It's a bit more complicated than that. The US government was designed by a lot of people, with a need to appease a lot of interests, so most of the constitution is some sort of compromise for the time. The constitution does prohibit the government from either prohibiting free exercise of respecting an establishment thereof, but throughout most of US history it was very common for government agencies and officials to openly endorse Christianity - and no-one minded, because when 95%+ of the country are Christian, who is going to object? So long as they avoided endorsing any particular denomination, all went well. It's only in the last century that serious disputes arose because the country became more religiously diverse.
It'll happen. It's already happening. But it won't be a mass-access thing - it'll be something users need to actively seek out and educate themselves on in order to gain access. Almost all users will be happy to use FacebookNet, because it does what they want: They can do the social media thing, look things up, chat to friends, check the news, contact their bank, buy goods, etc. It'll just be the minority who want to sneak over to the bad side of town, into that lawless realm.
The events are predictable even this far in advance. Churches will use it. Most will use it without problem. The mega-churches will especially like it, as their focus is on sheer member count (and donor pool) rather than an active relationship with each individual member. All will be well - because most church sermons are safe, bland lectures about doing good and charity. No problem.
Then, somewhere, a preacher will use it to broadcast a sermon of more difficult content. Most likely, though not certain to be, intensely anti-gay. A bit more than just the 'our church opposes gay marriage' type, and veering into conspiracy theories about the gay conspiracy to corrupt children, or something like that. Or it may be some really outdated sermon regarding woman, condemning educated woman as a danger to the family and asking why modern husbands are afraid to beat a wife who will not submit to their rightful authority. I can't say what the sermon will be, only that eventually, something will be said for which Amazon will face a backlash. There will be public pressure for them to expel this user - which they will, because they will certainly have an acceptable use policy clause for this type of situation.
If the sermon were really, really super-offensive - a call for open genocide, for example - that'd be the end of it. But this sermon is merely really offensive - enough to get kicked off, but not so bad as to be indefensible. So people will soon defend it: Just as the demands to kick the offending preacher off are silenced, so new cries will go up accusing Amazon of censorship, or being anti-Christian, and of trying to control the country with a secret political agenda. Even a few actual politicians will join the campaign against them, calling for investigations and regulations. Inevitably, someone will sue. The majority of the sermon that started it all will be quickly forgotten as the outrage grows.
And somewhere, an Amazon executive will wonder why they ever thought it a good idea in the first place, and vow never again to touch religion or politics.
That might be the plan, but there's a wildcard in play: Trump. He isn't a conventional politician, he doesn't care to appeal to moderates at all, and he is unpredictable. It's quite possible that he will resort to extreme measures to build the wall, like declaring a state of emergency or reclassifying it as an anti-drugs measure. The resulting legal mess could take a decade to resolve in court through all the inevitable jurisdictional games and appeals, during which time it is possible that some part of the wall will be built.
Europe is up to similar things in places. Once we tightened port security a bit, people got desperate enough to start crossing the Mediterranean on dangerously undersized boats. In response to this, Italy - which has one of the most strongly anti-immigration governments in the EU - started deliberately hampering rescue and patrol boats. Refusing them permission to dock, threatening to charge the crew with aiding criminal acts. Again there is no secret of the intent: The more migrants die making their dangerous journey, the fewer there will be arriving in Europe.
There was news coverage about a year ago of a clash on the US southern border - some activist groups were leaving emergency water caches at published locations in the desert, so immigrants trying to cross would be less likely to die. They also left hidden cameras, which captured the border patrol agents who then turned up to deliberately empty the water containers onto the ground.
There are many reasons Digg declined. There was also anger over the very obvious paid stories - the digg operators always denied it, but after the 'new Digg' changes, lots of glowing reviews started appearing on the front page where nothing like them had been moderated up before. Didn't take long for people to draw their conclusion.
No. Simple answer. There's no mystery over what he intended - every electronics enthusiast who has done anything with high voltage knows the basic circuits involved, including the resonant transformer. They are described in detail in some of his many patents, and it's obvious what he was trying to do: Generate a very high AC voltage tuned to the resonant frequency of the LC circuit formed by the ground and the atmosphere, so that it might be extracted at a distant point using another tuned resonant circuit in the form of a very high voltage, low-current source suitable for operating a gas discharge lamp.
It's an interesting idea. And it works, at laboratory scales. But the power requirements defy comprehension - he would have to electrify such a vast area, with every tree and lamppost drawing power, that it would require a government-bankrupting megaproject. The voltage gradients near the transmitter would be so high as to pose a serious danger of starting fires. The equipment would need continuous adjustment for atmospheric conditions, and sometimes wouldn't work at all. At most it could be used to light up a few bulbs near to the transmitter, which is exactly what Tesla was able to achieve. He was limited to working with the theories of his time, for all his genius, and with a more modern understanding of the electromagnetic properties of the atmosphere we can easily see that the idea is fundamentally flawed.
