Yes the little people version of interpreting the Commerce Clause. Entirely reasonable. But you know if a law enforcement or political interest desired, their interpretation would apply and it would go "cash crosses state lines, that's money you did or could have spent at a store that buys products from out of state, and you effect the overall market" and it's now subject to federal regulation as "interstate commerce." There's nothing that isn't subject to federal regulation under interstate commerce if the right people ask the court for it to be.
Oh bullshit. Those caps are to enhance profitability only. If it was a congestion issue, *current bandwidth* would be throttled *when congested*. Total bytes per month is unrelated to their cost structure; it's not how bandwidth is priced. They're incurring no extra cost from someone saturating their connection from 2-6AM every night when they're at a tiny fraction of peak capacity.
"Being a dick" should mean things like storing others peoples files, giving out the password so others can download/upload to the account, etc. Or using it as your file server to store data you don't retain a local copy of. If it's really your files, you should be able to use it in a manner that backs up all your files, without limit if offered as such. It's like an all-you-can-eat buffet. It's a dick move to get food for someone else, or take a bunch of food home... but you have to reasonably expect a fat guy or competitive eater is going to come through the door and use more than the average person by quite a margin. That's the benefit of the bargain. You wanted to gain the marketing benefits of calling it unlimited, you need to honor that as long as nobody is using the service in a way that's actually abusive (and merely having a larger collection of files than someone else is not).
They're trying to make the case it's not. They *can* open peoples mail. All they have to do is say the package looked suspicious or their dog gave them permission. Nobody's mail is private from the government; they want to open every other communication with even less effort.
Why? It amazes me that so many people here still don't get it. Once you're not talking about default or super-easy encryption built into mass market products, two giant classes are no longer using crypto: almost all non-criminals besides a few privacy nuts, and 99% of criminals themselves; if they could set up their own 3rd party crypto, they wouldn't need to be criminals. I'm sure the FBI is well aware a tiny class of privacy nuts and criminals that are bad enough to justify electronic intercept but also technologically savvy will evade the junk crypto on cell phones and PCs and run secure 3rd party stuff, but so what? Being able to run mass surveillance and access any device at will on the other 99.99% of the population is a big win.
Indeed it doesn't mentioned felons. That's flat unconstitutional, and our courts engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty to claim those laws are. There should have been an amendment to do that (and IMO, for violent offenders only. Not for tax evaders and every other non-violent minor felony); and there's no support for "shall not be infringed" period meaning "but shall be for a shit load of malum prohibitum bullshit and white collar crimes". But airlines are private companies, and are well within their rights to ban taking guns onto their property; and I'm certain they all would, even absent a government mandate. Not that that's a good thing either, as it's always meant when a plane is hijacked the only people with weapons are the hijackers.
The argument for scaling $20 is better; so I'd be fine with the "intent" of that being $300 today, as the historical inflation calculator told me should be close to accurate; but that it's still $20 because well that's what the constitution says, you've undermined your initial point that stripping the 2nd Amendment from millions of nonviolent people, sometimes without even a criminal conviction, was the "intent" (not that it was).
At least Google or be slightly familiar with the subject before running your mouth and winding up looking foolish. The CDC guidelines are mentioned in damn near every article on prescribing. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribing/guideline.html
Well the problem is that a woman like her is convinced that the vaccine is *more* dangerous and of dubious efficacy, not that the disease it prevents is harmless. And if that belief was in fact correct, a tragedy from the lesser statistical likelihood is awful, but doesn't mean they made the incorrect decision. Some people die because they or a rescuer can't get a seatbelt off in time after a car accident, from fire, drowning, etc. An exceptionally rare but non-zero event. Should a parent who lost a child that way believe they made the wrong decision by requiring that their child wear their seatbelt? Obviously not, since it's a few orders of magnitude more likely the decision would have saved instead of killed in a wreck.
Not that I think these morons are capable of that level of logic... just sayin
Police were using electricity consumption to look for grow houses long before smart meters were invented. The electric company always had the information so they could bill you, and thus it's a "business record" over which you have no privacy interest and the police could freely access thanks to our courts penchant for shitting all over whatever "right" gets in the way of police.
