Exactly. Any car is boring unless you take it near to its limits. (Except an MX-5, those are 100% unadulterated joy distilled into its purest form.) The thing with the GT-R is that its limits are so far beyond other cars' that it's hard to get there and harder to stay there. And the GT-R's limits are, in a not insignificant number of cases, actually beyond what the driver himself can handle. Recall, for example, Jermey Clarkson test-driving a GT-R and pulling so much lateral G-force that he threw his neck out of whack.
I suspect that holds mostly true for 911and Boxster drivers, and for older models like the 944 and 924 (Once they put in the turbocharger on the latter.). Hell, one could even almost forgive a 911 driver for getting an automatic these days so they can get the DSG & launch control (Almost). But what about the Cayenne, Macan, and Panamera? Those three sure do give the impression that they were designed by Porsche specifically for douchebags who want to be seen driving a Porsche, but can't, or don't want to, actually drive a Porsche.
But do you actually produce and ship a product? That's exactly what these east Texas clowns do NOT do. They just sit around spamming the USPTO with any random idea that they think of in the hopes that someone somewhere else has the same idea, but actually uses it, so that they can sue. It's one thing if you were actually using that patent, then $bigevilcorporation comes along, copies said product, and puts you out of business. But that's not what happens in east Texas. It's just a lawsuit factory.
If this legal climate had been around a couple generations ago, we wouldn't have put men on the moon until the late '80s. Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke would have owned so many patents that NASA wouldn't have been able to function.
This isn't some random appeal to "I'm right because *I* say so." au-thor-i-tah. This is a case of easily-verifiable facts. The error in question was about the organization and legal status of the various entities which comprise the United Kingdom. One can goto any number of sources to find the correct answer. One of the cited sources was the UK government itself.
To present a falsehood as a fact, and continue to hold said falsehood as true even when you are corrected and provided an authoritative source is either moronic or trolling.
The first person in the thread to get it wrong was immediately corrected by half a dozen people, some citing the UK governments own published material on the matter. So yes, I think it's perfectly fair to consider people who continue to get it wrong... while in many cases insisting on their own false correctness... to be morons.
That's something at least. The game's not in San Francisco. We don't even have a football team or stadium anymore, after all.
That doesn't stop us form absorbing more than out share of the BS and headaches. And even worse, those nitwits in City Hall let the city get fleeced by the NFL. Santa Clara, at least, got it written into their contract that the NFL has to pay for all of their expenses. Ed Lee didn't bother to insist on a similar clause for San Francisco, so we're on the hook for all of the costs. At this point, I really hope it does pour down rain on the day of the game and that the black lives matter crowd really does manage to follow through on their promise to shut down "Superbowl City".
I'm firmly in the Apple camp too. But Windows Phone was actually kind of nifty in a number of ways. And it was impressive to see Microsoft, of all companies, trying something new instead of slavishly copying Apple as per usual. And with Nokia actually making pretty decent hardware, I've actually considered buying one, as a secondary device, on a few occasions. That tiled UI would be ideal as a unified controller/hub for Hue lights, Nest, Netatmo, and other home automation kit.
Whenever the shuttle was scheduled to launch, most classes took a break and we filed out to the playground to watch. And that day was no exception.
I got in my first significant playground fight that day. While most of us were staring in horror at what had happened, the new kid was pumped, thought it was "totally wicked" and was cheering enthusiastically. This being Florida, where school kids practically worshipped astronauts and it was very obvious that seven of them had just died, I punched him right in gut. By the time the teachers got to us, a few others had joined in on my side. This being the '80s, when "boy will be boys" was still a thing, and the teachers were probably even more aghast in grief and horror at what happened than we were; we were separated for the day and nothing else was said.
There was kind of a half-hearted attempt on the part of the teachers at resuming the lessons for the day. But not much got accomplished, especially after the principal confirmed the destruction of the shuttle on the school's intercom. And no homework was assigned.
I don't think the xServe and xSan sold very well. After all, had they been runaway successes, I doubt Apple would have discontinued them. No public corporation is going to throw away easy money "just because". If the server products were really thriving, and Apple *really* wanted to just be all about consumer hardware; they'd have just spun the business off into a subsidiary, like they have in the past with FileMaker and Claris.
