Actually, a surprising (and outright concerning) amount of water pollution comes from cost-cutting with waste water treatment plants--ranging from just skipping steps in treating sewage to assuming that the roads are always always always clean so you can just have the storm drains dump straight into the nearest bodies of water without aaaaany bad consequences.
Do you truly believe that no art would be produced, nor science or technology developed, without the promise of ongoing economic reward for your work?
Of course not. It is also obvious that without some sort of expected return, some of the spectacles (e.g. Infinity War) that have been created would not have been. This black and white thinking needs to be used for contrasts to gain understanding of the limits, it is not useful as the sole process in making a decision.
It is, however, a useful and important question to ask, especially when trying to work out what the 'sweet spot' is, since you have to actually start discussing things like the cost involved in creating the intellectual property in more concrete terms.
If you don't mind killing off most life in the ocean, maybe you could bio engineer some kind of super algae that would convert the CO2 back to oxygen?
No need to bioengineer a new species. Just scatter nutrient on the surface in a fish-desert part of the ocean, and let blooms of existing natural algae suck up CO2. When the nutrient runs out the algae dies and sinks to the bottom.
The Haida tribe of British Columbia tried this on a small scale and it worked really well, which made liberals hopping mad because the algae took one of their cherished apocalypse scenarios to the bottom along with the algae.
When we do this on a large scale, let’s use the Pacific Gyre, Sinking algae mats might take a lot of our floating plastic down with it.
Of course they'd mind losing this particular cherished apocalypse scenario. The usual proposed solutions have a tendency to be more interested in being racist and/or classist, with little chance of doing any help for the environment--and no chance of sufficient success to justify the harm they're doing in the name of 'saving the Earth.' (It'd possibly help if you opted to wipe out the political class instead of the poor, but...)
I would suggest actually having some patches where the seabed is not too deep--at the very least, pick spots where kelp can anchor itself--and checking to see if it helps the ocean's ecosystem where it's done. Atmospheric CO2 needs to not be completely eliminated--so you can in fact manage to sequester too much of it--so methods that render it completely inaccessible are not necessarily a Good Idea. If you can use this to set up relatively easily reversible carbon sinks and work on raising fish populations...
Russia said they dismantled the Syrian chemical weapons program.
They did. The OPCW (the group tasked with verifying chemical weapons claims and enforcing the chemical weapons treaty) verified that Syria and Russia removed its chemical weapons.
There were questions on if they made that call correctly--for example, a Google search netted me this report that was sponsored by the EU. A check of the OPCW's own site's section on Syria gives the impression that they certainly have not asserted lately that Syria has removed its chemical weapons--the most recent press releases appear to be all on the topic of if chemical weapons have been used in Syria, and if you check their reports? Here's how they phrase it in the report from November 2017:
As stated in previous reports, all of the chemicals declared by the Syrian Arab Republic that were removed from its territory in 2014 have now been destroyed.
Note that they are very specific that it's only the chemicals declared by the Syrian Arab Republic; this is because it's followed in that report by them saying in very diplomatic language that they're not confident that the list they were given was complete and correct. (Outright saying as much directly wouldn't be diplomatic, but reading between the lines suggests that they're very slowly working towards making sure that they can confidently say that any omissions were not accidental nor their fault. Given that Syria's current government is very likely guilty of war crimes, this is not precisely a surprise...)
See, government enforces property rights, that is how rich people get to keep their riches. Poor people dont benefit by enforcement of property rights. They would rather the government breaks down in chaos so that they go with pitchforks and whack the nearest rich person and take whatever he had.
Looking at what generally happens, they seem to tend to be rather too lazy to actually bother finding a rich person--and the result tends to be that poor neighborhoods end up having to spend more to get basics, because it turns out that things like grocery stores don't bother sticking around in neighborhoods where they get robbed, even the ones that are small businesses completely owned by somebody who isn't that much richer than their neighbors.
