable. Civilized people do not.
I'd rather shoot the guy trying to rob me than be beat up and robbed.
"Gun control is the theory that a woman found in an alley, raped, beaten and strangled with her own panty hose is morally superior to that same woman explaining to the police how her attacker got those bullet holes in his chest."
Those who do not believe in self defense do not deserve to be allowed it.
I'd rather be in a place where I'm allowed to defend myself. I realize that's irrelevant to a lot of people, who are too afraid to even try, but not to me, and not to a lot of Americans.
The rate of mass shootings hasn't changed in the US for many decades. The press just outright lies about that.
And first passed in 1794, with a definition not much different than today.
It's a "clarification" that makes it literally completely without meaning. A militia that doesn't allow its members to carry weapons is not a militia, it's a sit com. And the historical documentation on the 2nd amendment is extensive and very clear: it is intended as an individual right.
The biggest debate over the Federal Militia Act of 1794 was whether or not the government would be required to buy weapons for any able bodied male under the age of 45 who couldn't afford one on their own.
not only did the gun buyback slash gun crime
But not, according to your own government, all crime, which went up.
it also halved the suicide rate
The gun suicide rate, but not, according to your own government, the overall suicide rate, which was unchanged.
all of the evidence makes plain that owning a gun is more of a threat to the gun owner and his family than it is to any criminals or gubmint agents
That claim is based on a study by Dr. Kellerman, the "23 times as likely to be killed with your own gun as to kill an intruder." When someone examined his methodology, it turned out that he counted anyone who died within a mile of their own home - even of natural causes - as having been killed with his own gun. Needless to say, Dr. Kellerman stopped publishing his methodology with his results after that, meaning he stopped even pretending to do science.
That's the kind of lie needed to make such a claim.
According to the NCVS data - the FBI - if you are the victim of a felony robbery or assault, you are half as likely to be injured or the robbery successful if you have your own gun - even if the attacker initiates the violence. Those are real facts, backed by real data, from the FBI, who generally speaking, are more inclined to skew stuff in the other direction (they do not really approve of self defense).
Sounds like you'd rather argue about word definitions than talk about whether or not it's wrong to use someone else's photography without permission, and lie about it being your own.
If I didn't know better, I might think you were trying to change the subject or something.
NPR mentioned this morning that one officer has been disciplined since the new policy went in to effect. I assume it's the same one. They did not say how, and likely didn't know (and couldn't find out, as California has pretty strict privacy rights for employees being disciplined), but I seriously doubt it was more than a slap on the wrist for the first time. I suspect it was also made clear to the officer, and everyone else, that future offenses would have escalating consequences. Because, you see, this embarrasses the politicians, and costs the city money. LAPD has only very recently gotten out from under a federal supervision arrangement, and they do not want to get back. Even the unions are reluctant to push that.