Well the CDC should know, after all it's about half their fault. As synthetic opioids were starting to become common, they pushed guidelines, written by drug agents and falsely promoted as best medical practices (not to mention "voluntary guidance" was with the clear threat of arrest and prosecution whenever a drug cop felt a doctor prescribed what the agent thought was 'too much', a threat they had already been making good on with both actual criminal prescribing and legitimate pain medicine practice), to severe restrict access to known-dose pharmaceuticals, and lots of people in every category, from abusers, to pain patients prescribed appropriate doses, to people prescribed them for inappropriate reasons, suddenly found themselves without access or without access to enough. It was known in advance this would turn them to the black market and suicide, spiking death rates especially in light of fentanyl; but that's how US drug policy rolls: take a dangerous deadly drug, and see how many people we can get to die from it and how much collateral damage we can get inflicted, while pretending our policies are actually aimed at reducing those numbers.
The thing is, if the service retains the information that allows the 'drug/human trafficking' people to get busted, you effectively have as little privacy as them. That is the modus operandi of government, they develop the tools and access under the guise of busting serious, horrible crimes, then immediately start using that to go after less and less serious stuff, and monitoring everyone 'just in case' or 'to detect hidden criminals'.
There is absolutely no way to trust any service that allows killing privacy "but only when the government tells us they're looking for someone doing something really really bad." Either everyone's activity is safe or no ones is.
It's really bullshit to call it time theft when an employee takes the same break another can use to go use drugs on the job. (Yes it's legal but it is a drug, and more harmful than most illegal ones. Plus employers are still firing for pot where legal.)
Because clearly bias is binary and not a spectrum. The reality of situation is, yes absolutely the outlets like CNN and MSNBC etc have a liberal bias, but the degree of their bias, their intention to mislead, isn't in the same universe as Breitbart and Fox News (yes, some are, but the cable networks and giant print papers, no). E.g., improperly verifying source info or nitpicking details to call something a lie just isn't equivalent to being deliberately misleading and showing overt, maliciously unbalanced bias.
It's like, CNN gets some specific detail of the 2567614th awful thing Trump said/did wrong and issues a correction a day or two later, meanwhile Fox News is spouting 'Look at how the fake news media smeared the honest, upstanding, genius Donald Trump! Now here's our 10-part series on how the caravan of MS-13 and ISIS is a full-scale invasion and will destroy America!'
CNN: Trump told 18 lies today. Fox News: The Fake News CNN called one of those 18 "lies" a lie because the number was 14,000 and not 15,000! Now here's our piece about how Trump and Huckabee-Sanders were truthful and sending the right message when he said thousands of terrorists were caught trying to cross the Mexico-US border even though the "actual" number was just 6, who were on a watchlist and not confirmed terrorists.'
Yes, it was bad fact-checking bias to call 15k instead of 14k a lie, but then Fox News/Breitbart immediately followup their 'caught the liberal media being biased again!' with overt hostility towards the truth, blind worship of Trump, and bias so severe it makes whatever they were calling out seem like a paragon of neutrality.
Fox News: "MSNBC lied when said the middle class didn't benefit from Trump's tax cuts!" (Because they got a few hundred in pay or tax benefits) "This proves Trump was truthful and correct in saying that the tax cuts hurt the rich and him and his friends personally and was a massive giveaway to the working man!" (Even though 90% of benefits went to the top 1% and Trump&friends substantially benefited.) Then they'll proceed to repeat Trump's lies about how megacorps using all their tax savings on stock buybacks and virtually nothing on wages actually benefits the middle class and not the wealthy too. But those liberal liars can't be trusted because we caught them lying about the middle class actually receiving a pittance instead of nothing! So them lying proves we're not!
That they've convinced 80% of everyone that the false info, deliberate misleading, and overt bias is so pervasive even outside of Fox News/Breitbart that mainstream news in general can't be trusted is the ultimate 'fake news'.
PS: I went on a tear about SJWs and their 'white men are all racist/sexist!' schtick earlier today, so when you conservatives give me a '-1 The Truth Makes Me Angry!' mod on this post, how's about balancing out the '-1 The Truth Makes Me Angry!' mod the liberals will be giving me for that one;)
Now I'm off to look for a thread talking about "centrists" to see if I can hit the trifecta of pissing off the entire political spectrum in one day.
