You do know that 75% of all types of cancer are genetic right? There are types you are going to get simply because of your faulty genes... Doesn't matter how "clean" of a lifestyle you maintain.
Our modern era has nearly doubled the life-span of humans from the ancient days of 35 years to an average of 70+ years.
That's a whole lot more time to develop cancer.. Not to mention cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos, etc etc etc..
Plastics (from oil) are hugely responsible for our current quality of life.. Tons of the products/foods we buy are wrapped in plastic which keeps them fresh and safe to consume. Medicines are packaged in plastic, ensuring their freshness and safety.
Your math is in error. You failed to account for how much CO2 that same family would have emitted while at rest.
Not that I agree with this "lets sue the oil companies" bullshit.. I just don't buy the premise that riding a bike is more polluting. The difference in CO2 emission by a human riding a bike and the same human at rest cannot be hugely significant..
And really.. it's a stupid comparison..
As a previous poster pointed out, the oil companies sell their product uncombusted.. They aren't polluting.
Even the car companies aren't really at fault.. Could cars be more efficient? Sure... But Americans have traditionally preferred "muscle cars". It's only in the last few years that fuel-efficient cars have really begun to sell well.
So, as typical, the fault really lies in the end user. Not to mention the fact that fuel-efficient cars tend to be quite a bit more expensive upfront than their inefficient counterparts..
I care. The sooner we can break blockchain the sooner we can stop the insane amount of wasted energy we are pouring into this retarded tulip and go back to reducing the world's energy consumption like we were doing before this stupidity infected us.
This statement is idiotic. Reducing energy consumption is a stupid goal. The goal should be to reduce or even eliminate the pollution caused by energy consumption and to make the consumption more efficient.
If I go out and buy 20 solar panels, hook them up to an air conditioner and attempt to cool down the Mohave Desert, there is no net negative effect on the Earth, yet I have increased the net energy consumption. Consuming energy is not our problem.. The waste of energy and the pollution caused by generating it is a problem.
Jesus Christ... the level of incompetence is amazing. Are these ad companies so clueless that they don't think some nerd is going to notice this?
I'm gonna give HTC the benefit of the doubt and assume that they had nothing to do with this. I suspect they gave some company a contract to run their ads and do the promotion. But, this level of idiocy should immediately result in the cancellation of that contract and a ban on any future contracts.
Although, it does occur to me that maybe HTC did hand them some hardware to take photos of... Be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm sure Apple will capitalize on it.
Yes but how many people break laws specifically targeted at them while they occupy an office or position intended as the specific target of the law?
Sure I probably break some laws, but you won't find me for instance breaking the Professional Engineering Act in my country. Likewise I expect someone in the employ of the federal government not to break a law that specifically is intended to apply to federal government employees.
Yeah? Does your country have 800,000 pages of laws? Does your country do stupid shit like inserting laws into totally unrelated bills and expecting people to notice?
Here, in our fucked up mess, you could have the "Clean Water Act of 2018" and inside could be rules governing the interstate trade is butt dildos. In fact, a bill can be so gutted and crammed full of unrelated regulations that by the time our fictitious "Clean Water Act of 2018" makes it into law, it may not have a single word left in it regarding water.
I know there have been several attempts, over the years, to pass rules that require Federal Laws to actually have relevant titles and to stick to one subject. But, sadly, all of these attempts have failed.
So, don't be flapping your pie-hole about how you could be sure you wouldn't be violating the Engineering Act, since there may be rules that govern engineers buried in a bill called "Save the Spotted Owl".
There is no atmosphere to carry anything around, there could be 20 feet of dust covering anything.. We've only been there a half dozen times.. I highly doubt we know how fast dust accumulates on the moon, and if we have an idea, it's only over the last 40 years.. We have no idea how fast it accumulated 100 million years ago.
