If you gave fossil fuels the same advantage of not charging [...] government regulations on production etc... like you do with solar,
There's no government regulations on production of solar? You can't even install solar panels without a licensed electrician to certify that your house isn't going to burn down.
I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts about the lack of regulation for solar.
the purpose of austerity isn't to keep everyone happy, it's to prevent bankruptcy.
Well that's your problem right there, you don't understand the point of austerity measures. Except for a handful of countries, austerity has nothing to do with preventing bankruptcy.
The theory behind austerity is twofold. First, cutting deficit spending and increasing taxes will reassure lenders/creditors and prevent a governmental debt crunch. Second, the reduced spending will reduce inflationary pressures and prevent a rise in interest rates.
Somehow all of this is supposed to create economic growth. The reality is that austerity created unemployment and poverty in most countries that tried it, which is pretty much what non-austeritians said would happen. There's really not enough room to explain just how poorly austerity has gone. Any random google search will kick back more than enough real world results.
Even the IMF (the original wielder of the austerity wrecking ball who spent decades ruining the economies of South American and African countries) has said that austerity isn't automatically the solution, once they saw the effects of their traditional austerity measures in Europe.
If you lose your job and have to take a new lower-paying job, and you have to cut your daughter's allowance [...]
To reply directly to your analogy: it's wrong. Government spending isn't a household budget and anyone who tries to make that comparison is explicitly demonstrating their ignorance of economics.
Yup. You have to look carefully at where the "information" in this "article" is coming from - this is not even an article, it's basically a piece of political propaganda for the government - the same "author"'s other "article" headlines look like this: "More Evidence Austerity Is Terrible",
Italy is currently being roiled with strikes and protests over austerity. France recently presented their budget and told the EU to stuff its immediate cuts to social spending. Besides Germany, you can throw a dart at Europe and it'll land on an example of austerity not-working.
I'd be happy to see your examples of successful austerity since the global recession started.
To enter (or leave) New York by car, one has many options â" most of them involving a toll of $10+ (in addition to the fuel-taxes). Why can't those bridges and tunnels be privately owned and compete with each other? Maybe then they'll start treating drivers as a profit opportunity, rather than a nuisance...
I'm guessing you don't know much about privately owned roads/bridges/tunnels, because they're de facto natural monopolies.
Not only because of the very high initial costs, but also because the private companies enter into contracts with the State that exclude the construction of alternatives. Without that exclusivity, no private company would ever recoup its initial and ongoing costs. And even if there were alternatives, the discussion has only moved from the ills of a monopoly to the almost exact same ills that exist in an oligopoly.
Honestly, it sounds like your problem is with the Constitution, which gives government the power to collect taxes and establish (post) roads. This really isn't the best windmill to be tilting at.
This promise, or pledge, or PR stunt... is neither legally binding nor particularly meaningful.
What'll happen is one or more States will pass laws to codify those privacy pledges. Then the manufacturers will push for a national standard/law so that they aren't stuck with a patchwork of 50 State laws.
#2 will make you more money, so the cost of the seeds is a non-factor. #1 will make you poor, because when it doesn't rain your crops die.
So, what exactly is the issue?
The issue is that you didn't RTFA. Most farmers cannot afford the seeds, so the cost turns out to be the main factor. Add in the price of synthetic fertilizers and most farmers can only use DuPont seeds if their government subsidizes the products.
There are important questions surrounding the wisdom of allowing 1 corporation to be a choke point for a significant portion of any country's agricultural output.
No, the restrictions on who can run campaign advertisements are the free speech restrictions that cause people to oppose Lessig's group (and other groups, like Wolf PAC, which have the same goals.)
You talk about free speech and yet you seem to ignore the history that brought us the previous limits on such "speech."
If all limits on political spending are unconstitutional, then the natural result is going to be a Constitutional Amendment to reestablish 100 years worth of legislation that reduces the corrupting influence of money in politics.