An amazing admission that you don't know what causes grain or how it relates to the medium.
How does knowing what causes grain change how it appears? You could write up a 500-page single-spaced report to teach me all the technical details of film grain and 'how it relates to the medium', but unless you go in and rewire my visual system too my newfound knowledge won't change how it looks.
And the better the transfer is reviewed as by pros, e.g. the stuff made with a true 4k intermediate instead of upscaled 2k and/or with artificial grain, the more my comment applies. I'm just not seeing any additional detail from a 1080p untouched BD to 4k (lower than 1080p or very low bitrate 1080p, yeah) besides grain grain grain; and I'm not one of those '4k is waste can't see difference' guys... I sit close enough to a big enough screen that with newer all-digital+actually shot in 4k+ with a 4k intermediate, I absolutely notice the improvement in picture quality/detail.
The idea that the computer/sci-fi nerd type guys had or have any issue with strong female leads in principle is just SJW hysteria. The film and/or marketing having a very specific agenda, and/or the film being legitimately terrible, is what causes the backlash against some films. There's a long list of other movies besides the ones you mentioned that have strong female leads and lack the "omg all these sexist fragile men with their toxic masculinity just hate these strong womyn taking their place!!!" bullshit. Even recently: the reaction to Rogue One and its female lead, and Last Jedi and its female lead, were absolutely nothing alike. Because there was one fairly decent Star Wars movie without a ton of 'this is a social justice achievement!' talk, and one pretty poor excuse for one, which also involved people making it clear that if that's how you felt, it was because you were a sexist and racist white man, and white men are terrible; from the Twitter mob up through Kathleen Kennedy.
The permanently-offended social justice mobs can't tell the difference between when the criticism is 90% 'this movie is bad and promoting your obnoxious ultra-PC agenda made it worse' for some movies, but actually just limited to a few alt-right trolls who really are misogynists writing sexist screeds with other movies, and 90% really enjoyed it. All the same to them. Oh you don't like Last Jedi? Sexist! You only think Black Panther is 'good' instead of 'the biggest cultural moment evar!!!eleventy!'? Racist! Actual reasons for the opinion are irrelevant, something made abundantly clear.
It would actually be really nice to have a large display with a picture quality so high you couldn't tell the difference between it and an actual window looking out somewhere, even better if it's the whole wall-- like sitting on your porch. Of course pixel count isn't the biggest issue holding us back from realizing that, but really who wouldn't want a wall in their house like that?
Just a big screen like screen tech today, sure it wouldn't be worth it, but when picture and real life are indistinguishable? Bring it on!
In my experience, the difference between 1080p and 4K for scanned 35mm is like this: Imagine if you took a 1920x1080 image, printed it on a piece of paper, then scanned it at 2400dpi. I'm still only seeing a 1920x1080 picture, but now I'll also get to see every last little detail of the paper fibers.
Getting to see the film grain in a whole lot of extra detail is of limited value.
Ignorance is in fact a defense, if you're a cop. Unlike normal people, courts have found they can't be expected to actually know the law, so can't be held responsible if they thought something was illegal. I'm sure similar arrangements can be made for the very rich where their crime involves financial harm to the nonrich, assuming we ever get over the hurdle that that's a crime to begin with.
The rent situation isn't that bad outside of Manhattan and highly gentrified areas. There's a whole range of places between Williamsburg and South Bronx. People do it by having roommates. Outside Manhattan, there's a lot of very nice areas where a 2br is under 2k in rent, so two or more people split it and pay less than 1k each in rent. If you don't live in a fancy building the situation is even better. I'm a 10min walk + 10min subway ride from lower Manhattan, in a highly gentrified, very nice area, and in a market rate apartment that's 2br for under 1700/mo, so my share is around 850. The building and apartment are perfectly fine themselves its just there's no amenities in-building; if I wanted that there's plenty of 4k+ 1 bedrooms here.
But....but... did you hear that awesome joke she made to prove how real her tech skillz were??
