Since each state should be having their sales verified through this database, the FBI should be able to audit how many queries are made per state
IMO: When a successful background check is made; the national database should issue a Background verification control number which MUST be recorded by the states in their own databases and must also
appear stamped on a concealed carry permit; A permit without the correct control number is not valid. The control number can be looked up later and will match to the personal information that was used to query the background database.
If the background database info of that person changes later, for example an arrest or conviction is added, then the state will be sent a notification and be required to revoke the concealed carry permit.
The free market has decided that some locations don't have a fast ROI so they will never build service there.
I would suggest that a 15% tax be levied on the cost (including any usage fees) of every broadband connection, near-broadband connection, and cellular data plan to go to a Broadband Universal Service Fund, and the funds should be pooled and made available to issue grants for fiber to the home buildouts with a Mandatory Buildout Condition, As in ---- Any provider accepting the funds must make an enforceable commitment to offer fiber broadband service of at least 100MBIT down 100MBIT up with no discrimination or variability in pricing plan for bandwidth/speed/usage tiers between customers, no discrimination or significant impairment in connection performance, or level of support and timely response and repair to 100% of residents within a geographic division, such as the county or state (Size of the minimum required area a specified number of Squared Miles per Million $$ funds received.), and service must be able to be activated within a pre-determined amount of time after requesting service for any street address inside radius of a geographically-contiguous buildout area with given minimum radius, (CANNOT refuse to provide service to any residence Nor fill any otherwise valid order stating that service is unavailable --- MUST build), E.G. "Service must be built and retained to a level of no less than 99.99% reliability no more than 30 days after ordering".
Perhaps... by default you get the view that a window would show. The passenger seated nearest the window will have a set of controls that will allow them to change the view: after swiping their credit card, or inserting a $10 bill into a bill slot to pay for 15 minutes or so of "Custom view" minutes.
It is unfortunate that conceptually, people are simply opposed to a technology that would overall improve their experience and the speed of arrival.
There's a quick way to get airlines to adopt it in spite of any passenger objections.... There will be a "Card swipe slot", and by default the displays will all show a generic screen, until you swipe a credit card and buy some "Outside view time"
There's nothing like seeing it directly with your eyes. Even virtual reality doesn't quite do it.
They could show you just what you'd see with your own eyes on a suitable display -- if it were a window instead. They really only need two outdoor cameras per passenger; and an indoor camera for tracking the viewer's viewing angle and eyeballs to adjust position and focus. At some point it Does stop becoming virtual, because you Are really there ----- you're just observing it through a different kind of viewing system
Would you rather be in the cupola of the space station, or watch the views on the NASA channel?
Even if the space station has no windows.... it'd be much more exciting to see the views from outside on the space station's own displays.
Technically Youtube is not a US company. Youtube is a subsidiary of Google LLC, which is a multinational company whose current headquarters is in the US, BUT because they do business in multiple countries: the company has to abide by the laws of EVERY country in which they operate.
Which means that if a court in Austria rules Youtube must do X, then Google LLC has to do X, so the most restrictive laws or regulations of any country Youtube does business in apply to their entire operation.... And yes, that means if an Austrian court can decide Youtube must do X, or must remove Q video and do more to block upload of copyrighted things, and they must take those steps even in the US ---- If content is infringing upon an Austrian publisher's content, then because of various international treaty conventions signed by both the US and Austria: it's infringing in the US as well, also if something is infringing in the US, then it's also infringing in Austria.
It does when you are the head of a purported scientific agency and have been using Does not Agree as the basis for rolling back policies and programs that have been backed by scientific studies.
Not really... there's a different kind of assertion that can be made: Those past policies and programs were a mistake, Because those "scientific studies" supposedly backing past policies and programs do not adequately rule out other possibilities regarding the specific matter they are studying such as Non-Human contributors, And it is within the discretion of this organization to correct our past mistakes regarding modifying programs and policies.
He doesn't agree that humans contribute to global warming? Fine. Show us the the studies that led him to that belief.
A study is not required to "validate disbelief" in Human-Driven global warming.