Or maybe they showed that the voters don't want to put Lawrence Lessig in charge of determining who gets free speech and who does not. Maybe the voters think that individuals shouldn't lose their right to express their support for a candidate financially just because they're acting in a group.
Democratic House candidates - average per candidate 2010 general election: $106,494 from donors of $200 or less, 8.8 percent of the average total from individuals. 2014 general election: $89,194 from donors of $200 or less, 9.4 percent of the average total from individuals.
House GOP candidates - average per candidate 2010 general election: $153,209 from donors of $200 or less, 13.8 percent of the average total from individuals. 2014 general election: $85,118 from donors of $200 or less, 7.3 percent of the average total from individuals.
Democratic Senate candidates - average per candidate 2010 general election: $923,000 from donors of $200 or less, 12.2 percent of the average total from individuals. 2014 general election: $1,450,000 from donors of $200 or less, 17.2 percent of the average total from individuals.
GOP Senate candidates - average per candidate 2010 general election: $1,600,000 from donors of $200 or less, 16.3 percent of the average total from individuals. 2014 general election: $508,275 from donors of $200 or less, 8.1 percent of the average total from individuals.
The numbers are very clear. House and Senate Republicans got significantly less from small donors this mid-term cycle. House Democrats got less from small donors and (seemingly a lot) less from large donors. Senate Democrats got a lot more from small donors.
You can't draw any clear line between these numbers and what voters think of MAYDAY PAC, but it does seem to show that small donors (aka the average voter) were significantly less interested in supporting the winners this election cycle.
And to me, regardless of what anyone thinks about Lessig's efforts, this suggests the general public's speech is getting overridden by the kind of campaign spending which Lessig and others would like to stamp out.
On top of this, their support for a constitutional amendment that would allow congress to restrict speech, makes them a contemptible organization.
I searched around a bit and this is what I found:
Our plan for reform has four stages:
3. In 2017, we will then press to get Congress to pass, and the President to sign, legislation that fundamentally reforms the way elections are funded.
4. After a Congress has been elected under this new system, we will push for whatever constitutional reform is necessary to secure the gains from this reform.
Is there some non-campaign finance related restrictions on speech that they're endorsing? If so, I'm not aware of it and I'd like to know more.
Previously, then-Representative Markey challenged TransCanada on this question at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on December 2, 2011. There he asked Alexander Pourbaix, TransCanada's President of Energy and Oil Pipelines, whether he would commit to including a requirement in TransCanada's long-term contracts with Gulf Coast refineries, as a condition of shipping, that all refined fuels produced from oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline be sold in the United States. In response, Mr. Pourbaix stated "no, I can't do that."
Here's the clip from the hearing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucRPHJtvGU&t=2m55s It's a bit painful to watch TransCanada's President of Energy and Oil Pipelines get beaten up for his ridiculous claims until he's finally forced to say that he won't make any legally enforceable commitment to improving the USA's energy independence.
b) adapt to the changes, encourage as many people as possible to survive through prosperity or
survive through prosperity... I need this explained to me. There seem to be so many implicit assumptions being made and i'd hate to put words in anyone's mouth.
Worth mentioning, there's a difference between asserting it will all be video, and preparing your infrastructure for that possibility.
I tracked down the webcast and the question is asked ~34 minutes in. Here's what he actually said, beyond the snippet being quoted everywhere
5 years ago, most of facebook was text and if you fast forward 5 years, probably most of it is going to be video, just because it's getting easier to capture video of the moments of your lives and share it [...]
He then talks about the news feed ranking your stories.
Every day there are about 1,500 stories that are shared with you and the average person will only look at about 100 a day, because that's all you have time for
In 5 years, if everything on facebook is video, the average person is sure as hell not going to have time to interact with 100 videos per day. Unless they copy Vine, a richer video experience on facebook will necessarily mean that you interact with less people per unit of time.
Note that the story says this is only about non-U.S. earning.
