I'm not sure what the polling rate of my power meter is, but I do know that it's readable often enough that companies offer "time of day rates" so it's got to be at least every hour,
The device doesn't have to transmit data every hour for it to be able to record use on an hourly, or even by-minute, basis. It can record the data and be read once a week.
It will be listening 24/7, however, so the power company can issue it commands to turn off to shed load if necessary.
Yes. Like instead of copying on malware that may be detected by virus scanners or other security software, just copy off the data you want. You already have access to copy things on. The last time I looked, "copy" or "cp" works both ways.
I do predict it showing up in the next Mission: Impossible installment, though
No, more likely an episode next season, if there is one, of/Scorpion. They do some truly stupid stuff on that show. Pure technical comedy. It's worth watching just for that.
The actual cables and wires are government granted monopoly,
No, they are not. They are part of the franchisee's equipment, and there are no exclusive franchises anymore.
because it makes sense to not have 7 different coax demarcs on the side of each house depending on what company you are working with.
Coax is so 1900's. In any case, you don't need to have 7. The customer only needs as many as the number of companies he buys from. I have two already -- one for cable, one for telephone. Sorry, but the original franchise rules (which did permit exclusivity) weren't there to keep the customer from needing multiple demarcs.
at the very least they are using a "business class" service for each location so that there is a service level agreement in place
Many city-level connections are provided through the franchise agreement, such as free connections for the schools and city hall. The "money" that talks is perhaps a smaller franchise fee than would be required otherwise.
The fact will remain, the "government" will either have to do without (because no company will waste time dealing with them or be able to prove the negative that is required), or be buying service from a special subsidiary that deals only with government, and the public will see no effect. "Comcast Government Division of Oregon" will promise no throttling and charge a pretty penny for it, because it costs a lot of money to provision at 100%. "Comcast of Oregon" will never provide service to any government agency and will keep costs lower by provisioning to some lower percentage like every company already does. When that percentage is exceeded by burst use people will cry "throttling" like they already do, the state will look at the problem and realize their ISP is a different company.
The dealer still cuts the deck in those places. Ask yourself why it was so easy for you to to be so astonishingly wrong.
I guess you didn't read my explicit comment that the dealer cuts the cards after taking them out of the auto-shuffler at a poker table. Ask yourself why you don't read the entire comment before replying.
For Pai Gow, which was my example, no, sorry, the dealer does not cut the cards. The shuffler shuffles the desk and spits out packets of seven cards seven times. The dealer may do a wash or hand-riffle prior to putting the deck into the shuffler to make it look like he's doing something to randomize the outcome, but the shuffler takes over from there. For all anyone knows, there is a card reader under the table and the "shuffler" is creating biased packets so a certain seat will have better chances of winning. Remember, the "dealer" seat is chosen before the cards come out. It would be trivial for a rigged "shuffle/dealer" to spit out packets for seat 4 that usually beats the dealer, or at worst pushes.
Maybe a few losses just to make it less obvious. It would be hard for a casual observer to detect, because Pai Gow is one of the games where a conservative player can play for a push if they're not sure they can win. Some people will have a track record of pushes, which would look just like a rigged game.
I would predict that Pai Gow, for one, will be one of the next games to be automated like craps was. The "house way" is fixed, there is no leeway in how the "dealer" plays his cards, that's already automated some places. Shuffling/dealing is already automated, it's just a human dealer going through the same easily taught, easily automated steps over and over. All it would take is each seat gets an LCD display showing their cards, buttons to bet and select two of the seven for the top, and you've got a fully automated system.
In this part of the country casinos are not "next door", they're 30 or 40 miles apart. If their tables are full of people who are happy to play under robot dealers, then your threat will make them laugh.
Where I play, the most common reason that any poker table is not in use is because they don't have a dealer for it. If they don't have to pay someone to come in to deal, they can open a table at almost no cost. Any time there would have been a waiting list of four or more people, they simply open a table with a robot dealer and the list is taken care of, they're making money, and the players are playing. That means the floor space is making money instead of sitting idle, and they don't have to pay a dealer. Nor do the players feel compelled to tip a robot dealer, so they keep more of their winnings. It's a win-win-win.
