I remember the CA recall election in 2003. This was in the early days of electronic voting machines and with the 2000 Presidential election still in the minds of many voters. There were lawsuits to delay the recall in order to roll out more electronic machines at the expense of paper ballots. In subsequent years, many of those same groups sued to go back to paper after electronic voting had its own issues.
It doesn't matter how you vote, some folks will just be reflexively against it.
In fact, it may be too much.
The EFF just withdrew support of the Freedom Act after the 2nd Circuit decision that said Section 215 of the Patriot Act doesn't authorize ANY data collection of Americans. The Freedom Act is a step back from current collection efforts, but actually codifies some that could possibly be overturned without it!
The Anarchist's Cookbook is all over the internet, and home-made bombs have killed many, many times more people than a plastic gun ever will. Despite decades of attempted censorship, it's still available. This is just one more exercise in futility, "for the children."
Except in reality, this likely means that you will only get access to the subset of content that has been negotiated in ALL EU member countries individually.
Example, French Movie Studio has released their film in France, the theater run is up, and revenues are dropping off, so they license it to Netflix France to get more eyeballs/money. They were planning on releasing it in Italy once it built up some more word-of-mouth, so it's not licensed to Netflix Italy. Now, with no geo-blocking, is it more likely that Netflix gets to show it in Italy, or that it DOESN'T get to show it in France?
The question isn't "is this suspicious behavior," since it clearly is. The real question is, "is this suspicious behavior worse than the gigabytes of evidence that is easily collected without it?" If yes, don't bother; if no, use it.
The core functionality of a tablet is currently only held back by its physical size. I expect that as components continue to get smaller, lighter, and battery tech gets better, the days of an iPad putting out 5K-8K will be sooner than you think.
Already, tablets and 2-in-1s are progressing much faster than the desktop, which hasn't seen any truly revolutionary leaps in ages (tech-wise, anyway).
I was always a big nay-sayer on tablets taking off, and I still think the classic version of the iPad-style tablet has limited long-term appeal. But as a core device that can be docked and used like a traditional desktop or removed and used like a tablet, there's really no downside. It's all about the battery life and processing power, and those only get better.
"Parallel Construction." The accused don't even know questionable surveillance techniques are being used against them to challenge it, and even if the they throw an accusation back at the prosecution, judges also have a habit of throwing that out due to lack of standing, for being unable to prove it was used! Besides, this solution depends on the idea that a trial takes place.
The bigger issue isn't just that it's (supposedly) legal, but that it's even POSSIBLE. You could outlaw all this surveillance, but given how deeply it's entrenched now, does anybody honestly think it would just stop? Secret laws with secret interpretations don't even have to be on the books to be used to threaten already-willing communications companies. The technology is available, and even if illegal, who would prosecute the government?
Take away the authorization, pass a strict ban on the practice...doesn't matter. You can't unbreak the egg.
"Eliminate the SUV loophole and the big bloated turds would be gone quickly. Soccer moms ignoring the road because they're texting need to drive minivans with little engines, not pigiron."
Just bought a 4-cyl mid-size SUV that gets twice the mileage as the 6-cyl minivan it replaces. That may be the exception rather than the rule, but I live in Utah, and there are a lot of fucking minivans here, and they all have big engines. Not every SUV is an Escalade or an H3.
Mobile sites too often disallow zooming, fill half the small screen with oversized nav buttons, and just generally suck.
What this is probably really about, given the example in TFS, is sites that discourage mobile browser access in favor of offering their own app that has a better experience. Can't get to google using the Wikipedia or BBC apps!
"Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc."
You can buy different brands at different prices based on the qualities you prefer. If all employees were interchangeable, there wouldn't be any negotiations, either.
A personal anecdote: I did negotiate my salary when I started my current job. It was basically an entry-level position, but I got a little more. This after a relevant degree and some previous experience. A few months later, some salary data leaked and some people on my team found out I was making more than they did. So they made a stink and got a raise. No prior experience and no relevant education. That devalues ME and my unique contributions.
But Obama only has another 20 months as President. Nothing is going to prove him wrong in that time, so he can say just about anything he wants, true or not. We live in a world of short news cycles, and even if he says this every day for the next year: as soon as it's out of the news, it's forgotten. There's simply no incentive for a politician to take any long-term stance that s/he has to stand behind.
Aside from some slight hyperbole, there is no true monopoly (at least on a national level) in any capitalist country. There are cases of market domination, of course; duopolies, oligopolies. But in the end, consumers (both personal and corporate) almost always have a choice of products or services**. Sometimes it takes a few years for a new player to enter the market (Google replacing Yahoo, Apple replacing Blackberry, etc.) but when people have choices, people win.
When the state owns everything, and can make it not just hard, but illegal, to compete, there is no incentive to improve their products or services, or in this case, respond to environmental concerns. This happens even in capitalist countries, when certain companies are given **special privileges through the legislative process.
