Can't entirely blame her either. It's been in the pipeline since before May was PM. She went along with it, that's all. There are plenty of people who went along with it, because what politician wants to go on record as opposing a policy promoted as protecting children?
It's worth noting that this wasn't passed as a bill independently. It was part of the Digital Economy Act 2017 - one of those big do-everything bills.
Of course rape is about sex. It's rape. How could it not be about sex? They are not exclusive options: It can be about violence and domination and sex, all at once. Exact proportions vary.
It's not just the US. The UK has good ground to be considered the inventors of the media-driven moral panic. We've had government attempts to crack down on porn before - and other things too. Before the internet was the fear of satellite TV, before that was the 'video nasties' panic which lead to the government going so far as to ban the sale of any and all movies that had not been classified by the national censoring authority, the BBFC. Before that there was panic over films in cinemas - and even back in the 1800s there was public fear, stired up by newspapers of the time, that a generation were being ruined by 'penny dreadfuls' - cheaply printed literature containing lowbrow horror stories of gore, violence, and the type of sexual content that was considered quite scandalous back then.
Even a VPN overestimates the effectiveness of the block. A VPN requires a minimum level of knowledge. The first thing most people would do is look for another porn site*, of which there are sure to be a few orders of magnitude more than the block can keep up with. If that fails, then it's on to the places which are not porn sites, but which still have a ton of porn - social media sites and forums, Telegram channels, torrent sites. Finally, if that doesn't work**, then they start learning how VPNs and proxy servers work and where the might find one.
* People seeking porn generally want it right away - if they need to stop to study basic network configuration, the mood is lost.
** Perhaps they are looking for something very specific, and only a few sites cater to it.
After being confined to one building for so many years, living with constant fear that he will be in jail the next day, his head is probably a lot less right than it was going in.
People are strange. They'll fret for hours over the state of a cat, and form an angry and vengeful mob if one is harmed, then eat chicken for lunch without a thought as to where the meat comes from.
That's how it would have worked, pre-Trump. These days? Anything goes. It would create a lot of diplomatic fallout to add new charges after extradition, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Too many powerful people calling for his head on a platter.
Looks like the outbreak is indeed centered in the city's Orthodox Jewish community. That really is odd, as the objections seem to be based on false scientific claims, not superstitious or moral objections.
I don't see anything to connect is to immigration though. The Independent suggests the outbreak strain was brought back from Israel, but by tourists who went there for a festival and returned home with the virus incubating.
The phrase "reward videos that are more palatable to advertisers" tells me exactly what this is about. It's about keeping down any videos which express sensitive opinions - because advertisers want nothing to do with politics, any specifics of religion, or absolutely anything relating to sex. Such video is more trouble than it's worth.
They surrendered in WW2, and we've everyone has been taunting them over it for the last seventy years. Mostly because they only held up for six weeks, at which point they realised that if they continued to fight they would suffer massive casualties and still lose. Instead of that, they decided to let the citizens of other countries die on their behalf. I'm going to keep taunting them for the next thirty. Maybe on the anniversary of their surrender I'll decide they've had enough.
The article does not claim otherwise. It only claims that humans may listen to what is said *after* the trigger phrase, or after something which the box misinterprets as the trigger phrase.
Cable service is a natural monopoly. The first company to enter a market has to pay (Or get the taxpayer to pay) the vast costs of infrastructure - digging up roads to lay cable, buying rights to install distribution cabinets, the expensive stuff. Once done, they can charge whatever they want, for there is no alternative for the customers. For a second to enter, they would have to pay just as much - to gain access to a contested market, where all the potential customers are already signed up with an incumbent. Not worth the expense.
Even more important than his paycheck is the party donations. Running political campaigns in the US is very, very expensive. The combined party spending in 2016 for all US election campaigns was $6.5 *BILLION*, according to a Washington Post estimate. The only hope a party has of securing enough funding to participate in that game is to seek out and appease the big donors - show that the party is on their side, and that donating to them would be a beneficial relationship. It's not *quite* bribery, but the effect is much the same.