Your argument is something along the lines of "Some study showed some evidence that Unicorns exist, and Unicorns live in the forest and can't stand the sight of people wielding swords or knives, the previous EPA administration was persuaded by the study," therefore creating a program to help protect potential Unicorn habitat decided to Ban anybody being in the possession of a Sword, Knife, or other blade in forested areas to protect the Unicorns -- the new Head of the EPA declaring that he doesn't believe the past study insisting that Unicorns probably don't exist Is required to actually produce some evidence proving a negative --- that is some kind of study showing that Unicorns Don't Exist - In order to throw out this ridiculous "No blades allowed" policy.
As any decent philosopher should know This is an Impossible task: It's impossible to prove that some thing doesn't exist or that some event does not occur or has never occured, and no amount of evidence will ever stack up to a sufficient amount to persuasively show "(X) Does Not Exist, or (X) Does not Happen", for any sufficiently vague generalized X.
trouble in cable and transceivers is a lot more common than switch gear failure
When each cable enters the datacenter --- you could have a "redundancy pigtail" spliced onto each incoming fibre lead that connects each strand of fibre to three or four active MUX units (or DWDM modules) that allow for several different connections using different light frequency ranges.
Connect the servers to a switching matrix that users MUX units as well to mate the optical connections between servers and switches, and then you can tolerate the failure of entire switches without losing any network ports on your servers.
If a transceiver goes bad.... just turn off the failed transceiver and adjust the physical light path on the DWDM Mux matrix to attach that network cable to a spare connection on the same switch or spare switch that has a working transceiver.
Replacing a failed HDD is going to be a real bitch?
At our scale, messing with individual HDD's isn't economical... we'll just replace the entire datacenter when necessary.
or... The admin will enter a command to blow electronic fuses on the failed HDD's data and power lines to ensure it fully disconnects from the backplane, then copy and paste a new License Key received from the storage manufacturer to activate one of the pre-stocked replacement bays. Either that, or the storage will be All Solid-State with an automatic failover system and artificially reduced capacity to provide increased redundancy. Ship it with 4X the modules required for the unit to work over its service life within the expected failure rates, and there will be no need to replace anything.
I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.
Now, a court case may compel him to produce research that attempts to contradict the mountain of peer-reviewed studies collected by the world's top science agencies over decades that show humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace
Does not Agree does not necessarily require more scientific studies. The same mountain of peer-reviewed studies could potentially be presented as the evidence, And in order to explain it to the court --- some scribbled notes containing skeptical arguments made against the validity of parts of each study "showing/claiming warming caused by humans".
If humans AREN'T causing warming AND you don't claim to know the real cause, then Wth are the courts even expecting?
A study is not the required thing to show that a previous set of study's speculations are not persuasive.
Held: The Commerce Clause prohibits a State from imposing the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or by mail. Pp. 386 U. S. 756-760.
We need not rest on the broad foundation of all that was said in the Miller Bros. opinion, for here there was neither local advertising nor local household deliveries, upon which the dissenters in Miller Bros. so largely relied. 347 U.S. at 347 U. S. 358. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of commercial transactions more exclusively interstate in character than the mail order transactions here involved. And if the power of Illinois to impose use tax burdens upon National were upheld, the resulting impediments upon the free conduct of its interstate business would be neither imaginary nor remote. For if Illinois can impose such burdens, so can every other State, and so, indeed, can every municipality, every school district, and every other political subdivision throughout the Nation with power to impose sales and use taxes. [Footnote 12] The many variations in rates of tax, [Footnote 13] in allowable exemptions, and in administrative and recordkeeping requirements [Footnote 14] could entangle National's interstate Page 386 U. S. 760
business in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions with no legitimate claim to impose "a fair share of the cost of the local government."
The very purpose of the Commerce Clause was to ensure a national economy free from such unjustifiable local entanglements. Under the Constitution, this is a domain where Congress alone has the power of regulation and control. [Footnote 15]
Washington state laws are unable to impose requirements upon Facebook's advertising transactions, as they are interstate and international commerce, and the constitution specifically reserves the authority to the Federal Government which thus pre-empts and denies states the power to regulate such commerce.
Also, Political free speech is protected against abridgement by the 1st amendment. Including the right to pass on speech made by a 3rd party while retaining anonymity of the source and other protections designed to protect the source from potential acts of shunning or other retaliation for their speech.
Problem is though, when you forget your password with this feature, there is no restore. Cool brick!