If you RTFA, there's only one of three possibilities: 1. US assets were under priced in order to keep income out of the US. 2. European assets were over priced in order to shift income to a lower tax EU jurisdiction. 3. All of the Above
Amazon disclosed in October 2011 that the IRS wanted $1.5 billion in unpaid taxes. It has declined to say exactly what transactions the charge relates to but said it was linked to "transfer pricing with our foreign subsidiaries" over a seven-year period from 2005.
Who knows why the EU didn't bother to aggressively investigate until now. The broad outlines were laid out years ago.
It worked like this: Amazon Europe paid 105 million EU to Amazon Technologies Inc in Nevada to license the rights to Amazon's intellectual property -- the patents and software for the websites, including that button that buys a book with one click.
Amazon Europe onsold the rights to use this intellectual property to Amazon EU for 519 million EU -- five times what it had paid the US company. Amazon Europe made an instant profit of 414 million EU, which would have been taxable, except that Amazon Europe is a limited partnership. It doesn't pay tax in Luxembourg.
Normally this would be called "transfer pricing" and considered "tax avoidance."
Transfer pricing involves a company selling [stuff] to its subsidiaries at market cost. Tax avoidance involves completely legal maneuvers to minimize your tax exposure.
There are international norms for transfer pricing. No way in hell is re-licensing some IP for a 400% profit going to pass muster. Most likely, they'll have to restate some earnings and negotiate the size of their fine.
Over the last few years, there have been various hearings in the USA and internationally over transfer pricing. It's on the radar of western governments and they're not very happy with the practice.
If you have FDA regs, liability insurance, and lawyers all of a sudden it's $100k.
Nope
(a) Identification. An external limb prosthetic component is a device intended for medical purposes that, when put together with other appropriate components, constitutes a total prosthesis. Examples of external limb prosthetic components include the following: Ankle, foot, hip, knee, and socket components; mechanical or powered hand, hook, wrist unit, elbow joint, and shoulder joint components; and cable and prosthesis suction valves.
(b) Classification. Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in 890.9.The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of 820.180, regarding general requirements concerning records and 820.198, regarding complaint files.
I even linked all the cited sections if you want to read a bunch of dense legalese that in no way supports your claim that FDA regs are the reason for expensive prosthetics.
If hemp is so great, then why is interest in it so relatively low in the many other industrialized countries around the world where industrial hemp has always been legal and easy to grow, even state-subdizied?
It's a chicken and egg problem. There isn't much hemp cultivation, so nobody is designing purpose built harvesting machinery. And since there isn't any purpose built harvesting machinery, it's much harder to grow hemp on a large scale.
There's also a reality that even though hemp can be used in just about everything, it's not always the best (or currently the cheapest) option. This could change if hemp harvesting and processing ever catches up on the decades of R&D that synthetics and cotton have received.
I understand why [the private sector] have an uneasy relationship with governments. They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics. But increasingly their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism.
Yup, he rings that bell.
To those of us who have to tackle the depressing end of human behaviour on the internet, it can seem that some technology companies are in denial about its misuse. I suspect most ordinary users of the internet are ahead of them: they have strong views on the ethics of companies, whether on taxation, child protection or privacy; they do not want the media platforms they use with their friends and families to facilitate murder or child abuse.
Well, if the peak (judging from the last sentence of the summary) is 6w, that is easily in the power envelope of USB. (6w = 5v@1.1a) so, all they mean is a larger Passive cooler. You probably don't need a Heat-sink-fan unit until about 10-15w
There might not be much room for overclocking, since we know Intel has been having lots of trouble with their 14nm yields.
It's possible that they're rolling out low power dual core chips because that's all they can produce in any significant volume.
That's right! Vote the republicans back in! That'll work. And then, when you get pissed off with the republicans again, you can vote for... wait for it... democrats!
When times are bad, the incumbents get voted out. Whether the position remains within the same political party tends to vary based on structural factors like gerrymandering.
