Simple, tiny, no exotic raw materials... but they cost something like $4k each, plus something like $3k for the inverter/controller. Why? Because they're all wired by handAFAIK, hand wound motors are actually better than machine wound ones. That's probably why electric motors for aerospace applications are hand wound and not cheap $500 cans from China.
Depending on what characteristics you're trying to get from the motor, the winding process can involve patterns that (again AFAIK) CNC winders cannot replicate. And there's still more to do once you've physically wound wires around the motor. For some things, a skilled set of eyes and hands is still better than a machine.
Well then go back to a dumb phone. 38 days of battery life on the nokia 515. Or buy an expanded battery. Plus, again, how is that your carrier's fault?
I got the Nokia 301 (the plastic predecessor of the 515) before the 515 was announced.
The battery life is never 38 days unless you use your phone as a paper weight. The phones have not lived up to the marketing hype and Nokia is several firmware updates deep in trying to meet their published specs.
IMO the relevant number to look at is talk time: The 301 has 6 hours of 3G talk time. The 515 has 5.3 hours of 3G talk time.
To put that into perspective, for the 515, every minute of talk is worth ~3 hours (171 minutes) of standby. So an 8 minute call = ~1 day of standby
/Depending on how much I chat, I'll charge my phone once or twice a week
And eventually you could use both frequencies you control for LTE, leading to much higher capacity.
Only if you have enough bandwidth in the older block of frequencies.
If they can't use a big enough chunk of frequency, they can't run LTE at a high speed. It's been a point of contention around the airwave auctions, with AT&T in particular being pissed off about the terms.
In reading the documents, the NSL surrounded a Microsoft enterprise customer.
It's worth noting that Microsoft only seems to include enterprise customers in their notification policy. The millions of @live customers can get fucked when the FBI shows up with an NSL letter.
The whole of the nightmare in the middle east right now is the fault of the united states.
The USA inherited a dysfunctional situation in the Middle East. The British and French were happy to leave the problem to someone else, as their empires were waning.
But the main reason the Middle East is so ungovernable is a direct results of the British and French drawing arbitrary lines on a map and declaring "these are the borders of the countries."
I guess it's too much to ask parents to turn off the television and actually talk with their kids or to check over their homework, or to read to them before they go to bed...
You're making assumptions about a family's situation that suggests a rather limited understanding of the world around you. So yes, it might be too much for a parent if they just worked two shifts and then spent an hour on the bus to get home.
I mean shucks, everyone could have a beautiful nuclear family just like the 1950s, if a single blue collar salary could support a family of 4, like it did in the 1950s.
In theory, if you had the hack written using a clean room design, the only person who could be liable for violating the ToS would be the person who bought the game and ripped it apart to figure out the hack.
Obama never really said anything of substance. He said many things that led people to believe they heard what they wanted to hear; a classic move by a flim-flam man.
What a load of crap. If that is true, then it's true insofar as it applies to every politician who doesn't follow through on 100% of their campaign promises. Which would be... every politician.
It's trivial to find lists of Bush Jr's and Obama's broken campaign promises online. If you want Clinton or earlier, you'll end up digging through newspaper articles instead of web pages specifically set up to hold presidents to account for their campaign pledges.
Obama was the same. He said a lot of things were bad but never said what he would do instead. He used the ultimate echo-chamber, a biased media, to say things for him that he never said.
Obama's biggest problem has been unrelenting Republican obstruction of his entire agenda. He said things were bad, proposed legislative fixes, and then watched them die in Congress.
I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.
I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.
Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal government and amongst its various agencies. (see enclosed) For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become "soldiers" (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organization, and mindset) and they were escalating their behavior. Therefore, this bombing was also meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centers within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.
Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. (see enclosed) Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of clinical detachment. (The bombing of the Murrah building was not personal , no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel.)
I hope that this clarification amply addresses your question.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. McVeigh
USP Terre Haute (IN)
Part II:
Q: What's the deal with you expressing interest in having your execution televised?