"If you don't know the difference between a hack and Slack, it's time to get off the digital highway,"
SLACK!
Anyway, why does every women entering the race have such an atrocious civil rights record (for a Democrat). She's almost as bad as Harris. I don't care so much about phony tech cred, but claiming you're some kind of civil rights hero because apparently racism and sexism are the beginning and end of all civil rights issues, so it's ok if you shit on every other part of it for your entire career up until 2016.
I think you overestminate America's resiliency against government action. All the wireless networks already have actual kill switches they can be ordered to use without any oversight (it's only been done locally against protesters so far, but that demonstrated to everyone the capability was there and the government could shut off service whenever they felt like it). As far as wired internet, what are the ISPs going to do when armed agents show up with a NSL? Oh yeah, argue it in the secret court subject to full gag orders. And our Supreme Court itself favors that kind of expansive executive power anyway (and that's not a strictly partly line issue, so let's not go there, especially since one of Trump's appointees is a lot more inclined to restrain executive power than the judge the seat was stolen from). Our government may (currently) be treating (most) people nicer than Russia, but they have as much if not more power to enforce their will against all people and companies the minute they decide to stop being (kind of sort of) not so evil (to the general population).
If we jail the Sacklers, can we please also jail the evil sadomoralists who were told "if you address excess prescribing by forcing all people (even those who need their dose) down or off their meds with these drug cop written medical guidelines and disgraceful doctor prosecutions, you're going to create a massive wave of overdose deaths as people get street drugs instead, and cause countless more to kill themselves outright when they can't get relief from chronic pain", then proceeded to do it anyway?
Or is that ok because their motive was punishing instead of helping users and maximizing death, the standard US drug policy, and not making money? The spike in OD deaths and pain patient suicides was not something that came out of nowhere, they were a well predicted and inevitable consequence of cracking down on all opiate prescribing instead of inappropriate prescribing, right as fentanyl was appearing on the street. The DEA, CDC, and various politicians, and have more blood on their hands than the Sacklers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes the little people version of interpreting the Commerce Clause. Entirely reasonable. But you know if a law enforcement or political interest desired, their interpretation would apply and it would go "cash crosses state lines, that's money you did or could have spent at a store that buys products from out of state, and you effect the overall market" and it's now subject to federal regulation as "interstate commerce." There's nothing that isn't subject to federal regulation under interstate commerce if the right people ask the court for it to be.
If you said 15 years ago that millions of people would be paying $1000+ for a cell phone, everyone would have thought it was crazy.
Oh bullshit. Those caps are to enhance profitability only. If it was a congestion issue, *current bandwidth* would be throttled *when congested*. Total bytes per month is unrelated to their cost structure; it's not how bandwidth is priced. They're incurring no extra cost from someone saturating their connection from 2-6AM every night when they're at a tiny fraction of peak capacity.
"Being a dick" should mean things like storing others peoples files, giving out the password so others can download/upload to the account, etc. Or using it as your file server to store data you don't retain a local copy of. If it's really your files, you should be able to use it in a manner that backs up all your files, without limit if offered as such. It's like an all-you-can-eat buffet. It's a dick move to get food for someone else, or take a bunch of food home... but you have to reasonably expect a fat guy or competitive eater is going to come through the door and use more than the average person by quite a margin. That's the benefit of the bargain. You wanted to gain the marketing benefits of calling it unlimited, you need to honor that as long as nobody is using the service in a way that's actually abusive (and merely having a larger collection of files than someone else is not).
They're trying to make the case it's not. They *can* open peoples mail. All they have to do is say the package looked suspicious or their dog gave them permission. Nobody's mail is private from the government; they want to open every other communication with even less effort.
Why? It amazes me that so many people here still don't get it. Once you're not talking about default or super-easy encryption built into mass market products, two giant classes are no longer using crypto: almost all non-criminals besides a few privacy nuts, and 99% of criminals themselves; if they could set up their own 3rd party crypto, they wouldn't need to be criminals. I'm sure the FBI is well aware a tiny class of privacy nuts and criminals that are bad enough to justify electronic intercept but also technologically savvy will evade the junk crypto on cell phones and PCs and run secure 3rd party stuff, but so what? Being able to run mass surveillance and access any device at will on the other 99.99% of the population is a big win.