Except, the FBI exists in a world where we ban the unregulated sale of things like anthrax, plastic explosives, rocket launchers, children, dual purpose precursor chemicals, radioisotopes, and a million other things.
Rhode Island is neither a road nor an island. Discuss.
The original Rhode Island settlers (kicked out of Massachusetts because of their religious beliefs) settled on an island that is now called Aquidneck Island.
It's true that Police, and usually Fire, services are included in your tax bill (directly or perhaps indirectly if you're a renter for example). However, these are not easily "metered" utility services.
Most directly, many municipalities will fine you for making more than X frivolous 911 calls in Y period of time. They may even officially stop responding to calls from that address. In extreme cases, you can get prosecuted.
Phantom calls (hang ups, butt dials, etc) have also caused police forces set policies for (aka meter) which 911 calls they will respond to. 311 centers are also another way of metering access to the police, by diverting non-emergency calls to a lower priority queue.
Your usage of police services is metered, it's just not very well known and, depending on availability of police policies, not very transparent to the public.
If changing the time by one hour gives you a heart attack then you were really a time bomb to begin with.
Spring DST has also been found to cause statistically relevant increases in suicide, car accidents, and accidental injury.
And with a population of 350+ million, 1 in a million events happen with alarming regularity. So yea, there are plenty of people with ticking time bombs waiting to go off in their chests. The extra stress of mild sleep deprivation is more than enough to set them off.
Slashdot Mirror
If you gave fossil fuels the same advantage of not charging [...] government regulations on production etc... like you do with solar,
There's no government regulations on production of solar?
You can't even install solar panels without a licensed electrician to certify that your house isn't going to burn down.
I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts about the lack of regulation for solar.
the purpose of austerity isn't to keep everyone happy, it's to prevent bankruptcy.
Well that's your problem right there, you don't understand the point of austerity measures.
Except for a handful of countries, austerity has nothing to do with preventing bankruptcy.
The theory behind austerity is twofold. First, cutting deficit spending and increasing taxes will reassure lenders/creditors and prevent a governmental debt crunch. Second, the reduced spending will reduce inflationary pressures and prevent a rise in interest rates.
Somehow all of this is supposed to create economic growth. The reality is that austerity created unemployment and poverty in most countries that tried it, which is pretty much what non-austeritians said would happen. There's really not enough room to explain just how poorly austerity has gone. Any random google search will kick back more than enough real world results.
Even the IMF (the original wielder of the austerity wrecking ball who spent decades ruining the economies of South American and African countries) has said that austerity isn't automatically the solution, once they saw the effects of their traditional austerity measures in Europe.
If you lose your job and have to take a new lower-paying job, and you have to cut your daughter's allowance [...]
To reply directly to your analogy: it's wrong. Government spending isn't a household budget and anyone who tries to make that comparison is explicitly demonstrating their ignorance of economics.
Yup. You have to look carefully at where the "information" in this "article" is coming from - this is not even an article, it's basically a piece of political propaganda for the government - the same "author"'s other "article" headlines look like this: "More Evidence Austerity Is Terrible",
Italy is currently being roiled with strikes and protests over austerity.
France recently presented their budget and told the EU to stuff its immediate cuts to social spending.
Besides Germany, you can throw a dart at Europe and it'll land on an example of austerity not-working.
I'd be happy to see your examples of successful austerity since the global recession started.
To enter (or leave) New York by car, one has many options â" most of them involving a toll of $10+ (in addition to the fuel-taxes). Why can't those bridges and tunnels be privately owned and compete with each other? Maybe then they'll start treating drivers as a profit opportunity, rather than a nuisance...
I'm guessing you don't know much about privately owned roads/bridges/tunnels, because they're de facto natural monopolies.