And really, Mac OS X doesn't make much sense as a server anyway, Unix underpinnings and their token OS X Server development notwithstanding. The big advantage OS X has over other Unix/Linux OSs is a GUI that doesn't suck and the availability of a good number of commercial consumer software products. Neither is relevant to a server. And a GUI and most of the other OS X features are a liability for a server. A server should have exactly and only the packages it needs to perform its specific job, and nothing more. That's not Mac OS X.
Perhaps Apple could publish some RPMs to be installed on RHEL, CentOS, or Amazon Linux with customized services targeted at the "classroom full of Macs" they used to cite as the use case for OS X Server... CalDav, CardDav, Wiki Server, Open Directory with non-sucky directory templates, and so on. Combine this with an easy-to-use client that'd run on a Mac to manage these services and you have a server offering that makes sense for Apple. But dedicated Mac server hardware always was a really odd duck out and never made a whole lot of sense. And I say that as someone who likes Apple, owns many of their products, and practically grew up with their computers. All the way back to that first Apple ][+ I can hardly recall a time when I did *not* have Apple kit. But for a server in any kind of production environment? As much as I like Apple and hate, for example, Dell; I'd choose CentOS on a pair os R220s (for redundancy) over Apple's offerings... even the xServe when it was available... every time.
Add to all that the fact that many businesses these days... especially the startups that are open to Apple products in general (It's not like you'll see many Macs in an SAP building or on a Lockheed Martin campus.)... don't even want to own their own rack mounts or datacenter space in the first place; but would prefer to to just spin up infrastructure in AWS and avoid the headaches of owning and maintaining hardware. Why would Apple... or anyone, really... want to jump into the 19" pizza box market now?
How big of a deal would it be to just make new dies? Or, perhaps, is there some alternate process they could use to make the panels?
I don't know enough about that sort of manufacturing to have a good idea. But it *was* the early '80s. And they didn't do much in the way of "curvy", "aerodynamic", or "low coefficient of drag" back then. The DMC-12, like most cars of that era, is predominantly a collection of nearly flat surfaces and straight lines, with some minor curves at the wheel wells and corners.
Your linked article cites a law in New Jersey. The incidents I'm referring to concern a gun shop in California, where New Jersey's laws obviously do not apply. So that's irrelevant.
As to your other point, a.22 LR pistol with a 10-round capacity is hardly the choice for someone buying a handgun for self-defense in the first place. And for other purposes, (Really, what's a.22 pistol good for anyway, besides casual target shooting at a range?), if it's really so true that no one wants an additional failure mode, why not just let the free market prove it a failure? The campaigns of harassment, intimidation, and threats were 100% un-called for, and belie the hypocrisy of the NRA crowd; with their very own declaration of: "We don't want one of these. Therefore no one should be able to have one." Pot, meet kettle.
Also, I don't buy the notion that consumers won't tolerate additional points of failure. Pretty much every technological product I can think of, from cars, to computers, to ovens, to TVs, to coffee makers, have accumulated additional points of failure as they've advanced. We tolerate additional points of failure all the time.
That probably has something to do with it..22 LR isn't exactly a law enforcement, hunting, or home defense round. It's more like a: "Goto the range occasionally to shot holes in paper targets. Don't want especially clever and explorative children to be able to fire it if they find the thing." round.
In any event, once again, the point is not the technical effectiveness of this, or any other, "childproof" safety system. It's not about the calibre of the gun or what use one would put it to. The question asked was: "Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?". And the answer is the hordes of anti-any-kind-of-safety-feature whack jobs who threatened the lives of the gun shop owners who dared to sell a product that deviated from their orthodoxy. Their reaction to the Armatix was ludicrously nutters. And, in said reaction... which amounted to: "I don't want this. Therefore no one should be allowed to own it"... they outed themselves as raging hypocrites.
You jest. But if I had my choice of facing an angry "gangsta" with a 9mm Glock or an angry US Marine with a KABAR; I'd go up against the gang-banger every time.
> Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?