So, to answer the question, under any monopoly, there is no difference in who the owner is. But importantly, the capitalist system makes a true monopoly harder to come by in the first place, and even when it does happen (only a handful of times in history, far fewer than state owned/sanctioned monopolies), there are no legal obstacles for a new player who wants to enter the market.
And for the record, since a few people have called out what they perceived as my defense of unfettered Laissez-faire anarchy: No. I believe in a lightly regulated market, with safeguards in place for transparency (so consumers can truly make informed choices), and to help capture externalities (primarily funding education and protecting the environment). I was merely pointing out the false equivalency by the OP.
If this is anything at all like AT&T and many regional ISPs, "Atlanta is getting 2Gbps!!1!" actually means that one neighborhood is getting it. City names are irrelevant, give me potential subscriber numbers and expected delivery dates. Until then, yes, Comcast is evil.
Thank you. A more accurate headline might be, "Google Makes People Think They Have Memorized a Lot More Useless Crap Than They Have." But that doesn't have nearly the same click-baitiness as the original.
According to one of the links, the company apparently has a number of chemicals to choose from, and will apply the one most compatible with the customers' product.
For reference, here's the CA Prop 65 list (PDF)
Young and minorities are more likely to lack ID, not the elderly. Voter ID laws impact the 18-24 demo to a far greater degree than any other age group.
Not only that, requirements in the auto industry move slowly. Airbags were patented in the 1950's, saw use in production vehicles in the 1970's, but were not mandated in the USA until a law was passed in 1991....which didn't take effect until 1998. Seat belts have a similar history. And these are things without the moral implications of programming a car to potentially choose *which* imminent accident to avoid. 40+ years to go from concept to federal mandate. Testing has started, but we are still very much in the conceptual phase of self-driving cars.
Now, layer in the fact that there's a strong culture in the US where driving == freedom, and he still thinks this will be a requirement in any of our lifetimes? For the foreseeable future, it would be political suicide, no matter what the safety statistics say. I'm certainly not holding my breath.
Slashdot Mirror
This is 2015, we don't need to have any better theories before we challenge science. America, FUCK YEAH!
To be fair, "American culture" is just whatever we've stolen from everybody else and claimed as our own. Mad Max is as American as Hamburgers!
I remember the CA recall election in 2003. This was in the early days of electronic voting machines and with the 2000 Presidential election still in the minds of many voters. There were lawsuits to delay the recall in order to roll out more electronic machines at the expense of paper ballots. In subsequent years, many of those same groups sued to go back to paper after electronic voting had its own issues.
It doesn't matter how you vote, some folks will just be reflexively against it.
In fact, it may be too much.
The EFF just withdrew support of the Freedom Act after the 2nd Circuit decision that said Section 215 of the Patriot Act doesn't authorize ANY data collection of Americans. The Freedom Act is a step back from current collection efforts, but actually codifies some that could possibly be overturned without it!
The Anarchist's Cookbook is all over the internet, and home-made bombs have killed many, many times more people than a plastic gun ever will. Despite decades of attempted censorship, it's still available. This is just one more exercise in futility, "for the children."
Except in reality, this likely means that you will only get access to the subset of content that has been negotiated in ALL EU member countries individually.
Example, French Movie Studio has released their film in France, the theater run is up, and revenues are dropping off, so they license it to Netflix France to get more eyeballs/money. They were planning on releasing it in Italy once it built up some more word-of-mouth, so it's not licensed to Netflix Italy. Now, with no geo-blocking, is it more likely that Netflix gets to show it in Italy, or that it DOESN'T get to show it in France?
The question isn't "is this suspicious behavior," since it clearly is. The real question is, "is this suspicious behavior worse than the gigabytes of evidence that is easily collected without it?" If yes, don't bother; if no, use it.
This is why they didn't make a bigger deal of the Angela Merkel eavesdropping by the US. They were doing the same thing.
The core functionality of a tablet is currently only held back by its physical size. I expect that as components continue to get smaller, lighter, and battery tech gets better, the days of an iPad putting out 5K-8K will be sooner than you think.
Already, tablets and 2-in-1s are progressing much faster than the desktop, which hasn't seen any truly revolutionary leaps in ages (tech-wise, anyway).
I was always a big nay-sayer on tablets taking off, and I still think the classic version of the iPad-style tablet has limited long-term appeal. But as a core device that can be docked and used like a traditional desktop or removed and used like a tablet, there's really no downside. It's all about the battery life and processing power, and those only get better.
"Parallel Construction." The accused don't even know questionable surveillance techniques are being used against them to challenge it, and even if the they throw an accusation back at the prosecution, judges also have a habit of throwing that out due to lack of standing, for being unable to prove it was used! Besides, this solution depends on the idea that a trial takes place.
The bigger issue isn't just that it's (supposedly) legal, but that it's even POSSIBLE. You could outlaw all this surveillance, but given how deeply it's entrenched now, does anybody honestly think it would just stop? Secret laws with secret interpretations don't even have to be on the books to be used to threaten already-willing communications companies. The technology is available, and even if illegal, who would prosecute the government?