Look, I don't think there were civs before us, but it's certainly a fun thought experiment. I'm simply shocked by how many people discount it out-of-hand with absolutely ludicrous arguments (not including you in that statement).. But simply think about it.. 100 or 200 or 300 million years is a LOOOOOOONG time for evidence of anything to be buried.
Yeah but think how pristine the lunar surface was, and how any debris on or close to the moon will spread. The only garbage on the lunar surface is ours. The moon is a filter which has been capturing and displaying loose items from space close to its orbit as long as it has existed.
The cleanliness of the moon suggests strongly that nobody was in high Earth orbit before us, either if they were from Earth, or from outside the solar system.
Just how much of the lunar surface do you think we have surveyed? Let me clue you in a bit.. 12 men... TWELVE.. have landed on the moon.. How much of the moon do you suspect they closely looked at? Even with the rover, maybe a square mile? Ten square miles?
Besides, anything up there for very long is going to be covered in whatever dust is ejected by meteorite impacts.. Over a million years.. or 10 million years.. that's a lot of impacts..
The moon's surface area is about 14.6 million square miles (38 million square kilometers)
Also, I gave you a moral argument and you respond with "legal". Legal is not moral and vice versa. Slavery was legal.. it was never right.
Forcing me to pay taxes that will be wasted is IMMORAL.
And don't give me this bullshit about "some waste". It's fucking endemic and epedemic to the system. The Pentagon (I like to pick on them, 'cause they are an easy target) can't account for $2.3 TRILLION. How the hell is that "some"?
Was it wasted? Who knows.. They sure as shit can't account for it.. So they can't say where it went.. This is not a small amount of money, it's quite nearly equal to the entire federal budget for a year.
Nativity is the guy with his fingers in his ears pretending he can't hear reality.
How many hundreds of billions of dollars need the Pentagon "lose"?
How about insider trading? Are you aware that Congress specifically exempted itself from insider trading laws? i.e. if you approach your Congressman and ask him to push your business towards the Pentagon (for example), he can run out, but a shit load of your stock, "suggest" that the Pentagon gives you a nice fat juicy contract, and then when your stock price goes up, he can dump the stock for huge profits with no legal ramifications whatsoever.
HOW THE FUCK IS THAT NOT CORRUPT? If you or I did that, it's a trip straight to the big house (like Martha Stewart)
Only a complete idiot or tool thinks there is anything, at all, noble about our CURRENT government. yeah, a while ago, it was way less bad, but it gets worse year by year..
Remember the whole check kiting scandal of the 80's?
Cash payments made "under the table" take away from tax revenue resulting in increased tax rates for those who pay their taxes.
Do you really think that's why tax rates increase? Really?
You don't think that if the government got 100% of all the tax it was due, that it wouldn't raise rates now and then to get more?
Governments ALWAYS expand and become corrupt. There is exactly ZERO moral obligation to pay taxes to a government that is going to waste them.
Nobody can deny that the US Federal Government is one of the most corrupt and wasteful organizations on the planet. Only the California State Government even comes close. (maybe New York too)
English is significantly less important than most people imagine. Punctuation and spelling are less important than conveying meaning, being constantly hung up on the nitty gritty is for obsessives with a chronic inability to see the forest for the trees.
No... It's the metric we, or at least some of us, use to see if someone is educated, thoughtful, and puts a little bit of effort into writing. I would not call someone out for 1 or 2 errors, but your post was riddled with them. I would be surprised if you could balance a checkbook properly.. Maybe you can but you certainly don't convey it.
Spelling and punctuation are not just for your benefit. The way you write your words benefits the reader just as much as the writer. Meanings are made clear and the exchange of ideas and information is enhanced, simplified, and made more precise.
As for your argument that punctuation is "less important", I can give a humorous example that blows that statement out of the water.
Would you help your uncle, Jack, off of a horse.
Would you help your uncle jack off a horse.
The words are precisely the same, but that comma becomes all important. The entire meaning of the sentence has changed. ENORMOUSLY.