Not only because of the very high initial costs, but also because the private companies enter into contracts with the State that exclude the construction of alternatives. Without that exclusivity, no private company would ever recoup its initial and ongoing costs. And even if there were alternatives, the discussion has only moved from the ills of a monopoly to the almost exact same ills that exist in an oligopoly.
Honestly, it sounds like your problem is with the Constitution, which gives government the power to collect taxes and establish (post) roads.
This really isn't the best windmill to be tilting at.
This promise, or pledge, or PR stunt ... is neither legally binding nor particularly meaningful.
What'll happen is one or more States will pass laws to codify those privacy pledges.
Then the manufacturers will push for a national standard/law so that they aren't stuck with a patchwork of 50 State laws.
It's what happened once Massachusetts passed a Right-To-Repair law
#2 will make you more money, so the cost of the seeds is a non-factor. #1 will make you poor, because when it doesn't rain your crops die.
So, what exactly is the issue?
The issue is that you didn't RTFA.
Most farmers cannot afford the seeds, so the cost turns out to be the main factor.
Add in the price of synthetic fertilizers and most farmers can only use DuPont seeds if their government subsidizes the products.
There are important questions surrounding the wisdom of allowing 1 corporation to be a choke point for a significant portion of any country's agricultural output.
No, the restrictions on who can run campaign advertisements are the free speech restrictions that cause people to oppose Lessig's group (and other groups, like Wolf PAC, which have the same goals.)
You talk about free speech and yet you seem to ignore the history that brought us the previous limits on such "speech."
If all limits on political spending are unconstitutional, then the natural result is going to be a Constitutional Amendment to reestablish 100 years worth of legislation that reduces the corrupting influence of money in politics.
Or maybe they showed that the voters don't want to put Lawrence Lessig in charge of determining who gets free speech and who does not. Maybe the voters think that individuals shouldn't lose their right to express their support for a candidate financially just because they're acting in a group.
This was the first result for mid-term election spending that I found.
Feel free to dig up an alternative source of numbers
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/11/money-won-on-tuesday-but-rules-of-the-game-changed/
FYI - I cleaned up their word salad into a more digestible format
Democratic House candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $106,494 from donors of $200 or less, 8.8 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $89,194 from donors of $200 or less, 9.4 percent of the average total from individuals.
House GOP candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $153,209 from donors of $200 or less, 13.8 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $85,118 from donors of $200 or less, 7.3 percent of the average total from individuals.
Democratic Senate candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $923,000 from donors of $200 or less, 12.2 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $1,450,000 from donors of $200 or less, 17.2 percent of the average total from individuals.
GOP Senate candidates - average per candidate
2010 general election: $1,600,000 from donors of $200 or less, 16.3 percent of the average total from individuals.
2014 general election: $508,275 from donors of $200 or less, 8.1 percent of the average total from individuals.
The numbers are very clear.
House and Senate Republicans got significantly less from small donors this mid-term cycle.
House Democrats got less from small donors and (seemingly a lot) less from large donors.
Senate Democrats got a lot more from small donors.
You can't draw any clear line between these numbers and what voters think of MAYDAY PAC, but it does seem to show that small donors (aka the average voter) were significantly less interested in supporting the winners this election cycle.
And to me, regardless of what anyone thinks about Lessig's efforts, this suggests the general public's speech is getting overridden by the kind of campaign spending which Lessig and others would like to stamp out.
On top of this, their support for a constitutional amendment that would allow congress to restrict speech, makes them a contemptible organization.
I searched around a bit and this is what I found:
Our plan for reform has four stages:
3. In 2017, we will then press to get Congress to pass, and the President to sign, legislation that fundamentally reforms the way elections are funded.
4. After a Congress has been elected under this new system, we will push for whatever constitutional reform is necessary to secure the gains from this reform.
Is there some non-campaign finance related restrictions on speech that they're endorsing?
If so, I'm not aware of it and I'd like to know more.