Google for news articles about the Armatix IP1 smart gun. It's a "smart gun" that requires the user to wear a watch with an authorized RFID chip in order to fire. When a gun shop here in California put it on sale a couple years back, the NRA crowd completely flipped their shit. The store was subject to boycotts. And the owners received hate mail and death threats. And it wasn't just from Californians. Gun nutters nationwide came out of the woodwork to threaten the store and its owners. I believe there were a few other gun shops in other states that tried to sell it and fell victim to other, similar, campaigns as well. All of said stores, AFAIK, took it back off the market; not because of any known technical or safety deficiency, but because their livelihoods and lives were threatened.
So yeah... Not only does the gun nut crowd have no interest in a childproof gun for themselves; they don't want anyone *else* to be able to own one either. (Oh, the irony.)
Well, they may be a bunch of evil bastards. But the NSA and the NRO are the three-letter-agencies that are most likely to be technologically clueful. So, as much as I bet they wish that a mandated backdoor for the government were a feasible option; they are also the ones most equipped to know how profoundly stupid a suggestion that is.
I'm pretty sure Brave does not function by using a proxy operated by the comapny. It's a tool that users use once the data has, as you say, "gone through the pipes and made it to their machine", to choose how they wish to view it. It's basically a re-hashed browser with an AdBlock Plus clone built in, and less transparency on what will be considered "acceptable" ads.
AdBlock Plus has, by the way, already been attacked in the courts by the advertising industry, and been found to be 100% a-ok kosher.
Not really. A better "real-world" analogy is a person wearing augmented-reality goggles... MS hololens, some future evolution of Google Glass, or an Oculus + GoPro hack... as they walk around town. Said person then runs software on his own goggles that blocks out the billboard from his vision and overlays some other content. The original billboard is still intact and there to see for anyone who wants to do so.
I fail to see any problem. (Other than the involvement of Brendan Eich.) How I choose to see the world or internet, and what tools I use to do so, is my choice, no one else's.
1) Just because Eich hates gay people doesn't necessarily mean he hates women too. Just because both groups are traditionally crapped upon by the conservative mainstream doesn't mean every member of said mainstream thinks identically. No such thing as a collective hive mind yet, after all.
2) Some factions of feminism (Not all, mind you.) are fairly hostile towards gay people, especially gay men. To this faction, just having the Y-chromosome automatically makes you an evil oppressor and supporter of rape culture, despite the fact that gay men, by definition, sit entirely outside the feminism vs. misogyny conflict.
3) Some people are simply happy to compromise and throw out any principle if they think there's money to be made.
What's going on is probably some combination of all three.
If it is true that the request is expensive, then the NYPD *really* screwed up their media & document archive system, and red to be taken to task for it. It's not like body cams have been around for thirty years and there's legacy VHS tape to deal with. These cameras have been all-digital since day one. Fetching the requested video snippets should have been nothing more than feeding in a.csv file with camera numbers and timestamps into whatever query language the NYPD's media archive uses and writing out to a USB stick. Maybe also do a JOIN, so the.csv has officer names instead of camera IDs or whatever. Even if you pad it out, the search is trivial, and copying the video over takes far longer than any work the DB guy would put in.
What's going on here is nothing more than a deliberate and obvious overcharge, to discourage information requests. It's outrageous and the NYPD needs to be slapped down, hard.
The problem is the scale of the problem. Twitter has, in fact, disabled plenty of accounts. But it's a frikkin gigantic service. How many millions of Twitter accounts are there? How many millions of tweets go out per day? And you have so sort through all of that to find the ISIS accounts and tweets.
To do it algorithmically, you need to write software that can reliably identify... with a minimum of false positives, mind you... the genuine ISIS users from: people talking about ISIS, people reporting on ISIS, people mocking ISIS, trolls, and vi users calling for jiyhad against the emacs infidel. That is a non-trivial problem.
To do it manually, you'd need an enormous staff to go through the haystack looking for the needle. These would have to be bilingual in english and arabic and wouldn't come cheap; so you couldn't go to the usual outsourcing outfits in India or the Philippines.
Either way, it's a significant cost with no potential revenue. So Twitter is, no doubt, going the route of having users report accounts, reviewing (which like still takes bilingual staff), and terminating accounts. What else can they realistically do?