Indeed it doesn't mentioned felons. That's flat unconstitutional, and our courts engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty to claim those laws are. There should have been an amendment to do that (and IMO, for violent offenders only. Not for tax evaders and every other non-violent minor felony); and there's no support for "shall not be infringed" period meaning "but shall be for a shit load of malum prohibitum bullshit and white collar crimes". But airlines are private companies, and are well within their rights to ban taking guns onto their property; and I'm certain they all would, even absent a government mandate. Not that that's a good thing either, as it's always meant when a plane is hijacked the only people with weapons are the hijackers.
The argument for scaling $20 is better; so I'd be fine with the "intent" of that being $300 today, as the historical inflation calculator told me should be close to accurate; but that it's still $20 because well that's what the constitution says, you've undermined your initial point that stripping the 2nd Amendment from millions of nonviolent people, sometimes without even a criminal conviction, was the "intent" (not that it was).
At least Google or be slightly familiar with the subject before running your mouth and winding up looking foolish. The CDC guidelines are mentioned in damn near every article on prescribing.
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribing/guideline.html
Well the problem is that a woman like her is convinced that the vaccine is *more* dangerous and of dubious efficacy, not that the disease it prevents is harmless. And if that belief was in fact correct, a tragedy from the lesser statistical likelihood is awful, but doesn't mean they made the incorrect decision. Some people die because they or a rescuer can't get a seatbelt off in time after a car accident, from fire, drowning, etc. An exceptionally rare but non-zero event. Should a parent who lost a child that way believe they made the wrong decision by requiring that their child wear their seatbelt? Obviously not, since it's a few orders of magnitude more likely the decision would have saved instead of killed in a wreck.
Not that I think these morons are capable of that level of logic... just sayin
Police were using electricity consumption to look for grow houses long before smart meters were invented. The electric company always had the information so they could bill you, and thus it's a "business record" over which you have no privacy interest and the police could freely access thanks to our courts penchant for shitting all over whatever "right" gets in the way of police.
Well the CDC should know, after all it's about half their fault. As synthetic opioids were starting to become common, they pushed guidelines, written by drug agents and falsely promoted as best medical practices (not to mention "voluntary guidance" was with the clear threat of arrest and prosecution whenever a drug cop felt a doctor prescribed what the agent thought was 'too much', a threat they had already been making good on with both actual criminal prescribing and legitimate pain medicine practice), to severe restrict access to known-dose pharmaceuticals, and lots of people in every category, from abusers, to pain patients prescribed appropriate doses, to people prescribed them for inappropriate reasons, suddenly found themselves without access or without access to enough. It was known in advance this would turn them to the black market and suicide, spiking death rates especially in light of fentanyl; but that's how US drug policy rolls: take a dangerous deadly drug, and see how many people we can get to die from it and how much collateral damage we can get inflicted, while pretending our policies are actually aimed at reducing those numbers.
The thing is, if the service retains the information that allows the 'drug/human trafficking' people to get busted, you effectively have as little privacy as them. That is the modus operandi of government, they develop the tools and access under the guise of busting serious, horrible crimes, then immediately start using that to go after less and less serious stuff, and monitoring everyone 'just in case' or 'to detect hidden criminals'.
There is absolutely no way to trust any service that allows killing privacy "but only when the government tells us they're looking for someone doing something really really bad." Either everyone's activity is safe or no ones is.
It's really bullshit to call it time theft when an employee takes the same break another can use to go use drugs on the job. (Yes it's legal but it is a drug, and more harmful than most illegal ones. Plus employers are still firing for pot where legal.)
Because clearly bias is binary and not a spectrum. The reality of situation is, yes absolutely the outlets like CNN and MSNBC etc have a liberal bias, but the degree of their bias, their intention to mislead, isn't in the same universe as Breitbart and Fox News (yes, some are, but the cable networks and giant print papers, no). E.g., improperly verifying source info or nitpicking details to call something a lie just isn't equivalent to being deliberately misleading and showing overt, maliciously unbalanced bias.