What if they changed the logic... (1) Enter USB restricted Mode as soon as the phone is locked, but only if the iPhone has been Unlocked at least Once after booting up.
(2) Turn off the phone, and turn it back on while holding the Home button (or something), or with no USB device connected --- the device will either boot without entering restricted mode or detect no USB device connected and stay out of restricted mode until the phone is unlocked by entering the passphrase at least once, but since the device hasn't been unlocked yet: the kernel doesn't have the ability to decrypt any of the files.
What exactly do you think I meant by "target selection"?
Not target selection; the work is unrelated to combat operation: not identifying "targets" in realtime - but analyzing data already aggregated and stored in the cloud. This is essentially equivalent to bulk analysis of batches of security camera footage --- they receive an enormous amount of video from their surveillance drones, so the volume of daily footage exceeds the ability of their humans to process the and find things of interest from the surveillance files.
The product of the bulk data processing would be video flagged for review by humans.
Google is a multi-national corporation, with headquarters in Dublin, with employees based in dozens of different countries.
Google's founders are US-based. All the engineering and technical innovation to make Google what it is was done and continues to be done in the US. Google is a US organization that re-organized with a foreign HQ on paper only because various countries' tax laws makes the arrangement convenient to Google's shareholders for purposes of having the company avoid payment of taxes -- Sure Google also maintains some facilities in other countries, that is to facilitate low latency access to their servers and advertising to end users in those countries, But those foreign offices wouldn't have anything to do with Google's AI developments or similar US-based projects.
object to the idea of teaching machines to hunt and kill humans, even when it is abstracted to simply "target selection"
Their project has to do with analyzing drone footage to provide information to humans more quickly. Nothing to do with autonomous killers.
The employees aren't objecting to the project being done, only to Google doing it.
The employees are objecting to Google being a service to the defense of the country (at Google's profit).
These are not employees that ought to be listened to, and if they want to whine about it, then they ought to be sent out to find employment somewhere in the Gitmo.
The release from one factory will not have a measurable affect on global warming, but Ozone depletion is another story, and it most likely has already caused damage that would be a measurable amount.
They ought to.... If I recall correctly the so-called Greenhouse Effect has long been a concern about use of such gases since the early 1900s, and it was an environmental concern that CFCs might cause a Greenhouse Effect first and foremost, they were not known to be toxic pollutants otherwise. It was later into the late 1970s - more than 60 years after CFCs had started being used in products on a large scale that the other devastating truth about CFCs became exposed --- holes were discovered in our Ozone layer, and it was found the CFCs were the cause; everything from the propellents used in aerosol cans to gas used in refrigeration systems needed to change at enormous expense to stop using these and switch to alternatives from the 1980s to early 2000s.
By the way, in most cases the alternatives to CFCs developed such as HFCs and PFCs are still greenhouse gases, and maybe even more potent --- compared to CO2; most of the CFCs and the alternatives/substitutes that were developed are More potent contributors to global warming.
And all this work... in vain if some random company in one country or another believes they can do whatever the hell they want to in their factory; making and releasing CFCs at their convenience as a byproduct of some process anyways.
What is unsafe about somebody showing the upper half of their body unclothed?
For starters.... The many Schools and Libraries that receive federal ERATE funds to help pay for technology and communications infrastructure and services are required to employ technological protection measures to filter/block access from their computers and networks to obscene content, pornography, nudity, etc.
And yes.... the community standards within the US are that videos/pictures exposing frontal nudity and/or also the upper half of the female body unclothed or exposed in a suggestive manner is content unsafe for people under the age of majority.
Medicinal use of CRISPR sequences is in clinical trial stage only, in China and USA.
Perhaps.... but what counts as "Medicinal use" ?
Is using the tool to alter cells in a test tube and then re-inject only altered cells back into the body a "Medicinal" use?
Don't think so..... Medicinal treatment would suggest injecting
a CRISPR formulation to modify DNA in the cells that are inside the human body while being modified.
I don't agree with using it to try and edit the human genome to make taller offspring, or blue eyes, or 15 inch ding-dongs
I suppose the FDA are only able to interfere with this study BECAUSE this is a study related to a product for curing a disease or treating a medical condition, and the FDA approval is required for medical treatments.