Poor people tend to be more likely to be the victims of property crimes than rich people when you count by incidence and not value--a lot of criminals are really lazy and would rather rob a guy nearby for $2 than go to the trouble of trying to find somebody who has more money.
Tying enforcement of property rights--which is actually one of the original three natural rights--to net worth is just screwing the poor over worse.
How much do HBO invest because they've consistently produced watchable "content". Netflix, Disney... not really.
Yeah, how much you actually spend on the thing has no direct relationship with how much money it makes. (See: Cutthroat Island, any one of the many enjoyable B-movies.) What you want is to spend the money well, on things people will actually want to see--throwing more money at a bad project will not actually help anything, unless the only thing that is wrong is it being painfully obvious that the budget for some key element is in the "~$5 found in a couch" region.
I'm not sure what is going on here, except that the summary reads like clickbait.
The rule of thumb I was taught was that you write your papers with the assumption that your reader's got only a basic background in the field. We're talking 'has completed a minor in the field' levels at most, typically--you fill in the holes necessary to understand the paper itself in the introduction. At least in the fields I was in, nearly anything that made it into a significant journal--meaning, anything worth even reading the abstract--would be using one of a set of programs for the number crunching, and at least some of the options were open source. Unless there were privacy concerns, you generally could get a copy of the data sets with a few emails if you wanted to shove 'em through a different one of the standard number-cruching programs--privacy concerns just add a few extra hoops. Regardless of that, somebody should have the raw data and it should be in electronic form. You should typically know before you even start the email conversation if there ought to be privacy concerns; if they claim there are when there shouldn't be, or that they somehow don't have the data still, that's a red flag, especially if you're being very interested in learning more about their research and not in the least bit hostile, because researchers are normally very happy to talk about their work as much as they're able to. (It's a great way to keep one happily chattering away for a while, too.)
If you can't understand the jargon and symbols, and you're got a reasonably good background in the field...Google-fu will help some, but generally it's a sign that you've found a journal to dump papers to when you're in a publish-or-perish situation, and the number of papers published matters more than if any of them are of any quality whatsoever.
The scientific paper isn't obsolete. How publication works and academia's relationship to it, however...
The only solution is to start businesses that consult and train consumers to implement tools and procedures to stop the collection in its tracks. Not for selling to businesses that collect but to the consumer gaining support services to dead-end collection at their internal network.
That's not particularly likely; if nothing else, I'd expect those businesses to eventually get suborned by those making money off of collecting personal data. I'd suggest legally treating personal data as a form of personal property--and have it be one which you need explicit, specific consent to collect & use, and possibly flat-out ban sales to third parties without at least an actual money payment to the person(s) to whom the data belongs. Require the payment be a non-negligible percent cut of the sale.
Have these rules apply to both civil and criminal aspects--after all, if you're stealing somebody's property...
it was "unauthorised" as in Facebook gave them all the data they wanted and told them they were only allowed to do certain things with it.
Instead they did what ever they wanted to do it it.
You can bet every other company getting data from Facebook is doing the same thing. They'll be archiving it all for later use too.
Not just that, but this is so standard that Facebook really should have been aware. Odds are that Facebook does the same to people--and, really, given that they don't wait until you've an account with them to start gathering data from you and certainly aren't transparent about it, it's somewhat hypocritical of them to complain.
Funny, I actually highly appreciate the bots--as well as the ones that give me something approximating RSS feeds (which I can't easily get otherwise anymore), there's also a couple I follow that are just status bots, that tweet out if a site or server is up, and sometimes also when they're back up. (At least, I hope they're bots, because it would be a bit of a thankless job to stick an actual human with.)
All of these, however, are pretty honest about what they are. The bots that are trying to fake being people are the problem.
Any system which makes it so the state can (intentionally or by accident) prevent you from being able to obtain basic necessities for yourself is not a good one, especially if it'd be possible to pretend your genocide is just a massive clerical error that merely happened to take you years to correct.
Like pen and paper? Typewriters? News flash: genocide, repression, and caste systems, are not high tech affairs. See for example, every genocide repression caste system ever.