Take away the authorization, pass a strict ban on the practice...doesn't matter. You can't unbreak the egg.
"Eliminate the SUV loophole and the big bloated turds would be gone quickly. Soccer moms ignoring the road because they're texting need to drive minivans with little engines, not pigiron."
Just bought a 4-cyl mid-size SUV that gets twice the mileage as the 6-cyl minivan it replaces. That may be the exception rather than the rule, but I live in Utah, and there are a lot of fucking minivans here, and they all have big engines. Not every SUV is an Escalade or an H3.
But the votes don't fall on easily identifiable ideological lines, so I don't know whether to be happy or outraged! Tell me what to think, CNN!
Mobile sites too often disallow zooming, fill half the small screen with oversized nav buttons, and just generally suck. What this is probably really about, given the example in TFS, is sites that discourage mobile browser access in favor of offering their own app that has a better experience. Can't get to google using the Wikipedia or BBC apps!
"After controlling for time trends, weather, road conditions, and other factors, we attribute an increase of 242 driving fatalities per month to additional road travel undertaken in response to 9/11."
It's highly likely that more people have died due to the response to terrorism than from actual terrorism in the US.
"Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc."
You can buy different brands at different prices based on the qualities you prefer. If all employees were interchangeable, there wouldn't be any negotiations, either.
A personal anecdote: I did negotiate my salary when I started my current job. It was basically an entry-level position, but I got a little more. This after a relevant degree and some previous experience. A few months later, some salary data leaked and some people on my team found out I was making more than they did. So they made a stink and got a raise. No prior experience and no relevant education. That devalues ME and my unique contributions.
But Obama only has another 20 months as President. Nothing is going to prove him wrong in that time, so he can say just about anything he wants, true or not. We live in a world of short news cycles, and even if he says this every day for the next year: as soon as it's out of the news, it's forgotten. There's simply no incentive for a politician to take any long-term stance that s/he has to stand behind.
Aside from some slight hyperbole, there is no true monopoly (at least on a national level) in any capitalist country. There are cases of market domination, of course; duopolies, oligopolies. But in the end, consumers (both personal and corporate) almost always have a choice of products or services**. Sometimes it takes a few years for a new player to enter the market (Google replacing Yahoo, Apple replacing Blackberry, etc.) but when people have choices, people win.
When the state owns everything, and can make it not just hard, but illegal, to compete, there is no incentive to improve their products or services, or in this case, respond to environmental concerns. This happens even in capitalist countries, when certain companies are given **special privileges through the legislative process.
So, to answer the question, under any monopoly, there is no difference in who the owner is. But importantly, the capitalist system makes a true monopoly harder to come by in the first place, and even when it does happen (only a handful of times in history, far fewer than state owned/sanctioned monopolies), there are no legal obstacles for a new player who wants to enter the market.
And for the record, since a few people have called out what they perceived as my defense of unfettered Laissez-faire anarchy: No. I believe in a lightly regulated market, with safeguards in place for transparency (so consumers can truly make informed choices), and to help capture externalities (primarily funding education and protecting the environment). I was merely pointing out the false equivalency by the OP.
Do you realize that the company is a state-owned entity in a communist country? It's pretty much the exact opposite of an objectivist situation.
If this is anything at all like AT&T and many regional ISPs, "Atlanta is getting 2Gbps!!1!" actually means that one neighborhood is getting it. City names are irrelevant, give me potential subscriber numbers and expected delivery dates. Until then, yes, Comcast is evil.
Thank you. A more accurate headline might be, "Google Makes People Think They Have Memorized a Lot More Useless Crap Than They Have." But that doesn't have nearly the same click-baitiness as the original.
According to one of the links, the company apparently has a number of chemicals to choose from, and will apply the one most compatible with the customers' product.
For reference, here's the CA Prop 65 list (PDF)
After passing a voted ID law, "among 18 year olds, turnout dropped by 7.1 percentage points more in Kansas than it did among those aged 44 to 53 year-olds."
Young and minorities are more likely to lack ID, not the elderly. Voter ID laws impact the 18-24 demo to a far greater degree than any other age group.
Not only that, requirements in the auto industry move slowly. Airbags were patented in the 1950's, saw use in production vehicles in the 1970's, but were not mandated in the USA until a law was passed in 1991....which didn't take effect until 1998. Seat belts have a similar history. And these are things without the moral implications of programming a car to potentially choose *which* imminent accident to avoid. 40+ years to go from concept to federal mandate. Testing has started, but we are still very much in the conceptual phase of self-driving cars.
Now, layer in the fact that there's a strong culture in the US where driving == freedom, and he still thinks this will be a requirement in any of our lifetimes? For the foreseeable future, it would be political suicide, no matter what the safety statistics say. I'm certainly not holding my breath.