Using CRISPR to design offspring traits or interesting ideas that someone is going to pursue, and i'm sure it could be a "thing" eventually after we as a civilization actually learn enough about genetics to reliably and repeatedly make such child customizations... Fine to disagree and not use the tech yourself, since when developed everyone with a lot of cash to burn would have their own personal choice to choose to Use it or Not use it for themself, when having their kids. Also --- since "editing the genome of offspring to have blue eyes in the lab" is not a product or procedure designed to remedy any disease or address any medical condition (Not a "medical treatment"); the FDA will likely have zero authority to discourage or regulate it, since tailoring eggs and sperm in the lab to achieve certain desired attributes for your baby is not medical --- And i'm sure the lobbyists for companies that will emerge before this becomes a concern will not allow the situation to change, providing the corps. do a sufficient job at quality control to ensure they won't have tailored babies born with "defects".
I can take this as the monetization algorithm may be programmed with an accidental sexist bias.
That's equivalent to saying "humans have accidental sexist bias", because the typical methods of monetization are (1) Viewer Donations/"Gratuities" -- Voluntary payments made by viewers - sometimes for a token benefit such as an Acknowledgement by the gamer "e.g. Thank you so much, jellomizer for the $5" or Access to exclusive materials such as a Badge or Adornment visible when chatting or Custom Emoticon that can be used in chat only by Supporters or in the Process of making the donation such as through "Cheering", (2) Advertising, (3) Sponsorships, with (1) being the most prevalent by far.
So you would be saying that --- despite viewers being both Male and Female, the viewers are sexist and choose to prefer to watch Male livestreams, and if they watch Female livestreams, then overall they donate less?
so long hours worked provides better value to the subscriber at the expense of work/life balance.
Not really... there are a certain number of hours a week that provide value. Subscription is free, so you can't really attribute a "Value" to the subscription or say that More Stream hours = More Value; that doesn't make sense.
Beyond a certain number hours per week -- I don't even WANT to watch. Some people are more enjoyable to watch for 3 hours, than others would be to watch for 8 hours.
Long streams, especially get monotonous, and people are likely to lose interest and watch a fraction of the stream.
The best value (IMO) for subscribers comes from frequent short streams which have variety in that they focus on interesting things and not a long grind or repetitive stuff, such as repeatedly trying and failing to complete the same super-duper-ultra-insanely-hard feat, but a lower total number of hours.... In other words: lower viewing hours, BUT make those viewing hours count and show off the player's very best. Don't try to make me watch you practice, learn, and correct errors for 8 hours; I want to see mainly camera-ready performances.
Slashdot Mirror
Since each state should be having their sales verified through this database, the FBI should be able to audit how many queries are made per state
IMO: When a successful background check is made; the national database should issue a Background verification control number which MUST be recorded by the states in their own databases and must also
appear stamped on a concealed carry permit; A permit without the correct control number is not valid. The control number can be looked up later and will match to the personal information that was used to query the background database.
If the background database info of that person changes later, for example an arrest or conviction is added, then the state will be sent a notification and be required to revoke the concealed carry permit.
The free market has decided that some locations don't have a fast ROI so they will never build service there.
I would suggest that a 15% tax be levied on the cost (including any usage fees) of every broadband connection, near-broadband connection, and cellular data plan to go to a Broadband Universal Service Fund, and the funds should be pooled and made available to issue grants for fiber to the home buildouts with a Mandatory Buildout Condition, As in ---- Any provider accepting the funds must make an enforceable commitment to offer fiber broadband service of at least 100MBIT down 100MBIT up with no discrimination or variability in pricing plan for bandwidth/speed/usage tiers between customers, no discrimination or significant impairment in connection performance, or level of support and timely response and repair to 100% of residents within a geographic division, such as the county or state (Size of the minimum required area a specified number of Squared Miles per Million $$ funds received.), and service must be able to be activated within a pre-determined amount of time after requesting service for any street address inside radius of a geographically-contiguous buildout area with given minimum radius, (CANNOT refuse to provide service to any residence Nor fill any otherwise valid order stating that service is unavailable --- MUST build), E.G. "Service must be built and retained to a level of no less than 99.99% reliability no more than 30 days after ordering".
Perhaps... by default you get the view that a window would show.
The passenger seated nearest the window will have a set of controls that will allow them to change the view:
after swiping their credit card, or inserting a $10 bill into a bill slot to pay for 15 minutes or so of "Custom view" minutes.