According to the current top story on Fox news, it's immigrants flooding across the border from "50 different countries, including China, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt and Romania."
Income can be flexible. Quite a few people manage to be mega-rich while having no income on paper, for tax reasons. There's an impressive trick used by the leaders of mega-churches where their church actually owns all their property, as a tax-exempt organization, and they rent it for $1 a year.
You are trying to apply a purely rational analysis to human behavior, something which is only partly rational. People do love to judge.
Why does the US use food stamps, rather than an equal value in currency? Because if people were able to spend their government benefits on anything other than the essentials of survival, there would be outrage. Newspapers would constantly run stories about how your tax money is being used to pay for cigarettes and alcohol for people too lazy to work.
Success in that field doesn't require superhuman gaming ability. It requires pretty good gaming ability, combined with the career management skills to profit from it. Even if he has to shift eventually to a less twitchy game, he'll still have the contacts and brand recognition to make money off it.
That's just how people work. They assess their lives relative to their peers. If you earn $100,000 a year, but all your friends are earning $1,000,000, you are still going to feel like an underachiever. If you work sixty hours a week, and you see someone else who is just as well-off working zero hours, then you are going to see a bastard who doesn't deserve anything.
A UBI scheme covers your basic needs. That's all. Enough to get a minimally comfortable home and essential needs met. Life above the poverty line, but not by much. If you want more, you still have to work for it - but you get to decide how much more, and you don't have to worry that unemployment will lead you to ruin.
Objection often isn't based in economics, but in morality. People feel deeply unhappy with the idea that their hard-earned money might be going to people who didn't work nearly as hard for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't entirely blame her either. It's been in the pipeline since before May was PM. She went along with it, that's all. There are plenty of people who went along with it, because what politician wants to go on record as opposing a policy promoted as protecting children?
It's worth noting that this wasn't passed as a bill independently. It was part of the Digital Economy Act 2017 - one of those big do-everything bills.
Not the Christians this time. I'd love to blame them if it were, but for once, not them. They don't have much influence in British politics.
Of course rape is about sex. It's rape. How could it not be about sex? They are not exclusive options: It can be about violence and domination and sex, all at once. Exact proportions vary.
It's not just the US. The UK has good ground to be considered the inventors of the media-driven moral panic. We've had government attempts to crack down on porn before - and other things too. Before the internet was the fear of satellite TV, before that was the 'video nasties' panic which lead to the government going so far as to ban the sale of any and all movies that had not been classified by the national censoring authority, the BBFC. Before that there was panic over films in cinemas - and even back in the 1800s there was public fear, stired up by newspapers of the time, that a generation were being ruined by 'penny dreadfuls' - cheaply printed literature containing lowbrow horror stories of gore, violence, and the type of sexual content that was considered quite scandalous back then.
Even a VPN overestimates the effectiveness of the block. A VPN requires a minimum level of knowledge. The first thing most people would do is look for another porn site*, of which there are sure to be a few orders of magnitude more than the block can keep up with. If that fails, then it's on to the places which are not porn sites, but which still have a ton of porn - social media sites and forums, Telegram channels, torrent sites. Finally, if that doesn't work**, then they start learning how VPNs and proxy servers work and where the might find one.
* People seeking porn generally want it right away - if they need to stop to study basic network configuration, the mood is lost.
** Perhaps they are looking for something very specific, and only a few sites cater to it.
Once he was arrested in Britain, the US filed their extradition request within hours - so looks like he was right on that front, at least.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
After being confined to one building for so many years, living with constant fear that he will be in jail the next day, his head is probably a lot less right than it was going in.
People are strange. They'll fret for hours over the state of a cat, and form an angry and vengeful mob if one is harmed, then eat chicken for lunch without a thought as to where the meat comes from.
That's how it would have worked, pre-Trump. These days? Anything goes. It would create a lot of diplomatic fallout to add new charges after extradition, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Too many powerful people calling for his head on a platter.