Sorry, I assumed that it was reasonably obvious that 'any system' would include the low tech ones as well. But if you want to get into the nasty parts, it's relatively well-established that the world will ignore its agreement that genocides--strictly defined as government-run obviously-intentional slaughters of an entire people--are bad and should be stopped, and the only reason to bother much with providing a plausible excuse is to make it slightly less obvious that they don't actually care.
High tech is useful here, because the main thing it does is make it unfortunately plausible--this is/., I should not need to help you with how quickly a PHB's moronic nephew can cause you to be having to hope that the data has been backed up very recently.
It's not that bad. Since it takes 2 days at police station to get VISA cleared for leaving the country legally, you need to anticipate 1-2 weeks at police station to be cleared of being legally dead. What is bad is that by paying money, you can make it in just a wee hours. People much more friendly than in the West though, generally.
India still has a caste system going nice and strong--several of the things that 'Big Brother' here is intended to do would work very, very well for ensuring people will have a very difficult time attempting to escape their preordained proper place (such as daring to want to have a job that wasn't dirty, dangerous and demeaning), punish those who try anyway, and probably also cull the population.
Oh, and they've got problems like people being legally dead when they're not being deceased. Admittedly, this system will ensure that such errors are quickly fixed...by blocking the legally dead person from access to the basic necessities of life.
Any system which makes it so the state can (intentionally or by accident) prevent you from being able to obtain basic necessities for yourself is not a good one, especially if it'd be possible to pretend your genocide is just a massive clerical error that merely happened to take you years to correct.
RTFAing says that one of the benefits they're claiming is that this will fix India's endemic government corruption. The only way to get rid of corruption in the state is to ensure that corrupt officials are likely to be caught, that the penalty is significant, and that there is as little benefit to being corrupt as possible. (The more power they have, the better the odds need to be of a corrupt official being the guest of honor at a surprise necktie party.)
Given that communication skills are very important in many real-world situations a person with a CS degree might be in, I'd argue that it's reasonable to require that you learn and develop them--and possibly also cover how to make sure you've got things properly documented in case somebody tries to get out of paying you for contract work by claiming you didn't do what you were hired to do. The better you can show that when you started work you both agreed that you were supposed to be delivering what you did deliver, the easier it is going to be to get the court to agree that they're just trying to stiff you out of your pay.
You fail at analogy. Comp sci is about creating the recipe for the next donut. Programming is making more donuts faster.
Programming is the fine art of wrestling a computer in hopes of getting it to perform an acceptable approximation of what you want it to do.
Comp sci is in part about how to have a reasonably good chance at success at this, and some chance of understanding why it isn't working, even if you (correctly or not) are certain that you wrote the code correctly.
'Upon demand' is going to be generally require that properly-formatted, WRITTEN demand be in the form of a warrant--if this isn't technically required by the local laws, the people who are legally responsible for keeping those records private will insist on one for their own protection. As long as they can say they were legally compelled to release the records, they're in the clear.
Ten years? A decent number of them would be convinced that the rare tree octopus exists in their area if you showed them a Wikipedia page that asserted this as fact.
I did say 'least problematic' group. Most of the discussion about all of this isn't happening in public, and some of the people I've met who are offended by bringing it up are involved in shaping the public health response to HIV...so, unfortunately, a decent number of them aren't 'trying to pretend' but rather completely unaware because the people whose job it is to make sure they know better are playing ostrich.
If you're ordering delivery, you're going to have a very interesting time getting your order without providing a physical address for it to be delivered to.
that extra time spent on the bus eats into the time kids spend on homework.
Umm, how so? Do they have window blinds that make it too dark to read or something?
Wait, you surely weren't suggesting that internet access is a necessary condition for doing homework, were you?
Annoyingly, yes, it's starting to be a necessary condition. The assumption is that you can do research using the internet, and the homework itself may be online. A significant number of students I tutor are doing homework that's online, computer-generated and -graded, and sometimes you can really tell the computer-generated part because of the mistakes in how the questions are written.