It is unfortunate that conceptually, people are simply opposed to a technology that would overall improve their experience and the speed of arrival.
There's a quick way to get airlines to adopt it in spite of any passenger objections....
There will be a "Card swipe slot", and by default the displays will all show a generic screen, until you
swipe a credit card and buy some "Outside view time"
There's nothing like seeing it directly with your eyes. Even virtual reality doesn't quite do it.
They could show you just what you'd see with your own eyes on a suitable display -- if it were a window instead. They really only need two outdoor cameras per passenger; and an indoor camera for tracking the viewer's viewing angle and eyeballs to adjust position and focus. At some point it Does stop becoming virtual, because you Are really there ----- you're just observing it through a different kind of viewing system
Would you rather be in the cupola of the space station, or watch the views on the NASA channel?
Even if the space station has no windows.... it'd be much more exciting to see the views from outside on the space station's own displays.
Technically Youtube is not a US company. Youtube is a subsidiary of Google LLC, which is a multinational company whose current headquarters is in the US, BUT because they do business in multiple countries: the company has to abide by the laws of EVERY country in which they operate.
Which means that if a court in Austria rules Youtube must do X, then Google LLC has to do X, so the most restrictive laws or regulations of any country Youtube does business in apply to their entire operation.... And yes, that means if an Austrian court can decide Youtube must do X, or must remove Q video and do more to block upload of copyrighted things, and they must take those steps even in the US ---- If content is infringing upon an Austrian publisher's content, then because of various international treaty conventions signed by both the US and Austria: it's infringing in the US as well, also if something is infringing in the US, then it's also infringing in Austria.
It does when you are the head of a purported scientific agency and have been using Does not Agree as the basis for rolling back policies and programs that have been backed by scientific studies.
Not really... there's a different kind of assertion that can be made: Those past policies and programs were a mistake, Because those "scientific studies" supposedly backing past policies and programs do not adequately rule out other possibilities regarding the specific matter they are studying such as Non-Human contributors, And it is within the discretion of this organization to correct our past mistakes regarding modifying programs and policies.
He doesn't agree that humans contribute to global warming? Fine. Show us the the studies that led him to that belief.
A study is not required to "validate disbelief" in Human-Driven global warming.
Your argument is something along the lines of "Some study showed some evidence that Unicorns exist, and Unicorns live in the forest and can't stand the sight of people wielding swords or knives, the previous EPA administration was persuaded by the study," therefore creating a program to help protect potential Unicorn habitat decided to Ban anybody being in the possession of a Sword, Knife, or other blade in forested areas to protect the Unicorns -- the new Head of the EPA declaring that he doesn't believe the past study insisting that Unicorns probably don't exist Is required to actually produce some evidence proving a negative --- that is some kind of study showing that Unicorns Don't Exist - In order to throw out this ridiculous "No blades allowed" policy.
As any decent philosopher should know This is an Impossible task: It's impossible to prove that some thing doesn't exist or that some event does not occur or has never occured, and no amount of evidence will ever stack up to a sufficient amount to persuasively show "(X) Does Not Exist, or (X) Does not Happen", for any sufficiently vague generalized X.
trouble in cable and transceivers is a lot more common than switch gear failure
When each cable enters the datacenter --- you could have a "redundancy pigtail" spliced onto each incoming fibre lead that connects each strand of fibre to three or four active MUX units (or DWDM modules) that allow for several different connections using different light frequency ranges.
Connect the servers to a switching matrix that users MUX units as well to mate the optical connections between servers and switches, and then you can tolerate the failure of entire switches without losing any network ports on your servers.
If a transceiver goes bad.... just turn off the failed transceiver and adjust the physical light path on the DWDM Mux matrix to attach that network cable to a spare connection on the same switch or spare switch that has a working transceiver.
Replacing a failed HDD is going to be a real bitch?
At our scale, messing with individual HDD's isn't economical... we'll just replace the entire datacenter when necessary.
or... The admin will enter a command to blow electronic fuses on the failed HDD's data and power lines to ensure it fully disconnects from the backplane, then copy and paste a new License Key received from the storage manufacturer to activate one of the pre-stocked replacement bays. Either that, or the storage will be All Solid-State with an automatic failover system and artificially reduced capacity to provide increased redundancy. Ship it with 4X the modules required for the unit to work over its service life within the expected failure rates, and there will be no need to replace anything.