I saw a few comments here suggesting it was a Jewish thing. Seemed odd, so I did a quick google search and... turns out they were right.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u...
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
Looks like the outbreak is indeed centered in the city's Orthodox Jewish community. That really is odd, as the objections seem to be based on false scientific claims, not superstitious or moral objections.
I don't see anything to connect is to immigration though. The Independent suggests the outbreak strain was brought back from Israel, but by tourists who went there for a festival and returned home with the virus incubating.
There are some actually pretty fun games on it, now the hardware is up to the task.
There are lots of rubbish games too, of course, but that's true of games in general.
The phrase "reward videos that are more palatable to advertisers" tells me exactly what this is about. It's about keeping down any videos which express sensitive opinions - because advertisers want nothing to do with politics, any specifics of religion, or absolutely anything relating to sex. Such video is more trouble than it's worth.
They surrendered in WW2, and we've everyone has been taunting them over it for the last seventy years. Mostly because they only held up for six weeks, at which point they realised that if they continued to fight they would suffer massive casualties and still lose. Instead of that, they decided to let the citizens of other countries die on their behalf. I'm going to keep taunting them for the next thirty. Maybe on the anniversary of their surrender I'll decide they've had enough.
The article does not claim otherwise. It only claims that humans may listen to what is said *after* the trigger phrase, or after something which the box misinterprets as the trigger phrase.
We can always refine it on pets. A few very rich people would be willing to pay a hundred thousand dollars for the smartest dog in the show.
Cable service is a natural monopoly. The first company to enter a market has to pay (Or get the taxpayer to pay) the vast costs of infrastructure - digging up roads to lay cable, buying rights to install distribution cabinets, the expensive stuff. Once done, they can charge whatever they want, for there is no alternative for the customers. For a second to enter, they would have to pay just as much - to gain access to a contested market, where all the potential customers are already signed up with an incumbent. Not worth the expense.
Even more important than his paycheck is the party donations. Running political campaigns in the US is very, very expensive. The combined party spending in 2016 for all US election campaigns was $6.5 *BILLION*, according to a Washington Post estimate. The only hope a party has of securing enough funding to participate in that game is to seek out and appease the big donors - show that the party is on their side, and that donating to them would be a beneficial relationship. It's not *quite* bribery, but the effect is much the same.
According to the current top story on Fox news, it's immigrants flooding across the border from "50 different countries, including China, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt and Romania."
Income can be flexible. Quite a few people manage to be mega-rich while having no income on paper, for tax reasons. There's an impressive trick used by the leaders of mega-churches where their church actually owns all their property, as a tax-exempt organization, and they rent it for $1 a year.
You are trying to apply a purely rational analysis to human behavior, something which is only partly rational. People do love to judge.
Why does the US use food stamps, rather than an equal value in currency? Because if people were able to spend their government benefits on anything other than the essentials of survival, there would be outrage. Newspapers would constantly run stories about how your tax money is being used to pay for cigarettes and alcohol for people too lazy to work.
Success in that field doesn't require superhuman gaming ability. It requires pretty good gaming ability, combined with the career management skills to profit from it. Even if he has to shift eventually to a less twitchy game, he'll still have the contacts and brand recognition to make money off it.
True, but people not familiar with the MOST and its nickname could easily conclude the headline was a typo and we just lost the Hubble.
That's just how people work. They assess their lives relative to their peers. If you earn $100,000 a year, but all your friends are earning $1,000,000, you are still going to feel like an underachiever. If you work sixty hours a week, and you see someone else who is just as well-off working zero hours, then you are going to see a bastard who doesn't deserve anything.
A UBI scheme covers your basic needs. That's all. Enough to get a minimally comfortable home and essential needs met. Life above the poverty line, but not by much. If you want more, you still have to work for it - but you get to decide how much more, and you don't have to worry that unemployment will lead you to ruin.
Objection often isn't based in economics, but in morality. People feel deeply unhappy with the idea that their hard-earned money might be going to people who didn't work nearly as hard for it.