Two unisex restrooms is an odd thing. Perhaps they were trialing the idea. If they go unisex they can close one down, which means they can free up more floor space for customers to eat in.
Funny thing, though... I've proposed these unisex rooms many times on socially conservative sites. I've pointed out not only the practical advantages in reduced floor space and cleaning costs, but also that the increased foot traffic will actually improve safety - assault takes some uninterrupted time, plus it means that any calls for help are more likely to be answered if half the people outside of the room are too uncomfortable to enter. But I've never gotten anyone to express agreement. I think the 'creepy factor' is just too high. People are strange creatures.
As opposed to what? Restrooms are not high security. Our hypothetical rapist or molester is already intent on crime, he's not going to be deterred by having to casually stroll into the women's room. There are no guards on the door. Rarely CCTV.
If he gets caught before he can start on the raping he can easily just claim it was an honest mistake, he was distracted and mis-read the sign. Who can prove otherwise?
If someone is planning on rape, this law isn't going to stop them. Restrooms are not high security areas. There are no guards on the doors. It's usually the only room that you can be confident does not have CCTV in. Anyone can simply walk in.
The problem with that is economic. The US is something of a victim of its own success: A high standard and thus cost of living, substantial rights for workers (though less than in Europe), environmental protections, health and safety regulations. These are all things that raise the cost of industry. It's cheaper to manufacture things at a smog-spewing, peasant-killing factory in China or Vietnam or even Mexico and ship them to the US than it is to manufacture them there. You could try to distort the market in the favor of US domestic industry through the use of import tariffs and such measures, but then you end up locating businesses in economically sub-optimal locations and suffering the resulting cost increase. You might get to enjoy a new all-American car, but you'll be paying twice as much for it. This applies to government too: Would you rather they spend a billion dollars of tax money contracting a Chinese company to build something, or two billion to use only American suppliers? How are you going to justify this needless extra spending?
It goes both ways. (c) China is the worlds most populous country, and due to rapid industrialisation it is full of people suddenly finding themselves several times wealthier than their parents could have dreamed. Non-Chinese companies want a slice of that pie.
If you've no other option, sure. It wouldn't be the first time doctors have improvised treatment in a disaster situation using whatever comes to hand. But such practices should be avoided where at all possible, and it's not that desperate yet.
He will, I'm sure. Russia has long been a haven for criminals targeting victims outside of the country, but it's a foolish Russian scammer who turns his attentions inwards.
I could just as easily point to Somalia as an example of where an unregulated free market will get you. They reached quite a level of business management - when you can actually buy stock in the piracy firm, you know it's a thriving industry. Hand-picking examples that support your desired conclusion is not an honest argument.
By many metrics - self-evaluated happiness, violent crime rate, life expectancy, homelessness rate - the Scandinavian countries are the best of them all right now. They are neither purely capitalist nor purely socialist: They pick out the parts that work best from both approaches, and let them compliment each other.
1. Purity. Guaranteed absolutely free of anything that could be dangerous if injected. 2. Sterility. No microbes. Hermetic seal container made free of life at the factory. 3. A paper trail saying where it was made, when, and who shipped it where, for use in identifying any contamination that does occur. 4. Someone who can be sued if all the above fails.
But it's followed by the slow crushing of hope for the future once people realise that the space race is over now, and all those dreams of martian colonies and mankind exploring the universe aren't going to happen in their lifetime.
It's a socialist state in denial. I blame a generation getting intensive cold war propaganda: They know that socialism is evil, oppressive and unamerican, they just don't know what socialism actually means.
I don't think this is entirely about money talking. Yes, the ISP lobbyist forces are powerful - but until recently they could only stall in court. What's changed is the political environment - a new ideology dominates now, one which holds that all forms of regulation are inherently bad and the free market is always a force for good.
Everything is superior to MP3. Vorbis, Opus, AAC, ATRAC, even (ugh) WMA. Because MP3 is simply dated.
But sometimes dated works. It's universally supported. Every device, every platform, from PCs to doorbells. The same reason GIF and JPEG still stick around, when there are superior alternatives now.
You can fix that for purely static content if you use shared cache system - Freenet and IPFS both use this approach. It works well, but it can't do much for dynamic content.
It's not a decentralised web, but it's a good start. It has the potentially to completely decentralize all static content, and with pervasive caching that could greatly reduce network traffic and improve response times too.
Slashdot Mirror
Two unisex restrooms is an odd thing. Perhaps they were trialing the idea. If they go unisex they can close one down, which means they can free up more floor space for customers to eat in.
Funny thing, though... I've proposed these unisex rooms many times on socially conservative sites. I've pointed out not only the practical advantages in reduced floor space and cleaning costs, but also that the increased foot traffic will actually improve safety - assault takes some uninterrupted time, plus it means that any calls for help are more likely to be answered if half the people outside of the room are too uncomfortable to enter. But I've never gotten anyone to express agreement. I think the 'creepy factor' is just too high. People are strange creatures.