A: First, it has nothing to do with seeking to be on camera - just look at how few on-camera interviews I have done. Rather, it is to make a point: In the U.S. we show, on television, re-enactments of real executions; mock-fictional executions (in movies); and real executions from foreign countries - yet we are ashamed to show our own justice system in action. It is ironic that we show foreign executions, but are afraid to show identical domestic laws being carried out.
Q: What were some other options considered besides bombing? Who would you have targeted?
A: I waited two years from "Waco" for non-violent "checks and balances" built into our system to correct the abuse of power we were seeing in federal actions against citizens. The Executive; Legislative; and Judicial branches not only concluded that the government did nothing wrong (leaving the door open for "Waco" to happen again), they actually gave awards and bonus pay to those agents involved, and conve
A rapist can harm one person, but he can be punished according to law. A corporation can harm thousands of people, but it can be punished according to law.
I think the important distinction is that Corporations can supposedly be prevented from harming thousands of people through regulations and oversight.
The facts seem to show that punishment hasn't done much to stop rapists or corporations. Prevention is always a much better solution.
Since a) It takes 3/5 of the Senate to vote for cloture, and b) there are 53 Senators with the Democratic Party and 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats, the answer is "a group of at least 5 Republican Senators".
Technically the answer is "whichever Senator said (s)he's going to filibuster [legislation]"
In other words, the Senate would be humming along just fine with 51 votes if mostly Republican Senators didn't keep filibustering everything.
1. Who is this "you all" which you're referring to? 2. What makes you think that "you all" want a government which is "tightly coupled to large corporations"?
Back in the day, I recall a number of pirate copies of games that compressed audio/video assets because bits were still costly and slow.
You're thinking of "gamerips" or "repacks"
I just checked the torrent sites and there's already several repacks out. Sometimes they strip game assets, other times they just compress the hell out of everything. You'll only know if the NFO specifically says X% Audio Y% Video.
Are the sensors that detect things like occupants in other vehicles and train tracks and oncoming trains optional equipment, mandatory, or pure science fiction?
Because if they're optional, I'm not paying for that trim package.
Many cars have weight sensors in the seats. This is generally how they decide whether or not to deploy airbags.
So the subsystems already exist and it's just a matter of your networked car telling other cars how many occupants it has.
Detroit had about 50 defensive homicides in 2012 against 500 offensive homicides; if the gun literally didn't work half the days out of the year, you would be saving 250 lives at the cost of 25, before you count accidents.
Which headline makes for better outrage and FoxNews clickbait?
1. 25 Detroit Citizens Died Because Their "Smart" Gun Wouldn't Fire. Don't Be Next. 2. Shootings in Detroit Decrease 50% After Smart Guns Go On Sale.
As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subjectâ(TM)s name.
Why not the newspaper:
16 By decision of 30 July 2010, the AEPD rejected the complaint in so far as it related to La Vanguardia, taking the view that the publication by it of the information in question was legally justified as it took place upon order of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and was intended to give maximum publicity to the auction in order to secure as many bidders as possible.
The AEPD = Spanish Data Protection Agency Whether this means that a newspaper can be forced to remove content that is not published "upon order of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs,"... I don't know. I can't seem to dig up the Audiencia Nacional (Spain's National High Court) decision/referral.
First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers?
You're asking the wrong question. If we can agree that internet search engines are not newspapers, then the burden falls upon search engines to explain why they should receive the special status granted to newspapers.
Second, what defines an Internet service as a "search engine" or a "newspaper"? Suppose I run on online newspaper that has a search function, allowing users to search past articles about any topic? Am I now a search engine?
You are not an internet search engine. The court distinguishes between (1) a newspaper with a searchable index and (2) a website that indexes other websites on the internet.
Suppose my newspaper becomes so popular it becomes the de facto place where people go to search for news stories? Do different rules apply then?
Still not an internet search engine.
Or does this ruling simply apply to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content?
TLDR: this ruling simply applies to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content Still TLDR: With all kinds of legal parsing to determine who is processing the data and whether they are under European jurisdiction.
Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles?
No, they don't. Because they are not internet search engines.
The line between newspapers and search engines may become fuzzy, if it isn't already. Do you see the problem?