Journalists are seldom drained in maths, mechanics or physics. Just think how many articles on the electricity industry describe a power station's capacity in 'megawatts per day,' or the ill-defined unit of 'enough power for 100,000 houses.'
One of the factors leading to the Digg's decline in popularity was a scandal involving a group known as the "Digg Patriots." Political campaigners* who used a combination of organised disliking and an understanding of the Digg site operation to manipulate it. By monitoring the feed of submissions, they were able to identify any upcoming story which reflected badly on their political stances, or which might be used to support opposing stances - and then message an alert to the group to collectively vote against that submission long before it could reach the front page feed.
If you watch enough youtube videos relating to politics or religion, you will eventually come across stories of the semi-organised mobs on there - when a moderately prominent youtuber with a few thousand subscribers asks them to go and dislike a video by someone else, either because of a disagreement over an issue or over a personal dispute. Some of the mob will take it further and look for excuses to submit inappropriate content alerts too - which, given that youtube is almost entirely automated in that regard, can be very difficult to challenge.
*Their political alignment is not important for this example, only their methods.
Can they take it out? They spend years baking IE in at the level of a vital, inseparable system component for legal purposes - it might be difficult to remove without the risk of breaking other things, both their own software and third party.
Even if it's not racist, it still sounds rather vile. Some people feel better about themselves when they have a 'deserving' person who they can hate and hurt, and criminals - regardless of race - can fill that niche quite well.
If the car didn't have autopilot and he fell asleep, and crashed into another car at highway speed killing five people, then it wouldn't even make local news. Novel things make the news, and car accidents are routine - no-one cares about that continuous death toll any more, it's become background noise. But Tesla autopilot? That's new! Exciting! Scary! That gets covered.
Almost every single Democrat will vote in favor, almost every single Republican will vote against. May pass house, doomed in senate. American politics is driven entirely by partisan considerations - very few politicians dare to go against their party position. There may be one or two defectors, but that's all. The actual subject of the bill is not important at all.
By adding their own certificate to the trusted root signers list on your device. ISPs seldom try this sort of thing because it requires modifying configuration for all user devices, but it's very common in the business and education network areas, where the IT administrators can do that quite easily. It's the only way to properly monitor and filter internet access, which is a requirement in all schools and most offices: If IT could not monitor and filter their users, they wouldn't be able to provide internet access at all.
You can try. Physics is against you on that one - long-range radio communications are actually pretty easy to set up, but only if you are willing to accept poor reliability and pitiful bitrate. I can talk to Russia from the UK most days if I want to - at 31bps. That's bits per second. Not kilobits. Still, if you want to mess around with something more local, I've some pretty good designs and software for building a piratebox if you want it.
The music may be public domain, but a specific performance of it is still under copyright - and there are actually not many public domain recordings of classical music, because of the expense of getting an entire orchestra together and the awkward fact that the copyright term in some countries is about the same as the time since audio recording technology has been around.
The media is 'broken' in a sense, but consider that it is actually doing exactly what the people want. It's a perfect example of the free market in action - a highly competitive industry, in which a great number of companies compete to produce the product which best satisfies the demands of the customer. The unfortunate complication is that what the customers largely want is sensationalist reporting, conspiracy theories, political interpretation that reassures them that their particular faction is superior and their rivals are evil, fluff about the sex lives of celebrities, and stories telling them things they really want to be true regardless of the facts.
I think of it as much like the tobacco or processed food industries: They are simply selling what the public wants, even if what the public wants is not good for them.
There are reputable, trustworthy, unbiased news agencies. The Guardian, considered by a public survey to be the most trustworthy newspaper in the UK, has a daily circulation of 138,000. But the Daily Mail, a source of celebrity tripe with a long history of outright lying in order to spice up news stories, has a daily circulation of 1,200,000. The people buy what the people want, and what the people want is the current events version of the deep-fried mars bar.
Tangential to wikileaks, I imagine. Also because events taking place at the highest level of US politics have such wide-ranging impacts that they are of importance to every field. Even when everyone is sick of hearing about them, they still matter.
I'm sure lots of people want to, but this isn't 1963 any more. The president has excellent personal protection - he is quite possibly the single best-defended individual in the world. I did just google on 'trump assassination attempts' and can see three distinct attempts referenced just in the first page of results.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that sounds like a fair description of the right too. On the particular issues you mention,it can be hard to tell them apart at times.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The US government was designed by a lot of people, with a need to appease a lot of interests, so most of the constitution is some sort of compromise for the time. The constitution does prohibit the government from either prohibiting free exercise of respecting an establishment thereof, but throughout most of US history it was very common for government agencies and officials to openly endorse Christianity - and no-one minded, because when 95%+ of the country are Christian, who is going to object? So long as they avoided endorsing any particular denomination, all went well. It's only in the last century that serious disputes arose because the country became more religiously diverse.