He said, "If cars have license plates and insurance, drones should have the equivalent, so they can be properly identified, and owners can be held financially responsible, whenever injuries, interference, or property damage occurs." Another bill, put forth by Assemblyman Ed Chau, wants to require drone owners to leave contact information in the event of a crash.
This is a good example of why I hate our 24/7, 90-second segment, pandering for ratings, news cycle. RC aircraft have been around of a long time... literally decades before the media took notice of them. And the FAA and the AMA have a long history of mutual respect, self-regulation, and generally not being asses. There were always the occasional morons, but no amount of regulation will prevent that. But now CNN is calling remote controlled aircraft "Drones". It does nothing but drive up artificial hysteria. Combine the scary word that invokes images of Predators dropping Hellfires into wedding parties full of civilians with the small minority of operators that are morons, and you get a sensational news story that riles people up into a "we gotta regulate it" frenzy.
Even dumber are the comparisons to cars. If you're going to use automobiles as your yardstick, how about licensing and requiring liability insurance for bicycles instead? The comparison is far more apt. They are both passenger vehicles. They share the same roads. And there's a whole lot more potential for injury with bicycle mishaps than there is with drones. And the bicycle community in California is filled with far more arrogant, reckless, law-flouting, "screw everybody but us" types than the RC aircraft community. (Just google for "critical mass" for a fine example of what I mean.)
It could also just be an attempt at tit-for-tat payback for the removal of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC at the behest of the (at the time) RNC Chairman, Michael Steele. It's not like the left is inherently above such pettiness. I thought Glenn Beck left Fox news on his own accord though, to start that "internet media network" project of his. I take it that endeavor failed and he's back on Fox?
Uber has had an API other app developers could use to integrate with them for years now. I use a couple regularly. One is a public transit trip planner and has had Uber integration for at least a year, and the other to avoid surge pricing and has been available for about three.
In my case, it really was the ads just getting too annoying. I never used to block ads when they were just a.gif banner at the top of the site, or a static image in the sidebar. Popups began the annoyance, and I blocked them but not ads in general for a while. I think it was X10 and their pop-under ads that provoked me into using a general ad blocker.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Any car is boring unless you take it near to its limits. (Except an MX-5, those are 100% unadulterated joy distilled into its purest form.) The thing with the GT-R is that its limits are so far beyond other cars' that it's hard to get there and harder to stay there. And the GT-R's limits are, in a not insignificant number of cases, actually beyond what the driver himself can handle. Recall, for example, Jermey Clarkson test-driving a GT-R and pulling so much lateral G-force that he threw his neck out of whack.
I suspect that holds mostly true for 911and Boxster drivers, and for older models like the 944 and 924 (Once they put in the turbocharger on the latter.). Hell, one could even almost forgive a 911 driver for getting an automatic these days so they can get the DSG & launch control (Almost). But what about the Cayenne, Macan, and Panamera? Those three sure do give the impression that they were designed by Porsche specifically for douchebags who want to be seen driving a Porsche, but can't, or don't want to, actually drive a Porsche.
But do you actually produce and ship a product? That's exactly what these east Texas clowns do NOT do. They just sit around spamming the USPTO with any random idea that they think of in the hopes that someone somewhere else has the same idea, but actually uses it, so that they can sue. It's one thing if you were actually using that patent, then $bigevilcorporation comes along, copies said product, and puts you out of business. But that's not what happens in east Texas. It's just a lawsuit factory.
If this legal climate had been around a couple generations ago, we wouldn't have put men on the moon until the late '80s. Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke would have owned so many patents that NASA wouldn't have been able to function.
Or, to put it succinctly: "Real artists ship."
This isn't some random appeal to "I'm right because *I* say so." au-thor-i-tah. This is a case of easily-verifiable facts. The error in question was about the organization and legal status of the various entities which comprise the United Kingdom. One can goto any number of sources to find the correct answer. One of the cited sources was the UK government itself.
To present a falsehood as a fact, and continue to hold said falsehood as true even when you are corrected and provided an authoritative source is either moronic or trolling.
The first person in the thread to get it wrong was immediately corrected by half a dozen people, some citing the UK governments own published material on the matter. So yes, I think it's perfectly fair to consider people who continue to get it wrong... while in many cases insisting on their own false correctness... to be morons.
