If Facebook does this it would have to be highly regulated to protect people. If my company did this, I would not accept the housing. Can I get my annual raise? Sorry, rent control means we can't raise housing costs as much as we'd like so no raise. I quit! You are also homeless. I'm fired? You are also homeless. Here is my letter of resignation, effective in two weeks as expected. You are homeless as of right now, but good luck to you.
Considering there is no regulation and no discussion of such, this won't end up well for people in that housing. It's not like we have not seen this same scenario play out in the past right? I'm sure this Utopia will work out, really..
Anyone disagreeing with UBI takes a Karma hit. The fact that you can't read history does not mean I need to provide citations. Citations don't matter to idealoges who want to promote their religion of communism. Facts, like economists and history, result in being karma hit as a troll or posting flamebait. This is even though the proponents of UBI provide nothing except "Elon Musk says." or "Mark Zuckerberg says" as their great citations.
UBI isn't debated here because one side of the argument is punished for discussion.
"Bailing" is not a thing, personal responsibility and accountability are things. "Bailing" is a symptom. Computers have made us less accountable for our acts, and less responsible. The only aspect I would say is "new", is that these traits are promoted as good and righteous. Not by everyone, but have you ever "worked" in Silicon Valley? Have you ever attempted to debate UBI on this site?
In the Military we called it slacking, and if you are a slacker in one area you will be a slacker in another. Basic human nature and psychology.
Slackers have always been around. The only difference between today and 50 years ago is that slackers are being promoted as the new "norm".
Who doesn't have a point? Now it's censoring a news source? Was the 20 second animated GIF an ansi-bomb that took out CNN? Good grief, you admit that he took down information _AFTER_ CNN started to contact him. You don't even bother to deny that he could have done so over fear and go right to the reductio ad absurdem!
So if CNN started sending you emails stating that they wanted to talk to you about a "damaging" video, you would not start to worry about how they would spin anything you ever wrote or posted? Anyone without a PR firm, attorneys, etc.. would be concerned and fearful of what was coming.
I have not seen the correspondence attempting to initiate contact, but neither have you (at the time of this post).
Lies, beget lies, which beget lies. CNN was so outraged that they hunted down a person of no importance simply because they wanted to punish them for a GIF they didn't like. People who follow CNN feigned moral outrage with them. The few watchers of CNN foolish enough to keep them on a pedestal were outraged on behalf of CNN hearing only the side CNN presented. CNN ratings, which were already low have dropped even lower. If not for deals with airports, they would have far far lower ratings.
Extortion, and specifically blackmail, is law and can be found relatively easily. Ted Cruz was the first, but not the only, person to publish the laws and statutes. You are simply denying facts.
As I said several times on this topic (perhaps different threads) the only question is whether or not someone would have balls enough to prosecute the correct people at CNN for the extortion. Based on law, if the case made it to a Jury there is a high probability that they would be found guilty of at least 2nd degree criminal extortion. Especially true in NY and GA, but not limited to those jurisdictions. Those two are viewed in particular because CNN has a HQ in Atlanta GA and business offices in NYC.
Your post reads like a shill, but on the off chance you are simply ignorant..
Coming from Texas where there's not a whole lot of federal government representation (outside of the federal court system)
If you are really from Texas you have much more than just courts. DEA, ICE, FBI, and shit tons of military. I served in the US Army and spent most of my permanent duty station in Texas.
it always stuns me to hear this great hatred of the federal government
Expressing distrust in the accumulated powers is not "hatred". The Federal Government has a purpose, and is restricted in its purpose by Law. The name for that Law is the US Constitution.
and I've not understood why a "power grab" that is represented as better health care for everyone.
Well, then you don't even bother to try. The only way to pay for "health care for everyone" is to take money from those of us who already pay into the system. More than 50% of my income goes to taxes, 28% of which is Federal (not including extra Federal like SS, Medicaid, etc...) I don't make enough money to have shit tons of write offs like a millionaire, but like most Middle class people can't get very far ahead because of taxes. The claim that this money all comes from the top 1% is simply bullshit, because there are not enough of those people to pay the budget. In fact, we are 20Trillion dollars in debt even with all of the billionaires, millionaires, and people like me who pay taxes.
Is this a states' rights issue or who exactly are they stealing power from, and why are you so opposed to it?
With even cursory knowledge of the US Constitution you would understand that any power not expressly defined for the Federal Government is a State issue. If NY wants to overtly tax people and give their money away, that is their power. What would happen is what we see happening already, where people from NY and CA are moving to States who don't tax the shit out of them to redistribute their income.
So when CA and NY go broke (I can't say much about NY but CA is already broke and will be bankrupt in 5 years by the best estimates) people will vote in new leadership who will change the laws and make taxes fair.
Perhaps you have heard the phrase "No taxation without representation!", but then again you could be a product of public schools. Time to do some homework.