They aren't even that communist. Lots of public-private partnerships though.
It'll happen. It's already happening. But it won't be a mass-access thing - it'll be something users need to actively seek out and educate themselves on in order to gain access. Almost all users will be happy to use FacebookNet, because it does what they want: They can do the social media thing, look things up, chat to friends, check the news, contact their bank, buy goods, etc. It'll just be the minority who want to sneak over to the bad side of town, into that lawless realm.
The events are predictable even this far in advance. Churches will use it. Most will use it without problem. The mega-churches will especially like it, as their focus is on sheer member count (and donor pool) rather than an active relationship with each individual member. All will be well - because most church sermons are safe, bland lectures about doing good and charity. No problem.
Then, somewhere, a preacher will use it to broadcast a sermon of more difficult content. Most likely, though not certain to be, intensely anti-gay. A bit more than just the 'our church opposes gay marriage' type, and veering into conspiracy theories about the gay conspiracy to corrupt children, or something like that. Or it may be some really outdated sermon regarding woman, condemning educated woman as a danger to the family and asking why modern husbands are afraid to beat a wife who will not submit to their rightful authority. I can't say what the sermon will be, only that eventually, something will be said for which Amazon will face a backlash. There will be public pressure for them to expel this user - which they will, because they will certainly have an acceptable use policy clause for this type of situation.
If the sermon were really, really super-offensive - a call for open genocide, for example - that'd be the end of it. But this sermon is merely really offensive - enough to get kicked off, but not so bad as to be indefensible. So people will soon defend it: Just as the demands to kick the offending preacher off are silenced, so new cries will go up accusing Amazon of censorship, or being anti-Christian, and of trying to control the country with a secret political agenda. Even a few actual politicians will join the campaign against them, calling for investigations and regulations. Inevitably, someone will sue. The majority of the sermon that started it all will be quickly forgotten as the outrage grows.
And somewhere, an Amazon executive will wonder why they ever thought it a good idea in the first place, and vow never again to touch religion or politics.
Trepanning was around long before the four humours theory. Plus the treatment for excess of blood wasn't trepanation, it was bleeding. Obviously.
That might be the plan, but there's a wildcard in play: Trump. He isn't a conventional politician, he doesn't care to appeal to moderates at all, and he is unpredictable. It's quite possible that he will resort to extreme measures to build the wall, like declaring a state of emergency or reclassifying it as an anti-drugs measure. The resulting legal mess could take a decade to resolve in court through all the inevitable jurisdictional games and appeals, during which time it is possible that some part of the wall will be built.
Europe is up to similar things in places. Once we tightened port security a bit, people got desperate enough to start crossing the Mediterranean on dangerously undersized boats. In response to this, Italy - which has one of the most strongly anti-immigration governments in the EU - started deliberately hampering rescue and patrol boats. Refusing them permission to dock, threatening to charge the crew with aiding criminal acts. Again there is no secret of the intent: The more migrants die making their dangerous journey, the fewer there will be arriving in Europe.
There was news coverage about a year ago of a clash on the US southern border - some activist groups were leaving emergency water caches at published locations in the desert, so immigrants trying to cross would be less likely to die. They also left hidden cameras, which captured the border patrol agents who then turned up to deliberately empty the water containers onto the ground.
There are many reasons Digg declined. There was also anger over the very obvious paid stories - the digg operators always denied it, but after the 'new Digg' changes, lots of glowing reviews started appearing on the front page where nothing like them had been moderated up before. Didn't take long for people to draw their conclusion.
No. Simple answer. There's no mystery over what he intended - every electronics enthusiast who has done anything with high voltage knows the basic circuits involved, including the resonant transformer. They are described in detail in some of his many patents, and it's obvious what he was trying to do: Generate a very high AC voltage tuned to the resonant frequency of the LC circuit formed by the ground and the atmosphere, so that it might be extracted at a distant point using another tuned resonant circuit in the form of a very high voltage, low-current source suitable for operating a gas discharge lamp.
It's an interesting idea. And it works, at laboratory scales. But the power requirements defy comprehension - he would have to electrify such a vast area, with every tree and lamppost drawing power, that it would require a government-bankrupting megaproject. The voltage gradients near the transmitter would be so high as to pose a serious danger of starting fires. The equipment would need continuous adjustment for atmospheric conditions, and sometimes wouldn't work at all. At most it could be used to light up a few bulbs near to the transmitter, which is exactly what Tesla was able to achieve. He was limited to working with the theories of his time, for all his genius, and with a more modern understanding of the electromagnetic properties of the atmosphere we can easily see that the idea is fundamentally flawed.