I did have some classes where the homework was online when I was in college, too, for my various math and math-heavy classes. Some of them were very good--you might not get quite the same level of feedback you would if it was human-graded, but in return you got to know instantly if you got the question(s) right and usually had a couple tries too.
It's not a dating app, it's a hookup app for male homosexuals. There are people for whom it does in fact matter, and the least problematic group of 'em are those who are deliberately seeking sex partners whose HIV status is the same as theirs.
Part of how you can tell the difference is that hookup apps assume that, basically, you're for various reasons unable or unwilling to hire a sex worker--but you probably should, if you're not willing to even talk enough before having sex to discuss things related to safe sex. Of course, that might also be why you may not be able to hire any of the local sex workers anymore...
If it's anything like how extradition works? Then it will depend entirely on if the foreign government wishes to cooperate or not--it can sometimes be safer to go with a country which does have an agreement, but the agreement requires the request be in compliance with local laws as well & there's little chance of that happening.
On the positive side this law acknowledged that the US needs the permission of the country where the data is stored. Writing a law that states the obvious is not the same as fixing the problem. At least Microsoft and other US companies are no longer in the position of violating the laws of a country no matter what they do. Getting international agreement on this may be very difficult.
Odds are the agreements are going to have the tl;dr version of "You are welcome to ask our courts to issue the appropriate paperwork, and we are welcome to ask your courts to do the same" with absolutely no promises on if any success will be had by either side.
We can't do anything about past bills, but we can start talking more about how we dislike the concept of riders.
If enough people start complaining, maybe some day we'll get an amendment that requires bills to be confined to a single topic, and maybe also require all new bills to be short enough that they can be read aloud in Congress in less than an hour.
Instead of 'read aloud in Congress in less than an hour,' how about 'must be read aloud in Congress before the vote to a quorum, with the doors locked' and let them decide how long they're willing to be stuck in there?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, a surprising (and outright concerning) amount of water pollution comes from cost-cutting with waste water treatment plants--ranging from just skipping steps in treating sewage to assuming that the roads are always always always clean so you can just have the storm drains dump straight into the nearest bodies of water without aaaaany bad consequences.
Do you truly believe that no art would be produced, nor science or technology developed, without the promise of ongoing economic reward for your work?
Of course not. It is also obvious that without some sort of expected return, some of the spectacles (e.g. Infinity War) that have been created would not have been. This black and white thinking needs to be used for contrasts to gain understanding of the limits, it is not useful as the sole process in making a decision.
It is, however, a useful and important question to ask, especially when trying to work out what the 'sweet spot' is, since you have to actually start discussing things like the cost involved in creating the intellectual property in more concrete terms.
If you don't mind killing off most life in the ocean, maybe you could bio engineer some kind of super algae that would convert the CO2 back to oxygen?
No need to bioengineer a new species. Just scatter nutrient on the surface in a fish-desert part of the ocean, and let blooms of existing natural algae suck up CO2. When the nutrient runs out the algae dies and sinks to the bottom.
The Haida tribe of British Columbia tried this on a small scale and it worked really well, which made liberals hopping mad because the algae took one of their cherished apocalypse scenarios to the bottom along with the algae. When we do this on a large scale, let’s use the Pacific Gyre, Sinking algae mats might take a lot of our floating plastic down with it.
Of course they'd mind losing this particular cherished apocalypse scenario. The usual proposed solutions have a tendency to be more interested in being racist and/or classist, with little chance of doing any help for the environment--and no chance of sufficient success to justify the harm they're doing in the name of 'saving the Earth.' (It'd possibly help if you opted to wipe out the political class instead of the poor, but...)
I would suggest actually having some patches where the seabed is not too deep--at the very least, pick spots where kelp can anchor itself--and checking to see if it helps the ocean's ecosystem where it's done. Atmospheric CO2 needs to not be completely eliminated--so you can in fact manage to sequester too much of it--so methods that render it completely inaccessible are not necessarily a Good Idea. If you can use this to set up relatively easily reversible carbon sinks and work on raising fish populations...