I am not going to waste my time trying to explain to you something that you so clearly do not want to understand, and even keep arguing about even when you know you don't understand.
I'll simply say this: not everyone will "eventually lose". There are people who make their livings gambling. When I play Pai Gow, I typically come out ahead, and I'm hardly a pro.
But you certainly are the superior person because you understand so much about the casinos and would never fall for their scam. That's what you are trying to prove by insulting everyone who goes to them, right?
We've already got industrial robots that can learn tasks by watching humans do them. Its not hard to imagine wealthy people buying something like that for their homes in 15 years,
So the rich people will wind up with robots intended to clean their homes and all the robot will do is watch TV and eat bon-bons? What rich person is going to show a robot how to clean? (Yes, that's facetious. Undocumented workers will still have a job teaching the robots, albeit short-term jobs.)
You seem to be one of those people who is stridently confident in their ignorance.
I simply think back to what technology was like 20 years ago and realize that a lot of things we have today weren't imagined then. Like "Alexa, turn on my bedroom light". Like a Raspberry Pi that has more compute power than a mainframe 20 years ago. What will we have in 20 years?
When you hit a losing streak on a machine, this machine might be rigged.
When you hit a losing streak with a dealer, this dealer is unlucky for you.
Since most poker tables have automated shuffling and the dealer just distributes the cards, then this difference will eventually fade. Oh, wait, a single cut is the "random" input the dealer makes. Other than that, the dealer has no input in which cards go to which player. But yes, currently, the dealer is blamed for bad hands.
I don't think many people blame the dealer at Pai Gow, and that's a glaring example of the difference between manual shuffle and automated, despite there being a dealer present to chat with.
There are also too many people playing video and slots where the games can be more easily rigged for "this might be rigged" to be a serious concern for the casino.
the only thing new is the video poker machines replacing some of the slot machines.
You are wrong. Casinos love automation. It gets rid of one of their biggest expenses AND security problems. Dealers handle cards and money. Mishandling either one can be theft or simple mistake, but either one costs money. And people to watch the people makes the cost even higher. (I was playing poker one night and everyone at the table misread a hand, including the dealer. About twenty minutes later a floor came by, told me that security had detected the mistake, and gave me $20.) One time a dealer at Pai Gow make a payout mistake, caught it herself, but had to call a floor over to monitor the fix. Play stopped for that period of time, costing the casino money.
They'll replace everything they can. They have automated shufflers for almost all the card games now. They have automated "dealers" for many of them. If you play Pai Gow, you'll see the automated shuffler that spits out packets of seven cards that the "dealer" distributes. The latest innovation I saw at one casino had image analysis to detect the dealer's cards and tell the dealer how to arrange it, faster than any dealer could. That table also had lights to point out the proper place for the "dealer" to put each packet. I didn't see anyone do it while I was watching, but I bet the image detection is applied to the player's hands, too, so the dealer doesn't even need to detect when a hand is misplayed.
Finally, my normal casino has an automated craps table. It doesn't look like a craps table. It's a round domed thing with a shaker underneath and two dice inside, surrounded by half a dozen consoles where players enter bets. There's a button for the shooter to stop the shaking, and cameras inside determine the roll. There are no croupiers, no table captain, no muss, no fuss, and a lot cheaper in the long run.
The only thing stopping casinos from automating the poker room fully is the players. There's too much ambiance from having chips instead of an LCD display. All the rules interpretations that come from having people handling chips will go away when betting becomes a button press. "Hey, you just string bet..." can't happen when you either press "call" or "raise". There will still be rules that need someone watching, like table talk limits or use of cell phones, but anything that can be automated will be.
Yes, network neutrality is complex and so the laws that govern it have to be complex, too. Who knew?