;)
It's like, CNN gets some specific detail of the 2567614th awful thing Trump said/did wrong and issues a correction a day or two later, meanwhile Fox News is spouting 'Look at how the fake news media smeared the honest, upstanding, genius Donald Trump! Now here's our 10-part series on how the caravan of MS-13 and ISIS is a full-scale invasion and will destroy America!'
CNN: Trump told 18 lies today. Fox News: The Fake News CNN called one of those 18 "lies" a lie because the number was 14,000 and not 15,000! Now here's our piece about how Trump and Huckabee-Sanders were truthful and sending the right message when he said thousands of terrorists were caught trying to cross the Mexico-US border even though the "actual" number was just 6, who were on a watchlist and not confirmed terrorists.'
Yes, it was bad fact-checking bias to call 15k instead of 14k a lie, but then Fox News/Breitbart immediately followup their 'caught the liberal media being biased again!' with overt hostility towards the truth, blind worship of Trump, and bias so severe it makes whatever they were calling out seem like a paragon of neutrality.
Fox News: "MSNBC lied when said the middle class didn't benefit from Trump's tax cuts!" (Because they got a few hundred in pay or tax benefits) "This proves Trump was truthful and correct in saying that the tax cuts hurt the rich and him and his friends personally and was a massive giveaway to the working man!" (Even though 90% of benefits went to the top 1% and Trump&friends substantially benefited.) Then they'll proceed to repeat Trump's lies about how megacorps using all their tax savings on stock buybacks and virtually nothing on wages actually benefits the middle class and not the wealthy too. But those liberal liars can't be trusted because we caught them lying about the middle class actually receiving a pittance instead of nothing! So them lying proves we're not!
That they've convinced 80% of everyone that the false info, deliberate misleading, and overt bias is so pervasive even outside of Fox News/Breitbart that mainstream news in general can't be trusted is the ultimate 'fake news'.
PS: I went on a tear about SJWs and their 'white men are all racist/sexist!' schtick earlier today, so when you conservatives give me a '-1 The Truth Makes Me Angry!' mod on this post, how's about balancing out the '-1 The Truth Makes Me Angry!' mod the liberals will be giving me for that one
Now I'm off to look for a thread talking about "centrists" to see if I can hit the trifecta of pissing off the entire political spectrum in one day.
An amazing admission that you don't know what causes grain or how it relates to the medium.
How does knowing what causes grain change how it appears? You could write up a 500-page single-spaced report to teach me all the technical details of film grain and 'how it relates to the medium', but unless you go in and rewire my visual system too my newfound knowledge won't change how it looks.
And the better the transfer is reviewed as by pros, e.g. the stuff made with a true 4k intermediate instead of upscaled 2k and/or with artificial grain, the more my comment applies. I'm just not seeing any additional detail from a 1080p untouched BD to 4k (lower than 1080p or very low bitrate 1080p, yeah) besides grain grain grain; and I'm not one of those '4k is waste can't see difference' guys... I sit close enough to a big enough screen that with newer all-digital+actually shot in 4k+ with a 4k intermediate, I absolutely notice the improvement in picture quality/detail.
The idea that the computer/sci-fi nerd type guys had or have any issue with strong female leads in principle is just SJW hysteria. The film and/or marketing having a very specific agenda, and/or the film being legitimately terrible, is what causes the backlash against some films. There's a long list of other movies besides the ones you mentioned that have strong female leads and lack the "omg all these sexist fragile men with their toxic masculinity just hate these strong womyn taking their place!!!" bullshit. Even recently: the reaction to Rogue One and its female lead, and Last Jedi and its female lead, were absolutely nothing alike. Because there was one fairly decent Star Wars movie without a ton of 'this is a social justice achievement!' talk, and one pretty poor excuse for one, which also involved people making it clear that if that's how you felt, it was because you were a sexist and racist white man, and white men are terrible; from the Twitter mob up through Kathleen Kennedy.