Russia said they dismantled the Syrian chemical weapons program.
They did. The OPCW (the group tasked with verifying chemical weapons claims and enforcing the chemical weapons treaty) verified that Syria and Russia removed its chemical weapons.
There were questions on if they made that call correctly--for example, a Google search netted me this report that was sponsored by the EU. A check of the OPCW's own site's section on Syria gives the impression that they certainly have not asserted lately that Syria has removed its chemical weapons--the most recent press releases appear to be all on the topic of if chemical weapons have been used in Syria, and if you check their reports? Here's how they phrase it in the report from November 2017:
As stated in previous reports, all of the chemicals declared by the Syrian Arab Republic that were removed from its territory in 2014 have now been destroyed.
Note that they are very specific that it's only the chemicals declared by the Syrian Arab Republic; this is because it's followed in that report by them saying in very diplomatic language that they're not confident that the list they were given was complete and correct. (Outright saying as much directly wouldn't be diplomatic, but reading between the lines suggests that they're very slowly working towards making sure that they can confidently say that any omissions were not accidental nor their fault. Given that Syria's current government is very likely guilty of war crimes, this is not precisely a surprise...)
See, government enforces property rights, that is how rich people get to keep their riches. Poor people dont benefit by enforcement of property rights. They would rather the government breaks down in chaos so that they go with pitchforks and whack the nearest rich person and take whatever he had.
Looking at what generally happens, they seem to tend to be rather too lazy to actually bother finding a rich person--and the result tends to be that poor neighborhoods end up having to spend more to get basics, because it turns out that things like grocery stores don't bother sticking around in neighborhoods where they get robbed, even the ones that are small businesses completely owned by somebody who isn't that much richer than their neighbors.
Poor people tend to be more likely to be the victims of property crimes than rich people when you count by incidence and not value--a lot of criminals are really lazy and would rather rob a guy nearby for $2 than go to the trouble of trying to find somebody who has more money.
Tying enforcement of property rights--which is actually one of the original three natural rights--to net worth is just screwing the poor over worse.
How much do HBO invest because they've consistently produced watchable "content". Netflix, Disney... not really.
Yeah, how much you actually spend on the thing has no direct relationship with how much money it makes. (See: Cutthroat Island, any one of the many enjoyable B-movies.) What you want is to spend the money well, on things people will actually want to see--throwing more money at a bad project will not actually help anything, unless the only thing that is wrong is it being painfully obvious that the budget for some key element is in the "~$5 found in a couch" region.
I'm not sure what is going on here, except that the summary reads like clickbait.
The rule of thumb I was taught was that you write your papers with the assumption that your reader's got only a basic background in the field. We're talking 'has completed a minor in the field' levels at most, typically--you fill in the holes necessary to understand the paper itself in the introduction. At least in the fields I was in, nearly anything that made it into a significant journal--meaning, anything worth even reading the abstract--would be using one of a set of programs for the number crunching, and at least some of the options were open source. Unless there were privacy concerns, you generally could get a copy of the data sets with a few emails if you wanted to shove 'em through a different one of the standard number-cruching programs--privacy concerns just add a few extra hoops. Regardless of that, somebody should have the raw data and it should be in electronic form. You should typically know before you even start the email conversation if there ought to be privacy concerns; if they claim there are when there shouldn't be, or that they somehow don't have the data still, that's a red flag, especially if you're being very interested in learning more about their research and not in the least bit hostile, because researchers are normally very happy to talk about their work as much as they're able to. (It's a great way to keep one happily chattering away for a while, too.)
If you can't understand the jargon and symbols, and you're got a reasonably good background in the field...Google-fu will help some, but generally it's a sign that you've found a journal to dump papers to when you're in a publish-or-perish situation, and the number of papers published matters more than if any of them are of any quality whatsoever.
The scientific paper isn't obsolete. How publication works and academia's relationship to it, however...