(b) Blocks lawful content, applications or services or nonharmful devices;
One of my local ISPs blocks email that is not spam. It is in violation of this law. Another one blocks specific well-known-ports (which pass lawful content). One of them is a major company. One of them is not. Who does my local government get its internet from? Who do the schools start paying for internet when they can't get it for free from Comcast?
The question will be, will anyone be able to afford fulfilling them? They'll have to provide full bandwidth peering with someone just to avoid any border gateway congestion issues at any time, for example. That will have to ripple down to the end user.
And what's even funnier, it may mean that the state has "better" internet service, but it won't mean squat for the residents. The big companies will just create subsidiaries to deal with the state.
But the lower level question is, how can they do that? I mean, ISP is supposed to be a government monopoly business. If the government only permits a few ISPs and none of them are squeaky clean wrt traffic shaping, then who is left to sell the state service?
Agreed. I live in Oregon, so this concerns me, and not residents of other states.
It might be interesting when the State of Oregon goes back to 1990 and loses all Internet connectivity because it cannot find an internet provider that doesn't do some traffic limiting. Even if it is nothing more than the border congestion issues that look like throttling. Of course, we don't have a fancy ACA health portal to worry about needing internet for -- the previous Governor and Oracle managed to screw that up pretty good.
Does this apply to local governments, too? I mean, will the schools have to throw out the Comcast broadband that they have as part of their local franchise agreements?
How about people have a brain and it's their life?
What are they supposed to use their brain to do if they aren't told that the chances of dying as a side effect are relatively high? You can't make an informed decision without data.
I used to take a medication that was later found to kill ~1 in 100,000. Given the benefit and risk of that drug, I would have elected to continue treatment with that drug.
That's nice. Wouldn't it have been better if you knew before you made the choice what the chances were? Should others be restricted in knowing the danger because you are a risk taker?
Inform me and allow me to make the choice.
What value is the information that this certain drug didn't kill anyone in a group of 100 test subjects after taking it for just six weeks? How do you call it "informed" when there is so little data, and not just little data, but too little to have any statistical significance?
If I was unable to move and was having severe psychosis, I would consider a drug that resolved those symptoms,
Disingenuous. You would not be allowed to have an opinion. You are psychotic. It's easy to say what you would do; less easy to say what your next of kin should do with you.
Quality of life is just as important (or more so) than quantity of life.
So what you're saying is that knowing there is a drug that might cure you on the market in a year, after more testing to show that it won't kill you, is not good enough to wait for, you'd choose death now? A year of poor quality of life isn't worth living?
And taken to the extreme, this calls for a program of euthenasia for anyone whose life will be "low quality", because quality is more important than quantity. I'm sorry, that's where this concept takes us.
It depends on how many people received the drug and recovered.
You might pick 700 people losing their loved ones so yours would be better. Would you be happy to be in the 700 so someone elses loved one would be better? That's a rhetorical question, since it all depends on how you value life.
Honestly, if my options are dementia or a pill that might kill me with a 50:50 chance of relief from the dementia, I'm going to take the pill.
Those weren't the options you were given. You were told your options were 50:50 "relief from dementia" and "no change". Sure, anyone would pick that. Would you be so quick to pick "relief or die"? Wouldn't it be nice to know the true options? Would you be informed enough to ask "how big was the sample pool for testing?" and would you think "200 people for six weeks" was enough, if you died?
The shelves are filled with things that might not work. We expect the FDA to actually stop things that kill people. 700 deaths attributed to the drug is a bit of an extreme side effect, wouldn't you say?
I favor letting people into an experimental program with blatant warnings,
Of course. This is not the same as FDA approval for use in treating a specific illness. A six-week, 200 participant study might be justification for that experimental program, but it shouldn't be enough for release of a drug for general use.
The catch is that if you are trying to get approval for a novel medication that saves lives of the critically ill, how do you justify the delay needed to do all the safety and effectiveness studies?
I think the information in just the summary is sufficient to do that. A six-week study with 200 people is now enough data to start selling a drug? (I'm sure some smart statistician can tell us the percentages for potential undetected serious complications from a long-term drug in a study with 100 test and 100 control subjects over just six weeks.) A connection with 700 people dead from taking the drug should be enough.