You're the one who extrapolated, no one said anything about using fines to fund shit. The idea is to issue fines to cover the increased cost of dealing with whatever fuckup someone is causing you to have to deal with not to pay for everything. It probably should be a criminal thing but guess what, you can't send a company to prison or the people unless they've committed separate distinct crimes so guess what the punishment will be, a fucking fine. If they don't wanna pay the fines, stop calling 911 all the fucking time. Wrap the room phones are piled in a signal blocker of some kind or stop stacking the phones on top of each other when turned on so they can dial each other, I'm sure they could figure something out if they really tried. Apple are causing a problem and they seem to expect someone else to sort it out because they can't be arsed and have so much money people don't seem the think it's worth the bother unless it's at least a billion bucks.
Increased cost = fines = FUNDING.
Jesus Christ..... You are funding the increased costs with fines. But $16K/day is NOT going to make Apple bat an eye.... It will solve nothing rapidly.
As for your argument that you can't send people to prison, separate distinct crimes, et al... B.S. That's why we have shit like RICO and conspiracy laws.
I'm not a big fan of getting the government involved in anything, but I acknowledge that there are those things that are "necessary" or at least "important" for society. A working 911 system is one of those things..
They have the worst tracking system and the worst delivery times of the 3 big carriers (USPS, UPS, FedEx).
You are right about the congressional mandates, but that harms consumers rather than benefits them.
I'd love to see letter delivery privatized. There's all sorts of ways of doing it that would not leave rural customers out in the cold. i.e. you portion out regions on an all-or-nothing approach. If you want, for example, San Diego, then you have to deliver mail anywhere within the county.
Businesses must be efficient. The Post Office cannot be as long as lawmakers are the ones deciding how they have to operate their business. There is absolutely no drive for efficiency and profitability.
Your idea of "minimal" is either deceptive or delusional.
But as Robert Shapiro—former Treasury undersecretary and chairman of the economic consultancy Sonecon—points out in a new analysis, American taxpayers subsidize the USPS at a rate that surpasses the costs associated with any Congressional mandate. He estimates that, all told, the subsidies and legal monopolies that Congress bestows upon the post office is worth $18 billion annually.
Tax breaks. The Post Office is exempt from state and local property and real estate taxes, along with other burdens like tolls, vehicle registration fees, and parking tickets. These exemptions save the USPS $2.18 billion per year.
Cheap borrowing. The Postal Service, writes Shapiro, “can borrow from the U.S. Treasury through the Federal Financing Bank, at highly-subsidized interest rates.” It currently borrows the legal limit of $15.2 billion at a rate of 1.2%. Without this access, it would be paying somewhere between $415 million and $490 million per year more in interest.
Finally, Shapiro points out that the USPS pays its workers salaries and benefits far above the rates paid to similar workers in the private sector. Labor accounted for 78% of the organization’s costs in 2014, “with about 89% of those costs involving employees represented by collective bargaining.” These higher labor costs, plus the absence of a need to innovate due to government-granted monopolies, has freed the USPS from $20 billion in labor and productivity costs per year, Shapiro estimates. “While we do not technically count this as a subsidy,” he writes, it represents an economic burden on others arising directly from USPS’s monopoly position.” Postage, for instance, would likely be cheaper for everyone if the organization were subject to the same competitive pressures as private firms.
Doesn't matter. He's the president and he's acting in his official duties. The laws that shield elected officials from lawsuits regarding the things they say while carrying out those duties are pretty broad.
All Trump has to do is be speaking in his official duties to be immune from any type of slander/libel lawsuit. Those laws were passed... a hundred years ago? maybe two hundred?
All _elected_ members of the Federal Government, when speaking in an official capacity and going about their elected duties are specifically excluded from being sued/prosecuted for anything they say. I believe the same protections are enjoyed by elected state officials as well, but I'm not positive on it.
I suspect that Trump is easily going to be in the clear on this one. He's the executive and he's speaking about federal policy as well as his take on the economy.