That's something at least. The game's not in San Francisco. We don't even have a football team or stadium anymore, after all.
That doesn't stop us form absorbing more than out share of the BS and headaches. And even worse, those nitwits in City Hall let the city get fleeced by the NFL. Santa Clara, at least, got it written into their contract that the NFL has to pay for all of their expenses. Ed Lee didn't bother to insist on a similar clause for San Francisco, so we're on the hook for all of the costs. At this point, I really hope it does pour down rain on the day of the game and that the black lives matter crowd really does manage to follow through on their promise to shut down "Superbowl City".
Likewise.
I'm firmly in the Apple camp too. But Windows Phone was actually kind of nifty in a number of ways. And it was impressive to see Microsoft, of all companies, trying something new instead of slavishly copying Apple as per usual. And with Nokia actually making pretty decent hardware, I've actually considered buying one, as a secondary device, on a few occasions. That tiled UI would be ideal as a unified controller/hub for Hue lights, Nest, Netatmo, and other home automation kit.
Whenever the shuttle was scheduled to launch, most classes took a break and we filed out to the playground to watch. And that day was no exception.
I got in my first significant playground fight that day. While most of us were staring in horror at what had happened, the new kid was pumped, thought it was "totally wicked" and was cheering enthusiastically. This being Florida, where school kids practically worshipped astronauts and it was very obvious that seven of them had just died, I punched him right in gut. By the time the teachers got to us, a few others had joined in on my side. This being the '80s, when "boy will be boys" was still a thing, and the teachers were probably even more aghast in grief and horror at what happened than we were; we were separated for the day and nothing else was said.
There was kind of a half-hearted attempt on the part of the teachers at resuming the lessons for the day. But not much got accomplished, especially after the principal confirmed the destruction of the shuttle on the school's intercom. And no homework was assigned.
In all fairness, even the Japanese and German cars of the era were pretty damn fugly. They were just significantly more likely to... well... work.
I don't think the xServe and xSan sold very well. After all, had they been runaway successes, I doubt Apple would have discontinued them. No public corporation is going to throw away easy money "just because". If the server products were really thriving, and Apple *really* wanted to just be all about consumer hardware; they'd have just spun the business off into a subsidiary, like they have in the past with FileMaker and Claris.
And really, Mac OS X doesn't make much sense as a server anyway, Unix underpinnings and their token OS X Server development notwithstanding. The big advantage OS X has over other Unix/Linux OSs is a GUI that doesn't suck and the availability of a good number of commercial consumer software products. Neither is relevant to a server. And a GUI and most of the other OS X features are a liability for a server. A server should have exactly and only the packages it needs to perform its specific job, and nothing more. That's not Mac OS X.
Perhaps Apple could publish some RPMs to be installed on RHEL, CentOS, or Amazon Linux with customized services targeted at the "classroom full of Macs" they used to cite as the use case for OS X Server... CalDav, CardDav, Wiki Server, Open Directory with non-sucky directory templates, and so on. Combine this with an easy-to-use client that'd run on a Mac to manage these services and you have a server offering that makes sense for Apple. But dedicated Mac server hardware always was a really odd duck out and never made a whole lot of sense. And I say that as someone who likes Apple, owns many of their products, and practically grew up with their computers. All the way back to that first Apple ][+ I can hardly recall a time when I did *not* have Apple kit. But for a server in any kind of production environment? As much as I like Apple and hate, for example, Dell; I'd choose CentOS on a pair os R220s (for redundancy) over Apple's offerings... even the xServe when it was available... every time.
Add to all that the fact that many businesses these days... especially the startups that are open to Apple products in general (It's not like you'll see many Macs in an SAP building or on a Lockheed Martin campus.)... don't even want to own their own rack mounts or datacenter space in the first place; but would prefer to to just spin up infrastructure in AWS and avoid the headaches of owning and maintaining hardware. Why would Apple... or anyone, really... want to jump into the 19" pizza box market now?
How big of a deal would it be to just make new dies? Or, perhaps, is there some alternate process they could use to make the panels?