We have a history of other drugs that have been through full testing that are now pulled because of safety issues. The TV has regular ads from lawyers asking people "if you've ever taken X and had a bad result" to join a lawsuit. And simple things like Celebrex, which really really works when it is needed, are now on the outs for some reason. (I had a pinched nerve in my neck that made my arm immobile. An hour after a Celebrex I was fine. The second time this happened, I was told I couldn't get Celebrex, how about Ibuprofen? Yeah. OTC is great. Oh, these were twice the allowed OTC dose and something like $6 each -- which I apparently couldn't get by taking two of the OTC tablets.)
But, as Golin argues, YouTube violates COPPA because it doesn't differentiate between videos marketed to children and the rest of the site.
This says that it is ok (doesn't violate COPPA) if YouTube collects data about children who watch videos marketed towards "not children". "X violates Y because Z" implies that "not Z" mean X does not violate Y. Causal effect.
And that leaves the amazing question, how does YouTube know what age level a video submitter is targeting?
But do remember that even email suffers from that problem but we've seen email still stay strong.
Email is no longer the killer app that it once was. It is unreliable and requires massive resources just to stay that bad. "Best currently available method" doesn't mean "it's working great!"
I use email on a regular basis for status updates from various places around the world and various systems I manage. I use it for alerts to problems. I cannot know from day to day if the alerts will actually get through since what works today can be blocked tomorrow without any notice.
Slashdot Mirror
So, it was an easily avoidable accident for a human driver... but we have an autopilot that couldn't do it, even though we claim it's twice as safe?
It's fun to mix anecdotal individual events with statistics, isn't it?
"Full self-driving" sounds an awful lot like an "autonomous vehicle function" as you phrased it.
Context: they're talking about the hardware. Software isn't there yet.
Also, "substantially greater" isn't "perfect".
I'm not sure what the polling rate of my power meter is, but I do know that it's readable often enough that companies offer "time of day rates" so it's got to be at least every hour,
The device doesn't have to transmit data every hour for it to be able to record use on an hourly, or even by-minute, basis. It can record the data and be read once a week.
It will be listening 24/7, however, so the power company can issue it commands to turn off to shed load if necessary.
there might be better, more efficient ways.
Yes. Like instead of copying on malware that may be detected by virus scanners or other security software, just copy off the data you want. You already have access to copy things on. The last time I looked, "copy" or "cp" works both ways.
I do predict it showing up in the next Mission: Impossible installment, though
No, more likely an episode next season, if there is one, of /Scorpion. They do some truly stupid stuff on that show. Pure technical comedy. It's worth watching just for that.
The actual cables and wires are government granted monopoly,
No, they are not. They are part of the franchisee's equipment, and there are no exclusive franchises anymore.
because it makes sense to not have 7 different coax demarcs on the side of each house depending on what company you are working with.
Coax is so 1900's. In any case, you don't need to have 7. The customer only needs as many as the number of companies he buys from. I have two already -- one for cable, one for telephone. Sorry, but the original franchise rules (which did permit exclusivity) weren't there to keep the customer from needing multiple demarcs.
at the very least they are using a "business class" service for each location so that there is a service level agreement in place
Many city-level connections are provided through the franchise agreement, such as free connections for the schools and city hall. The "money" that talks is perhaps a smaller franchise fee than would be required otherwise.
The fact will remain, the "government" will either have to do without (because no company will waste time dealing with them or be able to prove the negative that is required), or be buying service from a special subsidiary that deals only with government, and the public will see no effect. "Comcast Government Division of Oregon" will promise no throttling and charge a pretty penny for it, because it costs a lot of money to provision at 100%. "Comcast of Oregon" will never provide service to any government agency and will keep costs lower by provisioning to some lower percentage like every company already does. When that percentage is exceeded by burst use people will cry "throttling" like they already do, the state will look at the problem and realize their ISP is a different company.