As opposed to what? Restrooms are not high security. Our hypothetical rapist or molester is already intent on crime, he's not going to be deterred by having to casually stroll into the women's room. There are no guards on the door. Rarely CCTV.
If he gets caught before he can start on the raping he can easily just claim it was an honest mistake, he was distracted and mis-read the sign. Who can prove otherwise?
[CITATION NEEDED]
If someone is planning on rape, this law isn't going to stop them. Restrooms are not high security areas. There are no guards on the doors. It's usually the only room that you can be confident does not have CCTV in. Anyone can simply walk in.
The problem with that is economic. The US is something of a victim of its own success: A high standard and thus cost of living, substantial rights for workers (though less than in Europe), environmental protections, health and safety regulations. These are all things that raise the cost of industry. It's cheaper to manufacture things at a smog-spewing, peasant-killing factory in China or Vietnam or even Mexico and ship them to the US than it is to manufacture them there. You could try to distort the market in the favor of US domestic industry through the use of import tariffs and such measures, but then you end up locating businesses in economically sub-optimal locations and suffering the resulting cost increase. You might get to enjoy a new all-American car, but you'll be paying twice as much for it. This applies to government too: Would you rather they spend a billion dollars of tax money contracting a Chinese company to build something, or two billion to use only American suppliers? How are you going to justify this needless extra spending?
China doesn't value free speech in the same way that is typical in America. They do very strongly value unity, and stability, and social cohesion.
It goes both ways. (c) China is the worlds most populous country, and due to rapid industrialisation it is full of people suddenly finding themselves several times wealthier than their parents could have dreamed. Non-Chinese companies want a slice of that pie.
If you've no other option, sure. It wouldn't be the first time doctors have improvised treatment in a disaster situation using whatever comes to hand. But such practices should be avoided where at all possible, and it's not that desperate yet.
Such a theft could be justified, but how can you be sure you are ripping off the real criminals and not just another law-abiding bank customer?
He will, I'm sure. Russia has long been a haven for criminals targeting victims outside of the country, but it's a foolish Russian scammer who turns his attentions inwards.
I could just as easily point to Somalia as an example of where an unregulated free market will get you. They reached quite a level of business management - when you can actually buy stock in the piracy firm, you know it's a thriving industry. Hand-picking examples that support your desired conclusion is not an honest argument.
By many metrics - self-evaluated happiness, violent crime rate, life expectancy, homelessness rate - the Scandinavian countries are the best of them all right now. They are neither purely capitalist nor purely socialist: They pick out the parts that work best from both approaches, and let them compliment each other.
1. Purity. Guaranteed absolutely free of anything that could be dangerous if injected.
2. Sterility. No microbes. Hermetic seal container made free of life at the factory.
3. A paper trail saying where it was made, when, and who shipped it where, for use in identifying any contamination that does occur.
4. Someone who can be sued if all the above fails.
It would be more cost-effective to spend that money on lobbying politicians to reduce or eliminate the royalty payments.
But it's followed by the slow crushing of hope for the future once people realise that the space race is over now, and all those dreams of martian colonies and mankind exploring the universe aren't going to happen in their lifetime.
How hard can it be to get the ITU and all major world governments to agree... ooh, right.
It's a socialist state in denial. I blame a generation getting intensive cold war propaganda: They know that socialism is evil, oppressive and unamerican, they just don't know what socialism actually means.
I don't think this is entirely about money talking. Yes, the ISP lobbyist forces are powerful - but until recently they could only stall in court. What's changed is the political environment - a new ideology dominates now, one which holds that all forms of regulation are inherently bad and the free market is always a force for good.
Everything is superior to MP3. Vorbis, Opus, AAC, ATRAC, even (ugh) WMA. Because MP3 is simply dated.
But sometimes dated works. It's universally supported. Every device, every platform, from PCs to doorbells. The same reason GIF and JPEG still stick around, when there are superior alternatives now.
That would be nice. The implementation is immature and rather buggy, but it is also rapidly getting better.
I've already found IPFS sites hosting porn and piracy, which is a good sign a new technology is catching on.
'Its,' when used as the possessive rather than an abbreviation for 'it is,' has no apostrophe.
I don't know how hollywood manages to ever not make money. Even the worst movies seem to rake in the cash with ease.
You can fix that for purely static content if you use shared cache system - Freenet and IPFS both use this approach. It works well, but it can't do much for dynamic content.
"no way to ensure your machine won't have parts of something disgusting and vile."
This is intentional. Plausible denyability. Even if something is found your node, it's impossible to prove you had any knowledge of it.
Try IPFS.
It's not a decentralised web, but it's a good start. It has the potentially to completely decentralize all static content, and with pervasive caching that could greatly reduce network traffic and improve response times too.
Partially decentralized. Economics is a factor: Fiber is expensive, so there are a lot of choke points.