I don't know enough about that sort of manufacturing to have a good idea. But it *was* the early '80s. And they didn't do much in the way of "curvy", "aerodynamic", or "low coefficient of drag" back then. The DMC-12, like most cars of that era, is predominantly a collection of nearly flat surfaces and straight lines, with some minor curves at the wheel wells and corners.
Your linked article cites a law in New Jersey. The incidents I'm referring to concern a gun shop in California, where New Jersey's laws obviously do not apply. So that's irrelevant.
As to your other point, a .22 LR pistol with a 10-round capacity is hardly the choice for someone buying a handgun for self-defense in the first place. And for other purposes, (Really, what's a .22 pistol good for anyway, besides casual target shooting at a range?), if it's really so true that no one wants an additional failure mode, why not just let the free market prove it a failure? The campaigns of harassment, intimidation, and threats were 100% un-called for, and belie the hypocrisy of the NRA crowd; with their very own declaration of: "We don't want one of these. Therefore no one should be able to have one." Pot, meet kettle.
Also, I don't buy the notion that consumers won't tolerate additional points of failure. Pretty much every technological product I can think of, from cars, to computers, to ovens, to TVs, to coffee makers, have accumulated additional points of failure as they've advanced. We tolerate additional points of failure all the time.
http://www.armatix.de/iP1-Pistol.779.0.html?&L=1
That probably has something to do with it. .22 LR isn't exactly a law enforcement, hunting, or home defense round. It's more like a: "Goto the range occasionally to shot holes in paper targets. Don't want especially clever and explorative children to be able to fire it if they find the thing." round.
In any event, once again, the point is not the technical effectiveness of this, or any other, "childproof" safety system. It's not about the calibre of the gun or what use one would put it to. The question asked was: "Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?". And the answer is the hordes of anti-any-kind-of-safety-feature whack jobs who threatened the lives of the gun shop owners who dared to sell a product that deviated from their orthodoxy. Their reaction to the Armatix was ludicrously nutters. And, in said reaction... which amounted to: "I don't want this. Therefore no one should be allowed to own it"... they outed themselves as raging hypocrites.
You jest. But if I had my choice of facing an angry "gangsta" with a 9mm Glock or an angry US Marine with a KABAR; I'd go up against the gang-banger every time.
> Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?
Google for news articles about the Armatix IP1 smart gun. It's a "smart gun" that requires the user to wear a watch with an authorized RFID chip in order to fire. When a gun shop here in California put it on sale a couple years back, the NRA crowd completely flipped their shit. The store was subject to boycotts. And the owners received hate mail and death threats. And it wasn't just from Californians. Gun nutters nationwide came out of the woodwork to threaten the store and its owners. I believe there were a few other gun shops in other states that tried to sell it and fell victim to other, similar, campaigns as well. All of said stores, AFAIK, took it back off the market; not because of any known technical or safety deficiency, but because their livelihoods and lives were threatened.
So yeah... Not only does the gun nut crowd have no interest in a childproof gun for themselves; they don't want anyone *else* to be able to own one either. (Oh, the irony.)
Well, they may be a bunch of evil bastards. But the NSA and the NRO are the three-letter-agencies that are most likely to be technologically clueful. So, as much as I bet they wish that a mandated backdoor for the government were a feasible option; they are also the ones most equipped to know how profoundly stupid a suggestion that is.
I'm pretty sure Brave does not function by using a proxy operated by the comapny. It's a tool that users use once the data has, as you say, "gone through the pipes and made it to their machine", to choose how they wish to view it. It's basically a re-hashed browser with an AdBlock Plus clone built in, and less transparency on what will be considered "acceptable" ads.
AdBlock Plus has, by the way, already been attacked in the courts by the advertising industry, and been found to be 100% a-ok kosher.
Not really. A better "real-world" analogy is a person wearing augmented-reality goggles... MS hololens, some future evolution of Google Glass, or an Oculus + GoPro hack... as they walk around town. Said person then runs software on his own goggles that blocks out the billboard from his vision and overlays some other content. The original billboard is still intact and there to see for anyone who wants to do so.
I fail to see any problem. (Other than the involvement of Brendan Eich.) How I choose to see the world or internet, and what tools I use to do so, is my choice, no one else's.
There are any number of simple explanations.