The dealer still cuts the deck in those places. Ask yourself why it was so easy for you to to be so astonishingly wrong.
I guess you didn't read my explicit comment that the dealer cuts the cards after taking them out of the auto-shuffler at a poker table. Ask yourself why you don't read the entire comment before replying.
For Pai Gow, which was my example, no, sorry, the dealer does not cut the cards. The shuffler shuffles the desk and spits out packets of seven cards seven times. The dealer may do a wash or hand-riffle prior to putting the deck into the shuffler to make it look like he's doing something to randomize the outcome, but the shuffler takes over from there. For all anyone knows, there is a card reader under the table and the "shuffler" is creating biased packets so a certain seat will have better chances of winning. Remember, the "dealer" seat is chosen before the cards come out. It would be trivial for a rigged "shuffle/dealer" to spit out packets for seat 4 that usually beats the dealer, or at worst pushes.
Maybe a few losses just to make it less obvious. It would be hard for a casual observer to detect, because Pai Gow is one of the games where a conservative player can play for a push if they're not sure they can win. Some people will have a track record of pushes, which would look just like a rigged game.
I would predict that Pai Gow, for one, will be one of the next games to be automated like craps was. The "house way" is fixed, there is no leeway in how the "dealer" plays his cards, that's already automated some places. Shuffling/dealing is already automated, it's just a human dealer going through the same easily taught, easily automated steps over and over. All it would take is each seat gets an LCD display showing their cards, buttons to bet and select two of the seven for the top, and you've got a fully automated system.
Where I play, the most common reason that any poker table is not in use is because they don't have a dealer for it. If they don't have to pay someone to come in to deal, they can open a table at almost no cost. Any time there would have been a waiting list of four or more people, they simply open a table with a robot dealer and the list is taken care of, they're making money, and the players are playing. That means the floor space is making money instead of sitting idle, and they don't have to pay a dealer. Nor do the players feel compelled to tip a robot dealer, so they keep more of their winnings. It's a win-win-win.
I'll simply say this: not everyone will "eventually lose". There are people who make their livings gambling. When I play Pai Gow, I typically come out ahead, and I'm hardly a pro.
But you certainly are the superior person because you understand so much about the casinos and would never fall for their scam. That's what you are trying to prove by insulting everyone who goes to them, right?
I obviously don't gamble ...
Obviously, and thus your knowledge of casinos, why people go there, and why they gamble isn't very great. Thank you for adding your opinions.
We've already got industrial robots that can learn tasks by watching humans do them. Its not hard to imagine wealthy people buying something like that for their homes in 15 years,
So the rich people will wind up with robots intended to clean their homes and all the robot will do is watch TV and eat bon-bons? What rich person is going to show a robot how to clean? (Yes, that's facetious. Undocumented workers will still have a job teaching the robots, albeit short-term jobs.)
You seem to be one of those people who is stridently confident in their ignorance.
I simply think back to what technology was like 20 years ago and realize that a lot of things we have today weren't imagined then. Like "Alexa, turn on my bedroom light". Like a Raspberry Pi that has more compute power than a mainframe 20 years ago. What will we have in 20 years?
When you hit a losing streak on a machine, this machine might be rigged. When you hit a losing streak with a dealer, this dealer is unlucky for you.
Since most poker tables have automated shuffling and the dealer just distributes the cards, then this difference will eventually fade. Oh, wait, a single cut is the "random" input the dealer makes. Other than that, the dealer has no input in which cards go to which player. But yes, currently, the dealer is blamed for bad hands.
I don't think many people blame the dealer at Pai Gow, and that's a glaring example of the difference between manual shuffle and automated, despite there being a dealer present to chat with.
There are also too many people playing video and slots where the games can be more easily rigged for "this might be rigged" to be a serious concern for the casino.
Do people really want to play cards with a robot dealer? It seems a little impersonal to me.
While it may seem impersonal, the growth of online poker should tell you something.