He may not be a good President, but he's still the lawfully elected executive and he enjoys certain and necessary protections to carry out those duties without the hassle of frivolous lawsuits.
The onus would be on Bezos to prove to a judge that Trump was ONLY saying what he said to drive down the stock price. All Trump would have to do is show the slightest evidence that he was speaking as the President about the economy or even that he was considering turning the Justice Department loose on Amazon (acting as the legal head of the executive branch and by extension the head of the Justice Department)
I had a netbook years ago, an EEEPC if memory serves, that had a true dual OS system.
The main OS was Windows XP, but at start-up you press a designated key on the keyboad (If my memory is being true to me) and you'd boot into a stripped down version of Linux. I don't recall what the window manager was, but there was a web browser, ftp client, and a handful of other apps.
There was a separate dedicated storage for the Linux OS, so you could download files and whatnot. The secondary OS was minimal but very functional and it booted up FAST. 20-30 seconds from power on.
You extrapolated. I didn't say nothing should be done. I'm just sick of "let's fund the government via fines". When fines are used to fund the government, pretty soon everything has a fine attached to it. Those fines get bigger and bigger and bigger....
If anything YOU were the one who acknowledged that fines wouldn't do anything, as you mentioned that $16K is NOTHING to Apple. You just view it as a revenue source.
If you want to solve the problems, use CRIMINAL law. The 911 lines are being tied up. People are being put at risk. $16K isn't gonna bring back a dead person. Give Apple a reasonable amount of time to fix the problem. (maybe a month, I don't know), and then begin charging them with criminal neglect or something. That's how you'd get the problem solved NOW.
I suspect once there is the threat of jail, Apple will get something done post haste.
OR turn to the tech community. I'm sure they could come up with some solutions (Faraday Cages?!?).
Slashdot Mirror
They shouldn't be able to. You should not be able to sue someone for harm while you continue to harm yourself...
You do know that 75% of all types of cancer are genetic right? There are types you are going to get simply because of your faulty genes... Doesn't matter how "clean" of a lifestyle you maintain.
Our modern era has nearly doubled the life-span of humans from the ancient days of 35 years to an average of 70+ years.
That's a whole lot more time to develop cancer.. Not to mention cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos, etc etc etc..
Plastics (from oil) are hugely responsible for our current quality of life.. Tons of the products/foods we buy are wrapped in plastic which keeps them fresh and safe to consume. Medicines are packaged in plastic, ensuring their freshness and safety.
Your math is in error. You failed to account for how much CO2 that same family would have emitted while at rest.
Not that I agree with this "lets sue the oil companies" bullshit.. I just don't buy the premise that riding a bike is more polluting. The difference in CO2 emission by a human riding a bike and the same human at rest cannot be hugely significant..
And really.. it's a stupid comparison..
As a previous poster pointed out, the oil companies sell their product uncombusted.. They aren't polluting.
Even the car companies aren't really at fault.. Could cars be more efficient? Sure... But Americans have traditionally preferred "muscle cars". It's only in the last few years that fuel-efficient cars have really begun to sell well.
So, as typical, the fault really lies in the end user. Not to mention the fact that fuel-efficient cars tend to be quite a bit more expensive upfront than their inefficient counterparts..
I care. The sooner we can break blockchain the sooner we can stop the insane amount of wasted energy we are pouring into this retarded tulip and go back to reducing the world's energy consumption like we were doing before this stupidity infected us.
This statement is idiotic. Reducing energy consumption is a stupid goal. The goal should be to reduce or even eliminate the pollution caused by energy consumption and to make the consumption more efficient.
If I go out and buy 20 solar panels, hook them up to an air conditioner and attempt to cool down the Mohave Desert, there is no net negative effect on the Earth, yet I have increased the net energy consumption. Consuming energy is not our problem.. The waste of energy and the pollution caused by generating it is a problem.
Demand for energy will always increase.
God I hope you're kidding... Ubiquiti makes great radios but the routers are absolute shit.
You clearly don't get it.......