Journalists are seldom drained in maths, mechanics or physics. Just think how many articles on the electricity industry describe a power station's capacity in 'megawatts per day,' or the ill-defined unit of 'enough power for 100,000 houses.'
The web was a very different place back then. What worked then may not work now.
One of the factors leading to the Digg's decline in popularity was a scandal involving a group known as the "Digg Patriots." Political campaigners* who used a combination of organised disliking and an understanding of the Digg site operation to manipulate it. By monitoring the feed of submissions, they were able to identify any upcoming story which reflected badly on their political stances, or which might be used to support opposing stances - and then message an alert to the group to collectively vote against that submission long before it could reach the front page feed.
If you watch enough youtube videos relating to politics or religion, you will eventually come across stories of the semi-organised mobs on there - when a moderately prominent youtuber with a few thousand subscribers asks them to go and dislike a video by someone else, either because of a disagreement over an issue or over a personal dispute. Some of the mob will take it further and look for excuses to submit inappropriate content alerts too - which, given that youtube is almost entirely automated in that regard, can be very difficult to challenge.
*Their political alignment is not important for this example, only their methods.
Can they take it out? They spend years baking IE in at the level of a vital, inseparable system component for legal purposes - it might be difficult to remove without the risk of breaking other things, both their own software and third party.
Even if it's not racist, it still sounds rather vile. Some people feel better about themselves when they have a 'deserving' person who they can hate and hurt, and criminals - regardless of race - can fill that niche quite well.
DNS tunneling is indeed a thing. Overhead is nasty. Ping tunneling is also a thing.
...
If the car didn't have autopilot and he fell asleep, and crashed into another car at highway speed killing five people, then it wouldn't even make local news. Novel things make the news, and car accidents are routine - no-one cares about that continuous death toll any more, it's become background noise. But Tesla autopilot? That's new! Exciting! Scary! That gets covered.
Almost every single Democrat will vote in favor, almost every single Republican will vote against. May pass house, doomed in senate. American politics is driven entirely by partisan considerations - very few politicians dare to go against their party position. There may be one or two defectors, but that's all. The actual subject of the bill is not important at all.
By adding their own certificate to the trusted root signers list on your device. ISPs seldom try this sort of thing because it requires modifying configuration for all user devices, but it's very common in the business and education network areas, where the IT administrators can do that quite easily. It's the only way to properly monitor and filter internet access, which is a requirement in all schools and most offices: If IT could not monitor and filter their users, they wouldn't be able to provide internet access at all.
You can try. Physics is against you on that one - long-range radio communications are actually pretty easy to set up, but only if you are willing to accept poor reliability and pitiful bitrate. I can talk to Russia from the UK most days if I want to - at 31bps. That's bits per second. Not kilobits. Still, if you want to mess around with something more local, I've some pretty good designs and software for building a piratebox if you want it.
The music may be public domain, but a specific performance of it is still under copyright - and there are actually not many public domain recordings of classical music, because of the expense of getting an entire orchestra together and the awkward fact that the copyright term in some countries is about the same as the time since audio recording technology has been around.
The media is 'broken' in a sense, but consider that it is actually doing exactly what the people want. It's a perfect example of the free market in action - a highly competitive industry, in which a great number of companies compete to produce the product which best satisfies the demands of the customer. The unfortunate complication is that what the customers largely want is sensationalist reporting, conspiracy theories, political interpretation that reassures them that their particular faction is superior and their rivals are evil, fluff about the sex lives of celebrities, and stories telling them things they really want to be true regardless of the facts.
I think of it as much like the tobacco or processed food industries: They are simply selling what the public wants, even if what the public wants is not good for them.
There are reputable, trustworthy, unbiased news agencies. The Guardian, considered by a public survey to be the most trustworthy newspaper in the UK, has a daily circulation of 138,000. But the Daily Mail, a source of celebrity tripe with a long history of outright lying in order to spice up news stories, has a daily circulation of 1,200,000. The people buy what the people want, and what the people want is the current events version of the deep-fried mars bar.
Tangential to wikileaks, I imagine. Also because events taking place at the highest level of US politics have such wide-ranging impacts that they are of importance to every field. Even when everyone is sick of hearing about them, they still matter.
I'm sure lots of people want to, but this isn't 1963 any more. The president has excellent personal protection - he is quite possibly the single best-defended individual in the world. I did just google on 'trump assassination attempts' and can see three distinct attempts referenced just in the first page of results.