We need to do several things to be truly energy independent:
5. Build pipelines to transport oil cheaply (XL Pipeline needs to happen, Canada is a huge ally and trust worthy)
http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markey-presses-transcanada-to-bar-exports-of-keystone-xl-oil-refined-products
Previously, then-Representative Markey challenged TransCanada on this question at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on December 2, 2011. There he asked Alexander Pourbaix, TransCanada's President of Energy and Oil Pipelines, whether he would commit to including a requirement in TransCanada's long-term contracts with Gulf Coast refineries, as a condition of shipping, that all refined fuels produced from oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline be sold in the United States. In response, Mr. Pourbaix stated "no, I can't do that."
Here's the clip from the hearing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucRPHJtvGU&t=2m55s
It's a bit painful to watch TransCanada's President of Energy and Oil Pipelines get beaten up for his ridiculous claims until he's finally forced to say that he won't make any legally enforceable commitment to improving the USA's energy independence.
b) adapt to the changes, encourage as many people as possible to survive through prosperity or
survive through prosperity... I need this explained to me.
There seem to be so many implicit assumptions being made and i'd hate to put words in anyone's mouth.
Worth mentioning, there's a difference between asserting it will all be video, and preparing your infrastructure for that possibility.
I tracked down the webcast and the question is asked ~34 minutes in.
Here's what he actually said, beyond the snippet being quoted everywhere
5 years ago, most of facebook was text and if you fast forward 5 years, probably most of it is going to be video, just because it's getting easier to capture video of the moments of your lives and share it [...]
He then talks about the news feed ranking your stories.
Every day there are about 1,500 stories that are shared with you and the average person will only look at about 100 a day, because that's all you have time for
In 5 years, if everything on facebook is video, the average person is sure as hell not going to have time to interact with 100 videos per day.
Unless they copy Vine, a richer video experience on facebook will necessarily mean that you interact with less people per unit of time.
That anyone thinks video will be all we consume in 5 years.... how awful.
Note that the story says this is only about non-U.S. earning.
If you RTFA, there's only one of three possibilities:
1. US assets were under priced in order to keep income out of the US.
2. European assets were over priced in order to shift income to a lower tax EU jurisdiction.
3. All of the Above
The correct answer is 3 and this story is not about US earnings, because those articles have already been written.
Special Report: Amazon's billion-dollar tax shield
Dec 6, 2012
Amazon disclosed in October 2011 that the IRS wanted $1.5 billion in unpaid taxes. It has declined to say exactly what transactions the charge relates to but said it was linked to "transfer pricing with our foreign subsidiaries" over a seven-year period from 2005.
Who knows why the EU didn't bother to aggressively investigate until now.
The broad outlines were laid out years ago.
It worked like this: Amazon Europe paid 105 million EU to Amazon Technologies Inc in Nevada to license the rights to Amazon's intellectual property -- the patents and software for the websites, including that button that buys a book with one click.
Amazon Europe onsold the rights to use this intellectual property to Amazon EU for 519 million EU -- five times what it had paid the US company. Amazon Europe made an instant profit of 414 million EU, which would have been taxable, except that Amazon Europe is a limited partnership. It doesn't pay tax in Luxembourg.
Normally this would be called "transfer pricing" and considered "tax avoidance."
Transfer pricing involves a company selling [stuff] to its subsidiaries at market cost.
Tax avoidance involves completely legal maneuvers to minimize your tax exposure.
There are international norms for transfer pricing.
No way in hell is re-licensing some IP for a 400% profit going to pass muster.
Most likely, they'll have to restate some earnings and negotiate the size of their fine.
Over the last few years, there have been various hearings in the USA and internationally over transfer pricing.
It's on the radar of western governments and they're not very happy with the practice.
The most recent case I can think of was against Caterpillar.
They settled for peanuts on $2.4 billion in transferred profits.
If you have FDA regs, liability insurance, and lawyers all of a sudden it's $100k.