One would hope, since it's a nerd that would notice and then tell everyone.. Clearly that is what has happened here...
I'm not really a Trump supporter, nor am I really anti-Trump.. But this was hilarious.
Kudos on the humor. It actually made me chuckle. Thanks!
Jesus Christ... the level of incompetence is amazing. Are these ad companies so clueless that they don't think some nerd is going to notice this?
I'm gonna give HTC the benefit of the doubt and assume that they had nothing to do with this. I suspect they gave some company a contract to run their ads and do the promotion. But, this level of idiocy should immediately result in the cancellation of that contract and a ban on any future contracts.
Although, it does occur to me that maybe HTC did hand them some hardware to take photos of... Be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm sure Apple will capitalize on it.
Yes but how many people break laws specifically targeted at them while they occupy an office or position intended as the specific target of the law?
Sure I probably break some laws, but you won't find me for instance breaking the Professional Engineering Act in my country. Likewise I expect someone in the employ of the federal government not to break a law that specifically is intended to apply to federal government employees.
Yeah? Does your country have 800,000 pages of laws? Does your country do stupid shit like inserting laws into totally unrelated bills and expecting people to notice?
Here, in our fucked up mess, you could have the "Clean Water Act of 2018" and inside could be rules governing the interstate trade is butt dildos. In fact, a bill can be so gutted and crammed full of unrelated regulations that by the time our fictitious "Clean Water Act of 2018" makes it into law, it may not have a single word left in it regarding water.
I know there have been several attempts, over the years, to pass rules that require Federal Laws to actually have relevant titles and to stick to one subject. But, sadly, all of these attempts have failed.
So, don't be flapping your pie-hole about how you could be sure you wouldn't be violating the Engineering Act, since there may be rules that govern engineers buried in a bill called "Save the Spotted Owl".
Our system is a complete fucking mess
Yeah! It's not like anything has ever come of research into radio waves. It's wasted money!
Radar
FM Radio
TV
HAM
P.S. You are an idiot.
You windows fanboys are hilarious..
There is no atmosphere to carry anything around, there could be 20 feet of dust covering anything.. We've only been there a half dozen times.. I highly doubt we know how fast dust accumulates on the moon, and if we have an idea, it's only over the last 40 years.. We have no idea how fast it accumulated 100 million years ago.
Look, I don't think there were civs before us, but it's certainly a fun thought experiment. I'm simply shocked by how many people discount it out-of-hand with absolutely ludicrous arguments (not including you in that statement).. But simply think about it.. 100 or 200 or 300 million years is a LOOOOOOONG time for evidence of anything to be buried.
Yeah but think how pristine the lunar surface was, and how any debris on or close to the moon will spread. The only garbage on the lunar surface is ours. The moon is a filter which has been capturing and displaying loose items from space close to its orbit as long as it has existed.
The cleanliness of the moon suggests strongly that nobody was in high Earth orbit before us, either if they were from Earth, or from outside the solar system.
Just how much of the lunar surface do you think we have surveyed? Let me clue you in a bit.. 12 men... TWELVE.. have landed on the moon.. How much of the moon do you suspect they closely looked at? Even with the rover, maybe a square mile? Ten square miles?
Besides, anything up there for very long is going to be covered in whatever dust is ejected by meteorite impacts.. Over a million years.. or 10 million years.. that's a lot of impacts..
The moon's surface area is about 14.6 million square miles (38 million square kilometers)
Forcing me to pay taxes that will be wasted is IMMORAL.
And don't give me this bullshit about "some waste". It's fucking endemic and epedemic to the system. The Pentagon (I like to pick on them, 'cause they are an easy target) can't account for $2.3 TRILLION. How the hell is that "some"?
Was it wasted? Who knows.. They sure as shit can't account for it.. So they can't say where it went.. This is not a small amount of money, it's quite nearly equal to the entire federal budget for a year.
To quote:
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/t...
$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. Yeah.. that's "some"
Nativity is the guy with his fingers in his ears pretending he can't hear reality.