I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.
Now, a court case may compel him to produce research that attempts to contradict the mountain of peer-reviewed studies collected by the world's top science agencies over decades that show humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace
Does not Agree does not necessarily require more scientific studies. The same mountain of peer-reviewed studies could potentially be presented as the evidence, And in order to explain it to the court --- some scribbled notes containing skeptical arguments made against the validity of parts of each study "showing/claiming warming caused by humans".
If humans AREN'T causing warming AND you don't claim to know the real cause, then Wth are the courts even expecting?
A study is not the required thing to show that a previous set of study's speculations are not persuasive.
GVxFS - Git Virtual Filesystem or... Git Virtual eXtensible Filesystem
Assuming you are not trying to be a dumb ass, where in the Constitution is the Internet discussed?
Article I Section 8. The Commerce Clause. Provides congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The legal cases showing how this addresses transactions over the mail, the internet, and other common carriers such as by telephone --- include ones such as Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue
Washington state laws are unable to impose requirements upon Facebook's advertising transactions, as they are interstate and international commerce, and the constitution specifically reserves the authority to the Federal Government which thus pre-empts and denies states the power to regulate such commerce.
Also, Political free speech is protected against abridgement by the 1st amendment. Including the right to pass on speech made by a 3rd party while retaining anonymity of the source and other protections designed to protect the source from potential acts of shunning or other retaliation for their speech.
Problem is though, when you forget your password with this feature, there is no restore. Cool brick!
What if they changed the logic... (1) Enter USB restricted Mode as soon as the phone is locked, but only if the iPhone has been Unlocked at least Once after booting up.
(2) Turn off the phone, and turn it back on while holding the Home button (or something), or with no USB device connected --- the device will either boot without entering restricted mode or detect no USB device connected and stay out of restricted mode until the phone is unlocked by entering the passphrase at least once, but since the device hasn't been unlocked yet: the kernel doesn't have the ability to decrypt any of the files.
That's why the next disruptors will be entirely distributed.
So.... more services along the lines of SiaCoin's decentralized cloud storage ?
What exactly do you think I meant by "target selection"?
Not target selection; the work is unrelated to combat operation: not identifying "targets" in realtime - but analyzing data already aggregated and stored in the cloud. This is essentially equivalent to bulk analysis of batches of security camera footage --- they receive an enormous amount of video from their surveillance drones, so the volume of daily footage exceeds the ability of their humans to process the and find things of interest from the surveillance files.
The product of the bulk data processing would be video flagged for review by humans.
Not killer robots....
Google is a multi-national corporation, with headquarters in Dublin, with employees based in dozens of different countries.
Google's founders are US-based. All the engineering and technical innovation to make Google what it is was done and continues to be done in the US. Google is a US organization that re-organized with a foreign HQ on paper only because various countries' tax laws makes the arrangement convenient to Google's shareholders for purposes of having the company avoid payment of taxes -- Sure Google also maintains some facilities in other countries, that is to facilitate low latency access to their servers and advertising to end users in those countries, But those foreign offices wouldn't have anything to do with Google's AI developments or similar US-based projects.
object to the idea of teaching machines to hunt and kill humans, even when it is abstracted to simply "target selection"
Their project has to do with analyzing drone footage to provide information to humans more quickly. Nothing to do with autonomous killers.
The employees aren't objecting to the project being done, only to Google doing it.
The employees are objecting to Google being a service to the defense of the country (at Google's profit).
These are not employees that ought to be listened to, and if they want to whine about it, then they ought to be sent out to find employment somewhere in the Gitmo.
The release from one factory will not have a measurable affect on global warming, but Ozone depletion is another story, and it most likely has already caused damage that would be a measurable amount.
They ought to.... If I recall correctly the so-called Greenhouse Effect has long been a concern about use of such gases since the early 1900s, and it was an environmental concern that CFCs might cause a Greenhouse Effect first and foremost, they were not known to be toxic pollutants otherwise. It was later into the late 1970s - more than 60 years after CFCs had started being used in products on a large scale that the other devastating truth about CFCs became exposed --- holes were discovered in our Ozone layer, and it was found the CFCs were the cause; everything from the propellents used in aerosol cans to gas used in refrigeration systems needed to change at enormous expense to stop using these and switch to alternatives from the 1980s to early 2000s.