Nope
(a) Identification. An external limb prosthetic component is a device intended for medical purposes that, when put together with other appropriate components, constitutes a total prosthesis. Examples of external limb prosthetic components include the following: Ankle, foot, hip, knee, and socket components; mechanical or powered hand, hook, wrist unit, elbow joint, and shoulder joint components; and cable and prosthesis suction valves.
(b) Classification. Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in 890.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of 820.180, regarding general requirements concerning records and 820.198, regarding complaint files.
I even linked all the cited sections if you want to read a bunch of dense legalese that in no way supports your claim that FDA regs are the reason for expensive prosthetics.
If hemp is so great, then why is interest in it so relatively low in the many other industrialized countries around the world where industrial hemp has always been legal and easy to grow, even state-subdizied?
It's a chicken and egg problem.
There isn't much hemp cultivation, so nobody is designing purpose built harvesting machinery.
And since there isn't any purpose built harvesting machinery, it's much harder to grow hemp on a large scale.
There's also a reality that even though hemp can be used in just about everything, it's not always the best (or currently the cheapest) option.
This could change if hemp harvesting and processing ever catches up on the decades of R&D that synthetics and cotton have received.
Foisting your politics on your customers, eh?
What makes you think this is about politics and not just business?
Also, this not only applies to terrorists. It also applies to child molesters, please think of the children.
I found the original article
The web is a terrorist's command-and-control network of choice
I understand why [the private sector] have an uneasy relationship with governments. They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics. But increasingly their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism.
Yup, he rings that bell.
To those of us who have to tackle the depressing end of human behaviour on the internet, it can seem that some technology companies are in denial about its misuse. I suspect most ordinary users of the internet are ahead of them: they have strong views on the ethics of companies, whether on taxation, child protection or privacy; they do not want the media platforms they use with their friends and families to facilitate murder or child abuse.
Three times in total.
Well, if the peak (judging from the last sentence of the summary) is 6w, that is easily in the power envelope of USB. (6w = 5v@1.1a) so, all they mean is a larger Passive cooler. You probably don't need a Heat-sink-fan unit until about 10-15w
There might not be much room for overclocking, since we know Intel has been having lots of trouble with their 14nm yields.
It's possible that they're rolling out low power dual core chips because that's all they can produce in any significant volume.
That's right! Vote the republicans back in! That'll work. And then, when you get pissed off with the republicans again, you can vote for... wait for it... democrats!
When times are bad, the incumbents get voted out.
Whether the position remains within the same political party tends to vary based on structural factors like gerrymandering.
The GP basically described an FBI investigation.
Except, the FBI exists in a world where we ban the unregulated sale of things like anthrax, plastic explosives, rocket launchers, children, dual purpose precursor chemicals, radioisotopes, and a million other things.
Rhode Island is neither a road nor an island. Discuss.
The original Rhode Island settlers (kicked out of Massachusetts because of their religious beliefs) settled on an island that is now called Aquidneck Island.
It's true that Police, and usually Fire, services are included in your tax bill (directly or perhaps indirectly if you're a renter for example). However, these are not easily "metered" utility services.
Most directly, many municipalities will fine you for making more than X frivolous 911 calls in Y period of time.
They may even officially stop responding to calls from that address.
In extreme cases, you can get prosecuted.
Phantom calls (hang ups, butt dials, etc) have also caused police forces set policies for (aka meter) which 911 calls they will respond to.
311 centers are also another way of metering access to the police, by diverting non-emergency calls to a lower priority queue.
Your usage of police services is metered, it's just not very well known and, depending on availability of police policies, not very transparent to the public.
If changing the time by one hour gives you a heart attack then you were really a time bomb to begin with.
Spring DST has also been found to cause statistically relevant increases in suicide, car accidents, and accidental injury.
And with a population of 350+ million, 1 in a million events happen with alarming regularity.
So yea, there are plenty of people with ticking time bombs waiting to go off in their chests.
The extra stress of mild sleep deprivation is more than enough to set them off.