The line is not fuzzy and I do not see "the problem." The only problem I see is that this is horribly inconvenient for Google and every other search engine. But, according to the court, the inconvenience to Google's business model does not outweigh citizens rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject's name.
However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.
Don't try to make this more complicated than it is.
They are accountable. When the negotiations are done, each country can either accept it or reject it through a democratic process.
Votes by elected representatives = Republic An actual democratic process would involve a national referendum.
Of course, the idea of the public voting terrifies the type of people who write these treaties, because it's so easy for the public to latch onto any one aspect and torpedo the entire thing.
But they don't get to govern what other people in other countries say. The very idea is pretty obvious, unworkable, globalist-statist nonsense.
Who says this governs what other people in other countries say?
The original court decision was twofold 1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story 2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.
This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU. Google is welcome to shut down its various European subsidiaries (including the ones in Ireland and the Netherlands that they use to shelter income). There's a precedent for this, if you can recall when Google China was shut down and redirected to Google's Hong Kong page.
Blocking something because RMS does not approve is the opposite of freedom, be it DRM, a binary driver, or whatever.
And denying people the ability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater is also "the opposite of freedom." However, there's also the caveat that it's better for society to limit certain freedoms, because otherwise they would otherwise impinge on all of us in a negative way.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple, tiny, no exotic raw materials... but they cost something like $4k each, plus something like $3k for the inverter/controller. Why? Because they're all wired by handAFAIK, hand wound motors are actually better than machine wound ones.
That's probably why electric motors for aerospace applications are hand wound and not cheap $500 cans from China.
Depending on what characteristics you're trying to get from the motor, the winding process can involve patterns that (again AFAIK) CNC winders cannot replicate.
And there's still more to do once you've physically wound wires around the motor.
For some things, a skilled set of eyes and hands is still better than a machine.
Well then go back to a dumb phone. 38 days of battery life on the nokia 515. Or buy an expanded battery. Plus, again, how is that your carrier's fault?
I got the Nokia 301 (the plastic predecessor of the 515) before the 515 was announced.
The battery life is never 38 days unless you use your phone as a paper weight.
The phones have not lived up to the marketing hype and Nokia is several firmware updates deep in trying to meet their published specs.
IMO the relevant number to look at is talk time:
The 301 has 6 hours of 3G talk time.
The 515 has 5.3 hours of 3G talk time.
To put that into perspective, for the 515, every minute of talk is worth ~3 hours (171 minutes) of standby.
So an 8 minute call = ~1 day of standby
/Depending on how much I chat, I'll charge my phone once or twice a week
And eventually you could use both frequencies you control for LTE, leading to much higher capacity.
Only if you have enough bandwidth in the older block of frequencies.
If they can't use a big enough chunk of frequency, they can't run LTE at a high speed.
It's been a point of contention around the airwave auctions, with AT&T in particular being pissed off about the terms.
In reading the documents, the NSL surrounded a Microsoft enterprise customer.
It's worth noting that Microsoft only seems to include enterprise customers in their notification policy.
The millions of @live customers can get fucked when the FBI shows up with an NSL letter.
Excuses that no longer work:
My floppy disc isn't working
My computer blue screened before I saved
My e-mail was down
I don't know why your computer can't read that format
Every excuse I ever used to get a day's reprieve could not work now.
The whole of the nightmare in the middle east right now is the fault of the united states.
The USA inherited a dysfunctional situation in the Middle East.
The British and French were happy to leave the problem to someone else, as their empires were waning.
But the main reason the Middle East is so ungovernable is a direct results of the British and French drawing arbitrary lines on a map and declaring "these are the borders of the countries."
This article is relatively short and explains what happened 100 years ago and the consequences since:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25299553
I guess it's too much to ask parents to turn off the television and actually talk with their kids or to check over their homework, or to read to them before they go to bed...
You're making assumptions about a family's situation that suggests a rather limited understanding of the world around you.
So yes, it might be too much for a parent if they just worked two shifts and then spent an hour on the bus to get home.