The permanently-offended social justice mobs can't tell the difference between when the criticism is 90% 'this movie is bad and promoting your obnoxious ultra-PC agenda made it worse' for some movies, but actually just limited to a few alt-right trolls who really are misogynists writing sexist screeds with other movies, and 90% really enjoyed it. All the same to them. Oh you don't like Last Jedi? Sexist! You only think Black Panther is 'good' instead of 'the biggest cultural moment evar!!!eleventy!'? Racist! Actual reasons for the opinion are irrelevant, something made abundantly clear.
It would actually be really nice to have a large display with a picture quality so high you couldn't tell the difference between it and an actual window looking out somewhere, even better if it's the whole wall-- like sitting on your porch. Of course pixel count isn't the biggest issue holding us back from realizing that, but really who wouldn't want a wall in their house like that?
Just a big screen like screen tech today, sure it wouldn't be worth it, but when picture and real life are indistinguishable? Bring it on!
In my experience, the difference between 1080p and 4K for scanned 35mm is like this: Imagine if you took a 1920x1080 image, printed it on a piece of paper, then scanned it at 2400dpi. I'm still only seeing a 1920x1080 picture, but now I'll also get to see every last little detail of the paper fibers.
Getting to see the film grain in a whole lot of extra detail is of limited value.
Ignorance is in fact a defense, if you're a cop. Unlike normal people, courts have found they can't be expected to actually know the law, so can't be held responsible if they thought something was illegal. I'm sure similar arrangements can be made for the very rich where their crime involves financial harm to the nonrich, assuming we ever get over the hurdle that that's a crime to begin with.
25,000 workers for two years could modernize exactly one station the way the MTA works.
The rent situation isn't that bad outside of Manhattan and highly gentrified areas. There's a whole range of places between Williamsburg and South Bronx. People do it by having roommates. Outside Manhattan, there's a lot of very nice areas where a 2br is under 2k in rent, so two or more people split it and pay less than 1k each in rent. If you don't live in a fancy building the situation is even better. I'm a 10min walk + 10min subway ride from lower Manhattan, in a highly gentrified, very nice area, and in a market rate apartment that's 2br for under 1700/mo, so my share is around 850. The building and apartment are perfectly fine themselves its just there's no amenities in-building; if I wanted that there's plenty of 4k+ 1 bedrooms here.
"If you don't know the difference between a hack and Slack, it's time to get off the digital highway,"
SLACK!
Anyway, why does every women entering the race have such an atrocious civil rights record (for a Democrat). She's almost as bad as Harris. I don't care so much about phony tech cred, but claiming you're some kind of civil rights hero because apparently racism and sexism are the beginning and end of all civil rights issues, so it's ok if you shit on every other part of it for your entire career up until 2016.
I think you overestminate America's resiliency against government action. All the wireless networks already have actual kill switches they can be ordered to use without any oversight (it's only been done locally against protesters so far, but that demonstrated to everyone the capability was there and the government could shut off service whenever they felt like it). As far as wired internet, what are the ISPs going to do when armed agents show up with a NSL? Oh yeah, argue it in the secret court subject to full gag orders. And our Supreme Court itself favors that kind of expansive executive power anyway (and that's not a strictly partly line issue, so let's not go there, especially since one of Trump's appointees is a lot more inclined to restrain executive power than the judge the seat was stolen from). Our government may (currently) be treating (most) people nicer than Russia, but they have as much if not more power to enforce their will against all people and companies the minute they decide to stop being (kind of sort of) not so evil (to the general population).
Individual rights aren't the problem, the problem is extending them to corporations.
If we jail the Sacklers, can we please also jail the evil sadomoralists who were told "if you address excess prescribing by forcing all people (even those who need their dose) down or off their meds with these drug cop written medical guidelines and disgraceful doctor prosecutions, you're going to create a massive wave of overdose deaths as people get street drugs instead, and cause countless more to kill themselves outright when they can't get relief from chronic pain", then proceeded to do it anyway?
Or is that ok because their motive was punishing instead of helping users and maximizing death, the standard US drug policy, and not making money? The spike in OD deaths and pain patient suicides was not something that came out of nowhere, they were a well predicted and inevitable consequence of cracking down on all opiate prescribing instead of inappropriate prescribing, right as fentanyl was appearing on the street. The DEA, CDC, and various politicians, and have more blood on their hands than the Sacklers.