The only solution is to start businesses that consult and train consumers to implement tools and procedures to stop the collection in its tracks. Not for selling to businesses that collect but to the consumer gaining support services to dead-end collection at their internal network.
That's not particularly likely; if nothing else, I'd expect those businesses to eventually get suborned by those making money off of collecting personal data. I'd suggest legally treating personal data as a form of personal property--and have it be one which you need explicit, specific consent to collect & use, and possibly flat-out ban sales to third parties without at least an actual money payment to the person(s) to whom the data belongs. Require the payment be a non-negligible percent cut of the sale.
Have these rules apply to both civil and criminal aspects--after all, if you're stealing somebody's property...
it was "unauthorised" as in Facebook gave them all the data they wanted and told them they were only allowed to do certain things with it.
Instead they did what ever they wanted to do it it.
You can bet every other company getting data from Facebook is doing the same thing. They'll be archiving it all for later use too.
Not just that, but this is so standard that Facebook really should have been aware. Odds are that Facebook does the same to people--and, really, given that they don't wait until you've an account with them to start gathering data from you and certainly aren't transparent about it, it's somewhat hypocritical of them to complain.
Funny, I actually highly appreciate the bots--as well as the ones that give me something approximating RSS feeds (which I can't easily get otherwise anymore), there's also a couple I follow that are just status bots, that tweet out if a site or server is up, and sometimes also when they're back up. (At least, I hope they're bots, because it would be a bit of a thankless job to stick an actual human with.)
All of these, however, are pretty honest about what they are. The bots that are trying to fake being people are the problem.
Any system which makes it so the state can (intentionally or by accident) prevent you from being able to obtain basic necessities for yourself is not a good one, especially if it'd be possible to pretend your genocide is just a massive clerical error that merely happened to take you years to correct.
Like pen and paper? Typewriters? News flash: genocide, repression, and caste systems, are not high tech affairs. See for example, every genocide repression caste system ever.
Sorry, I assumed that it was reasonably obvious that 'any system' would include the low tech ones as well. But if you want to get into the nasty parts, it's relatively well-established that the world will ignore its agreement that genocides--strictly defined as government-run obviously-intentional slaughters of an entire people--are bad and should be stopped, and the only reason to bother much with providing a plausible excuse is to make it slightly less obvious that they don't actually care.
High tech is useful here, because the main thing it does is make it unfortunately plausible--this is /., I should not need to help you with how quickly a PHB's moronic nephew can cause you to be having to hope that the data has been backed up very recently.
It's not that bad. Since it takes 2 days at police station to get VISA cleared for leaving the country legally, you need to anticipate 1-2 weeks at police station to be cleared of being legally dead. What is bad is that by paying money, you can make it in just a wee hours. People much more friendly than in the West though, generally.
Try 19 years to get it cleared up, and the official only needing about a US$20 bribe to declare him legally dead in the first place.
India still has a caste system going nice and strong--several of the things that 'Big Brother' here is intended to do would work very, very well for ensuring people will have a very difficult time attempting to escape their preordained proper place (such as daring to want to have a job that wasn't dirty, dangerous and demeaning), punish those who try anyway, and probably also cull the population.
Oh, and they've got problems like people being legally dead when they're not being deceased. Admittedly, this system will ensure that such errors are quickly fixed...by blocking the legally dead person from access to the basic necessities of life.
Any system which makes it so the state can (intentionally or by accident) prevent you from being able to obtain basic necessities for yourself is not a good one, especially if it'd be possible to pretend your genocide is just a massive clerical error that merely happened to take you years to correct.
RTFAing says that one of the benefits they're claiming is that this will fix India's endemic government corruption. The only way to get rid of corruption in the state is to ensure that corrupt officials are likely to be caught, that the penalty is significant, and that there is as little benefit to being corrupt as possible. (The more power they have, the better the odds need to be of a corrupt official being the guest of honor at a surprise necktie party.)