By the way, in most cases the alternatives to CFCs developed such as HFCs and PFCs are still greenhouse gases, and maybe even more potent --- compared to CO2; most of the CFCs and the alternatives/substitutes that were developed are More potent contributors to global warming.
And all this work... in vain if some random company in one country or another believes they can do whatever the hell they want to in their factory; making and releasing CFCs at their convenience as a byproduct of some process anyways.
What is unsafe about somebody showing the upper half of their body unclothed?
For starters.... The many Schools and Libraries that receive federal ERATE funds to help pay for technology and communications infrastructure and services are required to employ technological protection measures to filter/block access from their computers and networks to obscene content, pornography, nudity, etc.
And yes.... the community standards within the US are that videos/pictures exposing frontal nudity and/or also the upper half of the female body unclothed or exposed in a suggestive manner is content unsafe for people under the age of majority.
Medicinal use of CRISPR sequences is in clinical trial stage only, in China and USA.
Perhaps.... but what counts as "Medicinal use" ?
Is using the tool to alter cells in a test tube and then re-inject only altered cells back into the body a "Medicinal" use?
Don't think so..... Medicinal treatment would suggest injecting
a CRISPR formulation to modify DNA in the cells that are inside the human body while being modified.
I don't agree with using it to try and edit the human genome to make taller offspring, or blue eyes, or 15 inch ding-dongs
I suppose the FDA are only able to interfere with this study BECAUSE this is a study related to a product for curing a disease or treating a medical condition, and the FDA approval is required for medical treatments.
Using CRISPR to design offspring traits or interesting ideas that someone is going to pursue, and i'm sure it could be a "thing" eventually after we as a civilization actually learn enough about genetics to reliably and repeatedly make such child customizations... Fine to disagree and not use the tech yourself, since when developed everyone with a lot of cash to burn would have their own personal choice to choose to Use it or Not use it for themself, when having their kids. Also --- since "editing the genome of offspring to have blue eyes in the lab" is not a product or procedure designed to remedy any disease or address any medical condition (Not a "medical treatment"); the FDA will likely have zero authority to discourage or regulate it, since tailoring eggs and sperm in the lab to achieve certain desired attributes for your baby is not medical --- And i'm sure the lobbyists for companies that will emerge before this becomes a concern will not allow the situation to change, providing the corps. do a sufficient job at quality control to ensure they won't have tailored babies born with "defects".
I can take this as the monetization algorithm may be programmed with an accidental sexist bias.
That's equivalent to saying "humans have accidental sexist bias", because the typical methods of monetization are (1) Viewer Donations/"Gratuities" -- Voluntary payments made by viewers - sometimes for a token benefit such as an Acknowledgement by the gamer "e.g. Thank you so much, jellomizer for the $5" or Access to exclusive materials such as a Badge or Adornment visible when chatting or Custom Emoticon that can be used in chat only by Supporters or in the Process of making the donation such as through "Cheering", (2) Advertising, (3) Sponsorships, with (1) being the most prevalent by far.
So you would be saying that --- despite viewers being both Male and Female, the viewers are sexist and choose to prefer to watch Male livestreams, and if they watch Female livestreams, then overall they donate less?
so long hours worked provides better value to the subscriber at the expense of work/life balance.
Not really... there are a certain number of hours a week that provide value.
Subscription is free, so you can't really attribute a "Value" to the subscription or say that More Stream hours = More Value; that doesn't make sense.
Beyond a certain number hours per week -- I don't even WANT to watch.
Some people are more enjoyable to watch for 3 hours, than others would be to watch for 8 hours.
Long streams, especially get monotonous, and people are likely to lose interest and watch a fraction of the stream.
The best value (IMO) for subscribers comes from frequent short streams which have variety in that they focus on interesting things and not a long grind or repetitive stuff, such as repeatedly trying and failing to complete the same super-duper-ultra-insanely-hard feat, but a lower total number of hours....
In other words: lower viewing hours, BUT make those viewing hours count and show off the player's very best. Don't try to make me watch you practice, learn, and correct errors for 8 hours; I want to see mainly camera-ready performances.