Also, if you can't find a poker table with a human dealer, will you chose not to play? The casino will control what is available.
the only thing new is the video poker machines replacing some of the slot machines.
You are wrong. Casinos love automation. It gets rid of one of their biggest expenses AND security problems. Dealers handle cards and money. Mishandling either one can be theft or simple mistake, but either one costs money. And people to watch the people makes the cost even higher. (I was playing poker one night and everyone at the table misread a hand, including the dealer. About twenty minutes later a floor came by, told me that security had detected the mistake, and gave me $20.) One time a dealer at Pai Gow make a payout mistake, caught it herself, but had to call a floor over to monitor the fix. Play stopped for that period of time, costing the casino money.
They'll replace everything they can. They have automated shufflers for almost all the card games now. They have automated "dealers" for many of them. If you play Pai Gow, you'll see the automated shuffler that spits out packets of seven cards that the "dealer" distributes. The latest innovation I saw at one casino had image analysis to detect the dealer's cards and tell the dealer how to arrange it, faster than any dealer could. That table also had lights to point out the proper place for the "dealer" to put each packet. I didn't see anyone do it while I was watching, but I bet the image detection is applied to the player's hands, too, so the dealer doesn't even need to detect when a hand is misplayed.
Finally, my normal casino has an automated craps table. It doesn't look like a craps table. It's a round domed thing with a shaker underneath and two dice inside, surrounded by half a dozen consoles where players enter bets. There's a button for the shooter to stop the shaking, and cameras inside determine the roll. There are no croupiers, no table captain, no muss, no fuss, and a lot cheaper in the long run.
The only thing stopping casinos from automating the poker room fully is the players. There's too much ambiance from having chips instead of an LCD display. All the rules interpretations that come from having people handling chips will go away when betting becomes a button press. "Hey, you just string bet ..." can't happen when you either press "call" or "raise". There will still be rules that need someone watching, like table talk limits or use of cell phones, but anything that can be automated will be.
(b) Blocks lawful content, applications or services or nonharmful devices;
One of my local ISPs blocks email that is not spam. It is in violation of this law. Another one blocks specific well-known-ports (which pass lawful content). One of them is a major company. One of them is not. Who does my local government get its internet from? Who do the schools start paying for internet when they can't get it for free from Comcast?
Someone will want those contracts,
The question will be, will anyone be able to afford fulfilling them? They'll have to provide full bandwidth peering with someone just to avoid any border gateway congestion issues at any time, for example. That will have to ripple down to the end user.
And what's even funnier, it may mean that the state has "better" internet service, but it won't mean squat for the residents. The big companies will just create subsidiaries to deal with the state.
But the lower level question is, how can they do that? I mean, ISP is supposed to be a government monopoly business. If the government only permits a few ISPs and none of them are squeaky clean wrt traffic shaping, then who is left to sell the state service?
Agreed. I live in Oregon, so this concerns me, and not residents of other states.
It might be interesting when the State of Oregon goes back to 1990 and loses all Internet connectivity because it cannot find an internet provider that doesn't do some traffic limiting. Even if it is nothing more than the border congestion issues that look like throttling. Of course, we don't have a fancy ACA health portal to worry about needing internet for -- the previous Governor and Oracle managed to screw that up pretty good.
Does this apply to local governments, too? I mean, will the schools have to throw out the Comcast broadband that they have as part of their local franchise agreements?
as if that is some sort of actual thing
FTFY. There ain't no "popular vote" for President in the US.
How about people have a brain and it's their life?
What are they supposed to use their brain to do if they aren't told that the chances of dying as a side effect are relatively high? You can't make an informed decision without data.
I used to take a medication that was later found to kill ~1 in 100,000. Given the benefit and risk of that drug, I would have elected to continue treatment with that drug.
That's nice. Wouldn't it have been better if you knew before you made the choice what the chances were? Should others be restricted in knowing the danger because you are a risk taker?
Inform me and allow me to make the choice.