I mean shucks, everyone could have a beautiful nuclear family just like the 1950s, if a single blue collar salary could support a family of 4, like it did in the 1950s.
how about we call them what they really are: Enemies of the People.
The intelligence community isn't doing this in bad faith.
The believe that this is what they have to do to protect "the People."
Not everyone is your enemy just because you disagree on how to accomplish a goal.
Racism is the last excuse that our failed public education system still clings to. That and "we don't have enough money."
White flight is extremely real. Resources are distributed very unevenly.
And yet "racism" doesn't begin to encompass the range of reasons that some schools end up with 90%+ minority populations and with low funding.
In theory, if you had the hack written using a clean room design, the only person who could be liable for violating the ToS would be the person who bought the game and ripped it apart to figure out the hack.
Obama never really said anything of substance. He said many things that led people to believe they heard what they wanted to hear; a classic move by a flim-flam man.
What a load of crap.
If that is true, then it's true insofar as it applies to every politician who doesn't follow through on 100% of their campaign promises.
Which would be... every politician.
It's trivial to find lists of Bush Jr's and Obama's broken campaign promises online.
If you want Clinton or earlier, you'll end up digging through newspaper articles instead of web pages specifically set up to hold presidents to account for their campaign pledges.
Obama was the same. He said a lot of things were bad but never said what he would do instead. He used the ultimate echo-chamber, a biased media, to say things for him that he never said.
Obama's biggest problem has been unrelenting Republican obstruction of his entire agenda.
He said things were bad, proposed legislative fixes, and then watched them die in Congress.
I've got karma to burn.
Here's McVeigh in his own words.
McVeigh's Apr. 26 Letter to Fox News
Published April 26, 2001
I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.
I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.
Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal government and amongst its various agencies. (see enclosed) For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become "soldiers" (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organization, and mindset) and they were escalating their behavior. Therefore, this bombing was also meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centers within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.
Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. (see enclosed) Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of clinical detachment. (The bombing of the Murrah building was not personal , no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel.)
I hope that this clarification amply addresses your question.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. McVeigh
USP Terre Haute (IN)
Part II:
Q: What's the deal with you expressing interest in having your execution televised?
A: First, it has nothing to do with seeking to be on camera - just look at how few on-camera interviews I have done. Rather, it is to make a point: In the U.S. we show, on television, re-enactments of real executions; mock-fictional executions (in movies); and real executions from foreign countries - yet we are ashamed to show our own justice system in action. It is ironic that we show foreign executions, but are afraid to show identical domestic laws being carried out.
Q: What were some other options considered besides bombing? Who would you have targeted?
A: I waited two years from "Waco" for non-violent "checks and balances" built into our system to correct the abuse of power we were seeing in federal actions against citizens. The Executive; Legislative; and Judicial branches not only concluded that the government did nothing wrong (leaving the door open for "Waco" to happen again), they actually gave awards and bonus pay to those agents involved, and conve
A rapist can harm one person, but he can be punished according to law.
A corporation can harm thousands of people, but it can be punished according to law.
I think the important distinction is that Corporations can supposedly be prevented from harming thousands of people through regulations and oversight.
The facts seem to show that punishment hasn't done much to stop rapists or corporations.
Prevention is always a much better solution.
Since a) It takes 3/5 of the Senate to vote for cloture, and b) there are 53 Senators with the Democratic Party and 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats, the answer is "a group of at least 5 Republican Senators".
Technically the answer is "whichever Senator said (s)he's going to filibuster [legislation]"
In other words, the Senate would be humming along just fine with 51 votes if mostly Republican Senators didn't keep filibustering everything.
1. Who is this "you all" which you're referring to?
2. What makes you think that "you all" want a government which is "tightly coupled to large corporations"?
Back in the day, I recall a number of pirate copies of games that compressed audio/video assets because bits were still costly and slow.
You're thinking of "gamerips" or "repacks"
I just checked the torrent sites and there's already several repacks out.
Sometimes they strip game assets, other times they just compress the hell out of everything.
You'll only know if the NFO specifically says X% Audio Y% Video.