Given that communication skills are very important in many real-world situations a person with a CS degree might be in, I'd argue that it's reasonable to require that you learn and develop them--and possibly also cover how to make sure you've got things properly documented in case somebody tries to get out of paying you for contract work by claiming you didn't do what you were hired to do. The better you can show that when you started work you both agreed that you were supposed to be delivering what you did deliver, the easier it is going to be to get the court to agree that they're just trying to stiff you out of your pay.
You fail at analogy. Comp sci is about creating the recipe for the next donut. Programming is making more donuts faster.
Programming is the fine art of wrestling a computer in hopes of getting it to perform an acceptable approximation of what you want it to do.
Comp sci is in part about how to have a reasonably good chance at success at this, and some chance of understanding why it isn't working, even if you (correctly or not) are certain that you wrote the code correctly.
'Upon demand' is going to be generally require that properly-formatted, WRITTEN demand be in the form of a warrant--if this isn't technically required by the local laws, the people who are legally responsible for keeping those records private will insist on one for their own protection. As long as they can say they were legally compelled to release the records, they're in the clear.
Ten years? A decent number of them would be convinced that the rare tree octopus exists in their area if you showed them a Wikipedia page that asserted this as fact.
I did say 'least problematic' group. Most of the discussion about all of this isn't happening in public, and some of the people I've met who are offended by bringing it up are involved in shaping the public health response to HIV...so, unfortunately, a decent number of them aren't 'trying to pretend' but rather completely unaware because the people whose job it is to make sure they know better are playing ostrich.
Panera delivers. It may not have rolled out yet where you are, but where I am, they started delivery late last year with their own drivers.
If you're ordering delivery, you're going to have a very interesting time getting your order without providing a physical address for it to be delivered to.
Umm, how so? Do they have window blinds that make it too dark to read or something?
Wait, you surely weren't suggesting that internet access is a necessary condition for doing homework, were you?
Annoyingly, yes, it's starting to be a necessary condition. The assumption is that you can do research using the internet, and the homework itself may be online. A significant number of students I tutor are doing homework that's online, computer-generated and -graded, and sometimes you can really tell the computer-generated part because of the mistakes in how the questions are written.
I did have some classes where the homework was online when I was in college, too, for my various math and math-heavy classes. Some of them were very good--you might not get quite the same level of feedback you would if it was human-graded, but in return you got to know instantly if you got the question(s) right and usually had a couple tries too.
It's not a dating app, it's a hookup app for male homosexuals. There are people for whom it does in fact matter, and the least problematic group of 'em are those who are deliberately seeking sex partners whose HIV status is the same as theirs.
Part of how you can tell the difference is that hookup apps assume that, basically, you're for various reasons unable or unwilling to hire a sex worker--but you probably should, if you're not willing to even talk enough before having sex to discuss things related to safe sex. Of course, that might also be why you may not be able to hire any of the local sex workers anymore...
If it's anything like how extradition works? Then it will depend entirely on if the foreign government wishes to cooperate or not--it can sometimes be safer to go with a country which does have an agreement, but the agreement requires the request be in compliance with local laws as well & there's little chance of that happening.
On the positive side this law acknowledged that the US needs the permission of the country where the data is stored. Writing a law that states the obvious is not the same as fixing the problem. At least Microsoft and other US companies are no longer in the position of violating the laws of a country no matter what they do. Getting international agreement on this may be very difficult.
Odds are the agreements are going to have the tl;dr version of "You are welcome to ask our courts to issue the appropriate paperwork, and we are welcome to ask your courts to do the same" with absolutely no promises on if any success will be had by either side.
We can't do anything about past bills, but we can start talking more about how we dislike the concept of riders.
If enough people start complaining, maybe some day we'll get an amendment that requires bills to be confined to a single topic, and maybe also require all new bills to be short enough that they can be read aloud in Congress in less than an hour.
Instead of 'read aloud in Congress in less than an hour,' how about 'must be read aloud in Congress before the vote to a quorum, with the doors locked' and let them decide how long they're willing to be stuck in there?