What value is the information that this certain drug didn't kill anyone in a group of 100 test subjects after taking it for just six weeks? How do you call it "informed" when there is so little data, and not just little data, but too little to have any statistical significance?
If I was unable to move and was having severe psychosis, I would consider a drug that resolved those symptoms,
Disingenuous. You would not be allowed to have an opinion. You are psychotic. It's easy to say what you would do; less easy to say what your next of kin should do with you.
Quality of life is just as important (or more so) than quantity of life.
So what you're saying is that knowing there is a drug that might cure you on the market in a year, after more testing to show that it won't kill you, is not good enough to wait for, you'd choose death now? A year of poor quality of life isn't worth living?
And taken to the extreme, this calls for a program of euthenasia for anyone whose life will be "low quality", because quality is more important than quantity. I'm sorry, that's where this concept takes us.
It depends on how many people received the drug and recovered.
You might pick 700 people losing their loved ones so yours would be better. Would you be happy to be in the 700 so someone elses loved one would be better? That's a rhetorical question, since it all depends on how you value life.
Honestly, if my options are dementia or a pill that might kill me with a 50:50 chance of relief from the dementia, I'm going to take the pill.
Those weren't the options you were given. You were told your options were 50:50 "relief from dementia" and "no change". Sure, anyone would pick that. Would you be so quick to pick "relief or die"? Wouldn't it be nice to know the true options? Would you be informed enough to ask "how big was the sample pool for testing?" and would you think "200 people for six weeks" was enough, if you died?
OTOH, it might not work. Whoops!
The shelves are filled with things that might not work. We expect the FDA to actually stop things that kill people. 700 deaths attributed to the drug is a bit of an extreme side effect, wouldn't you say?
I favor letting people into an experimental program with blatant warnings,
Of course. This is not the same as FDA approval for use in treating a specific illness. A six-week, 200 participant study might be justification for that experimental program, but it shouldn't be enough for release of a drug for general use.
The catch is that if you are trying to get approval for a novel medication that saves lives of the critically ill, how do you justify the delay needed to do all the safety and effectiveness studies?
I think the information in just the summary is sufficient to do that. A six-week study with 200 people is now enough data to start selling a drug? (I'm sure some smart statistician can tell us the percentages for potential undetected serious complications from a long-term drug in a study with 100 test and 100 control subjects over just six weeks.) A connection with 700 people dead from taking the drug should be enough.
We have a history of other drugs that have been through full testing that are now pulled because of safety issues. The TV has regular ads from lawyers asking people "if you've ever taken X and had a bad result" to join a lawsuit. And simple things like Celebrex, which really really works when it is needed, are now on the outs for some reason. (I had a pinched nerve in my neck that made my arm immobile. An hour after a Celebrex I was fine. The second time this happened, I was told I couldn't get Celebrex, how about Ibuprofen? Yeah. OTC is great. Oh, these were twice the allowed OTC dose and something like $6 each -- which I apparently couldn't get by taking two of the OTC tablets.)
TANSTAAFL.
But, as Golin argues, YouTube violates COPPA because it doesn't differentiate between videos marketed to children and the rest of the site.
This says that it is ok (doesn't violate COPPA) if YouTube collects data about children who watch videos marketed towards "not children". "X violates Y because Z" implies that "not Z" mean X does not violate Y. Causal effect.
And that leaves the amazing question, how does YouTube know what age level a video submitter is targeting?
But do remember that even email suffers from that problem but we've seen email still stay strong.
Email is no longer the killer app that it once was. It is unreliable and requires massive resources just to stay that bad. "Best currently available method" doesn't mean "it's working great!"
I use email on a regular basis for status updates from various places around the world and various systems I manage. I use it for alerts to problems. I cannot know from day to day if the alerts will actually get through since what works today can be blocked tomorrow without any notice.
If I were Twitter I'd have zero API limits,
Welcome to USENET. Zero API limits. Then the "Green Card" folks dropped by for a visit. Then Eternal September.
"People" don't want zero API limits. They want a moderated place where they get what they want and don't get what they don't want.