Are the sensors that detect things like occupants in other vehicles and train tracks and oncoming trains optional equipment, mandatory, or pure science fiction?
Because if they're optional, I'm not paying for that trim package.
Many cars have weight sensors in the seats.
This is generally how they decide whether or not to deploy airbags.
So the subsystems already exist and it's just a matter of your networked car telling other cars how many occupants it has.
Detroit had about 50 defensive homicides in 2012 against 500 offensive homicides; if the gun literally didn't work half the days out of the year, you would be saving 250 lives at the cost of 25, before you count accidents.
Which headline makes for better outrage and FoxNews clickbait?
1. 25 Detroit Citizens Died Because Their "Smart" Gun Wouldn't Fire. Don't Be Next.
2. Shootings in Detroit Decrease 50% After Smart Guns Go On Sale.
Why can Google be forced to remove reference to a fact, but not the newspaper.
From the Court Opinion
Why Google:
As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subjectâ(TM)s name.
Why not the newspaper:
16 By decision of 30 July 2010, the AEPD rejected the complaint in so far as it related to La Vanguardia, taking the view that the publication by it of the information in question was legally justified as it took place upon order of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and was intended to give maximum publicity to the auction in order to secure as many bidders as possible.
The AEPD = Spanish Data Protection Agency ... I don't know.
Whether this means that a newspaper can be forced to remove content that is not published "upon order of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs,"
I can't seem to dig up the Audiencia Nacional (Spain's National High Court) decision/referral.
First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers?
You're asking the wrong question.
If we can agree that internet search engines are not newspapers,
then the burden falls upon search engines to explain why they should receive the special status granted to newspapers.
Second, what defines an Internet service as a "search engine" or a "newspaper"? Suppose I run on online newspaper that has a search function, allowing users to search past articles about any topic? Am I now a search engine?
You are not an internet search engine.
The court distinguishes between (1) a newspaper with a searchable index and (2) a website that indexes other websites on the internet.
Suppose my newspaper becomes so popular it becomes the de facto place where people go to search for news stories? Do different rules apply then?
Still not an internet search engine.
Or does this ruling simply apply to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content?
The decision is dense, but readable.
If you want the highlights, just skip to the conclusion
TLDR: this ruling simply applies to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content
Still TLDR: With all kinds of legal parsing to determine who is processing the data and whether they are under European jurisdiction.
Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles?
No, they don't. Because they are not internet search engines.
The line between newspapers and search engines may become fuzzy, if it isn't already. Do you see the problem?
The line is not fuzzy and I do not see "the problem."
The only problem I see is that this is horribly inconvenient for Google and every other search engine.
But, according to the court, the inconvenience to Google's business model does not outweigh citizens rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject's name.
However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.
Don't try to make this more complicated than it is.
They are accountable. When the negotiations are done, each country can either accept it or reject it through a democratic process.
Votes by elected representatives = Republic
An actual democratic process would involve a national referendum.
Of course, the idea of the public voting terrifies the type of people who write these treaties,
because it's so easy for the public to latch onto any one aspect and torpedo the entire thing.
But they don't get to govern what other people in other countries say. The very idea is pretty obvious, unworkable, globalist-statist nonsense.
Who says this governs what other people in other countries say?
The original court decision was twofold
1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story
2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.
This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.
Google is welcome to shut down its various European subsidiaries (including the ones in Ireland and the Netherlands that they use to shelter income).
There's a precedent for this, if you can recall when Google China was shut down and redirected to Google's Hong Kong page.
I'm slightly confused.... is Youtube buying Twitch or is Google's wholly owned subsidiary (Youtube) buying Twitch?
The end result might be the same, but it seems to me that how the acquisition is reported should be relevant.
Blocking something because RMS does not approve is the opposite of freedom, be it DRM, a binary driver, or whatever.
And denying people the ability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater is also "the opposite of freedom."
However, there's also the caveat that it's better for society to limit certain freedoms,
because otherwise they would otherwise impinge on all of us in a negative way.
With heavier penalties, it would not work.
If heavier penalties fixed anything, nobody in the USA would do drugs or drive drunk.