How many hundreds of billions of dollars need the Pentagon "lose"?
How about insider trading? Are you aware that Congress specifically exempted itself from insider trading laws? i.e. if you approach your Congressman and ask him to push your business towards the Pentagon (for example), he can run out, but a shit load of your stock, "suggest" that the Pentagon gives you a nice fat juicy contract, and then when your stock price goes up, he can dump the stock for huge profits with no legal ramifications whatsoever.
HOW THE FUCK IS THAT NOT CORRUPT? If you or I did that, it's a trip straight to the big house (like Martha Stewart)
I suggest you read this if you don't believe me: https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
Only a complete idiot or tool thinks there is anything, at all, noble about our CURRENT government. yeah, a while ago, it was way less bad, but it gets worse year by year..
Remember the whole check kiting scandal of the 80's?
Cash payments made "under the table" take away from tax revenue resulting in increased tax rates for those who pay their taxes.
Do you really think that's why tax rates increase? Really?
You don't think that if the government got 100% of all the tax it was due, that it wouldn't raise rates now and then to get more?
Governments ALWAYS expand and become corrupt. There is exactly ZERO moral obligation to pay taxes to a government that is going to waste them.
Nobody can deny that the US Federal Government is one of the most corrupt and wasteful organizations on the planet. Only the California State Government even comes close. (maybe New York too)
English is significantly less important than most people imagine. Punctuation and spelling are less important than conveying meaning, being constantly hung up on the nitty gritty is for obsessives with a chronic inability to see the forest for the trees.
No... It's the metric we, or at least some of us, use to see if someone is educated, thoughtful, and puts a little bit of effort into writing. I would not call someone out for 1 or 2 errors, but your post was riddled with them. I would be surprised if you could balance a checkbook properly.. Maybe you can but you certainly don't convey it.
Spelling and punctuation are not just for your benefit. The way you write your words benefits the reader just as much as the writer. Meanings are made clear and the exchange of ideas and information is enhanced, simplified, and made more precise.
As for your argument that punctuation is "less important", I can give a humorous example that blows that statement out of the water.
Would you help your uncle, Jack, off of a horse.
Would you help your uncle jack off a horse.
The words are precisely the same, but that comma becomes all important. The entire meaning of the sentence has changed. ENORMOUSLY.
You're the one who extrapolated, no one said anything about using fines to fund shit. The idea is to issue fines to cover the increased cost of dealing with whatever fuckup someone is causing you to have to deal with not to pay for everything. It probably should be a criminal thing but guess what, you can't send a company to prison or the people unless they've committed separate distinct crimes so guess what the punishment will be, a fucking fine. If they don't wanna pay the fines, stop calling 911 all the fucking time. Wrap the room phones are piled in a signal blocker of some kind or stop stacking the phones on top of each other when turned on so they can dial each other, I'm sure they could figure something out if they really tried. Apple are causing a problem and they seem to expect someone else to sort it out because they can't be arsed and have so much money people don't seem the think it's worth the bother unless it's at least a billion bucks.
Increased cost = fines = FUNDING.
Jesus Christ..... You are funding the increased costs with fines. But $16K/day is NOT going to make Apple bat an eye.... It will solve nothing rapidly.
As for your argument that you can't send people to prison, separate distinct crimes, et al... B.S. That's why we have shit like RICO and conspiracy laws.
I'm not a big fan of getting the government involved in anything, but I acknowledge that there are those things that are "necessary" or at least "important" for society. A working 911 system is one of those things..
Innovative? Seriously?
They have the worst tracking system and the worst delivery times of the 3 big carriers (USPS, UPS, FedEx).
You are right about the congressional mandates, but that harms consumers rather than benefits them.
I'd love to see letter delivery privatized. There's all sorts of ways of doing it that would not leave rural customers out in the cold. i.e. you portion out regions on an all-or-nothing approach. If you want, for example, San Diego, then you have to deliver mail anywhere within the county.