1) Just because Eich hates gay people doesn't necessarily mean he hates women too. Just because both groups are traditionally crapped upon by the conservative mainstream doesn't mean every member of said mainstream thinks identically. No such thing as a collective hive mind yet, after all.
2) Some factions of feminism (Not all, mind you.) are fairly hostile towards gay people, especially gay men. To this faction, just having the Y-chromosome automatically makes you an evil oppressor and supporter of rape culture, despite the fact that gay men, by definition, sit entirely outside the feminism vs. misogyny conflict.
3) Some people are simply happy to compromise and throw out any principle if they think there's money to be made.
What's going on is probably some combination of all three.
If it is true that the request is expensive, then the NYPD *really* screwed up their media & document archive system, and red to be taken to task for it. It's not like body cams have been around for thirty years and there's legacy VHS tape to deal with. These cameras have been all-digital since day one. Fetching the requested video snippets should have been nothing more than feeding in a .csv file with camera numbers and timestamps into whatever query language the NYPD's media archive uses and writing out to a USB stick. Maybe also do a JOIN, so the .csv has officer names instead of camera IDs or whatever. Even if you pad it out, the search is trivial, and copying the video over takes far longer than any work the DB guy would put in.
What's going on here is nothing more than a deliberate and obvious overcharge, to discourage information requests. It's outrageous and the NYPD needs to be slapped down, hard.
The problem is the scale of the problem. Twitter has, in fact, disabled plenty of accounts. But it's a frikkin gigantic service. How many millions of Twitter accounts are there? How many millions of tweets go out per day? And you have so sort through all of that to find the ISIS accounts and tweets.
To do it algorithmically, you need to write software that can reliably identify... with a minimum of false positives, mind you... the genuine ISIS users from: people talking about ISIS, people reporting on ISIS, people mocking ISIS, trolls, and vi users calling for jiyhad against the emacs infidel. That is a non-trivial problem.
To do it manually, you'd need an enormous staff to go through the haystack looking for the needle. These would have to be bilingual in english and arabic and wouldn't come cheap; so you couldn't go to the usual outsourcing outfits in India or the Philippines.
Either way, it's a significant cost with no potential revenue. So Twitter is, no doubt, going the route of having users report accounts, reviewing (which like still takes bilingual staff), and terminating accounts. What else can they realistically do?
This is a good example of why I hate our 24/7, 90-second segment, pandering for ratings, news cycle. RC aircraft have been around of a long time... literally decades before the media took notice of them. And the FAA and the AMA have a long history of mutual respect, self-regulation, and generally not being asses. There were always the occasional morons, but no amount of regulation will prevent that. But now CNN is calling remote controlled aircraft "Drones". It does nothing but drive up artificial hysteria. Combine the scary word that invokes images of Predators dropping Hellfires into wedding parties full of civilians with the small minority of operators that are morons, and you get a sensational news story that riles people up into a "we gotta regulate it" frenzy.
Even dumber are the comparisons to cars. If you're going to use automobiles as your yardstick, how about licensing and requiring liability insurance for bicycles instead? The comparison is far more apt. They are both passenger vehicles. They share the same roads. And there's a whole lot more potential for injury with bicycle mishaps than there is with drones. And the bicycle community in California is filled with far more arrogant, reckless, law-flouting, "screw everybody but us" types than the RC aircraft community. (Just google for "critical mass" for a fine example of what I mean.)
It could also just be an attempt at tit-for-tat payback for the removal of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC at the behest of the (at the time) RNC Chairman, Michael Steele. It's not like the left is inherently above such pettiness. I thought Glenn Beck left Fox news on his own accord though, to start that "internet media network" project of his. I take it that endeavor failed and he's back on Fox?
Uber has had an API other app developers could use to integrate with them for years now. I use a couple regularly. One is a public transit trip planner and has had Uber integration for at least a year, and the other to avoid surge pricing and has been available for about three.
In my case, it really was the ads just getting too annoying. I never used to block ads when they were just a .gif banner at the top of the site, or a static image in the sidebar. Popups began the annoyance, and I blocked them but not ads in general for a while. I think it was X10 and their pop-under ads that provoked me into using a general ad blocker.