Businesses must be efficient. The Post Office cannot be as long as lawmakers are the ones deciding how they have to operate their business. There is absolutely no drive for efficiency and profitability.
Your idea of "minimal" is either deceptive or delusional.
But as Robert Shapiro—former Treasury undersecretary and chairman of the economic consultancy Sonecon—points out in a new analysis, American taxpayers subsidize the USPS at a rate that surpasses the costs associated with any Congressional mandate. He estimates that, all told, the subsidies and legal monopolies that Congress bestows upon the post office is worth $18 billion annually.
Tax breaks. The Post Office is exempt from state and local property and real estate taxes, along with other burdens like tolls, vehicle registration fees, and parking tickets. These exemptions save the USPS $2.18 billion per year.
Cheap borrowing. The Postal Service, writes Shapiro, “can borrow from the U.S. Treasury through the Federal Financing Bank, at highly-subsidized interest rates.” It currently borrows the legal limit of $15.2 billion at a rate of 1.2%. Without this access, it would be paying somewhere between $415 million and $490 million per year more in interest.
Finally, Shapiro points out that the USPS pays its workers salaries and benefits far above the rates paid to similar workers in the private sector. Labor accounted for 78% of the organization’s costs in 2014, “with about 89% of those costs involving employees represented by collective bargaining.” These higher labor costs, plus the absence of a need to innovate due to government-granted monopolies, has freed the USPS from $20 billion in labor and productivity costs per year, Shapiro estimates. “While we do not technically count this as a subsidy,” he writes, it represents an economic burden on others arising directly from USPS’s monopoly position.” Postage, for instance, would likely be cheaper for everyone if the organization were subject to the same competitive pressures as private firms.
Doesn't matter. He's the president and he's acting in his official duties. The laws that shield elected officials from lawsuits regarding the things they say while carrying out those duties are pretty broad.
All Trump has to do is be speaking in his official duties to be immune from any type of slander/libel lawsuit. Those laws were passed ... a hundred years ago? maybe two hundred?
All _elected_ members of the Federal Government, when speaking in an official capacity and going about their elected duties are specifically excluded from being sued/prosecuted for anything they say. I believe the same protections are enjoyed by elected state officials as well, but I'm not positive on it.
I suspect that Trump is easily going to be in the clear on this one. He's the executive and he's speaking about federal policy as well as his take on the economy.
He may not be a good President, but he's still the lawfully elected executive and he enjoys certain and necessary protections to carry out those duties without the hassle of frivolous lawsuits.
The onus would be on Bezos to prove to a judge that Trump was ONLY saying what he said to drive down the stock price. All Trump would have to do is show the slightest evidence that he was speaking as the President about the economy or even that he was considering turning the Justice Department loose on Amazon (acting as the legal head of the executive branch and by extension the head of the Justice Department)
I had a netbook years ago, an EEEPC if memory serves, that had a true dual OS system.
The main OS was Windows XP, but at start-up you press a designated key on the keyboad (If my memory is being true to me) and you'd boot into a stripped down version of Linux. I don't recall what the window manager was, but there was a web browser, ftp client, and a handful of other apps.
There was a separate dedicated storage for the Linux OS, so you could download files and whatnot. The secondary OS was minimal but very functional and it booted up FAST. 20-30 seconds from power on.
If anything YOU were the one who acknowledged that fines wouldn't do anything, as you mentioned that $16K is NOTHING to Apple. You just view it as a revenue source.
If you want to solve the problems, use CRIMINAL law. The 911 lines are being tied up. People are being put at risk. $16K isn't gonna bring back a dead person. Give Apple a reasonable amount of time to fix the problem. (maybe a month, I don't know), and then begin charging them with criminal neglect or something. That's how you'd get the problem solved NOW.
I suspect once there is the threat of jail, Apple will get something done post haste.
OR turn to the tech community. I'm sure they could come up with some solutions (Faraday Cages?!?).