In the US, truly good hackers are generally given limited sentences as long as they promise to work for the government and not break the law in the future. I'm guessing that Russia has a similar policy.
A 2 year sentence for that type of crime is relatively light. In the US, the minimum sentence is 5 years _per_ criminal act (which does a good job of explaining the Aaron Schwartz suicide.) As with government employment, I'm guessing Russia would have similar sentencing.
Flagrantly false equivalency. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox SNL writers, comedians, and staff for writing skits. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox writers, comedians, or staff for writing new skits.
The outrage here has nothing to do with the "comedy", it is all about the reaction of CNN staff who by their own admission blackmailed a person because CNN didn't like the comedy.
If this was Fox threatening a person for creating a 20 second meme, my reaction would be the same. I am extremely doubtful that you would say the same thing.
Rand is just one of numerous Philosophers who believed that the individual is more important than the State. Natural Law predates the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution by thousands of years. Socrates, Cicero, Luther, Locke, much later Rand, and countless others in between.
Many of the ideas like UBI sound like new Utopian ideas, but they are regressive. Same stuff we see from Hegel, Marx, and others who promote a State over the individual.
The US is known as the great experiment because it was the first nation to promote the individual over the Government, not the Government over the individual. The Government being untrustworthy if given too much power has been played out over and over since, and it never works out well for the individual.
GP is correct, there is a difference between two schools of thought in Philosophy. It is very distinct. By your own statement, somehow marked informative, your answer is "That's a simplistic, Carl Marx view of the world that a 13 year old would have. Life ain't that simple, kiddo."
Oh how the masters would love to have complete power to take money from some and give to others under the guise of "helping" society. Seems quite strange that the people promoting these policies are consistently the richest people in the world doesn't it? Would Gates, Zuckerberg, and Musk be worth many tens of billions by themselves if they were so worried about the poor lowly commoner? Think very hard about that answer.
SNL makes fun of the President, first lady, his staff, his staff, and all the people that support him. By name, individually. They do so with mocking, satire, and people doctored up with makeup and lights.
Guy makes a GIF based on 20 year old footage, and it's moral outrage from those same people.
F&*king hypocritical don't ya think? Of course not, that doesn't fit the agenda you were fed.
While it's true that we all have the right to record and expose conversation, we don't have the right to threaten people _not_ to release that information to get what we want.
Perhaps redundant, but for clarity: If I record you saying "those N words drive me crazy!" I can surely release that to the public and expose you and your statement. I can not however threaten to release that information unless you do something I wish.
TV lawyers often interpret blackmail as a for cash or property issue, which it is not. A much more nefarious use of blackmail is to change someone's behavior. Journalist investigating someone, someone investigates journalist and finds dirt, uses that dirt to get the journalist to drop the investigation. Police investigating someone, someone investigates an officer and finds dirt, uses dirt to get the police to drop the case. Politician discusses putting forth a law or regulation that someone dislikes, person digs up dirt, uses dirt to get the politician to drop the law or regulation.
Surely the statutes differ from State to State, but CNN in this case has vocalized and written the case for a prosecutor. They openly admit that revealing the author of the GIF's name would expose them to harm. They then stated that they reserve the right to expose the name if the person does something they feel goes against the apology.
The only part that is circumstantial is whether or not CNN coerced the apology from the person. Given the time line and rhetoric from CNN, a jury may likely side against CNN.
FWIW, I am not a lawyer. I can read, and do study law and opinion, but that does not make me a lawyer. I have heard numerous legal opinions over the last 2 days which at least give the basis for a case.
The real cure for your ignorance would be to read.
Extortion Statutes
Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. (last emphasis mine)
Obama didn't get resistance because of who proposed it, he received resistance because this is, and was, a massive government power grab which is unconstitutional.
I realize it's easy to get lost in the MSM rhetoric where both sides are progressives, but that is _STILL_ the issue.
Society and the Government can surely have some responsibility for helping those in need, but the ACA and it's proposals coming after that are not about helping those in need. It's about removing control from those who pay into the system as a method of wealth distribution.
If all you hear is the same old crap, try finding some different sources for the debate. MSM is not honest, and has no interest in promoting Constitutional arguments!
Let me quote some basics, but first chastise you for not performing even a cursory glance at the law and opinions expressed by legal experts. One source of thousands possible.
Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of
See item 3.
Extortion is a felony in all states. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing and damaging information to family, friends, or the public. Inherent in this common form of extortion is the threat to expose the details of someone's private lives to the public unless money is exchanged.
This matches my assertion exactly.
Another common extortion crime is offering "protection" to a businessman to keep his business safe from burglary or vandalism. For example, Dan goes to Victor's place of business and demands monthly payment from Victor for the business's "protection" from vandalism and after-hours theft. Fearing that he or his business will suffer harm otherwise, Victor agrees to pay Dan.
This exactly matches my assertion as well.
Extortion can take place over the telephone, via mail, text, email or other computer or wireless communication. If any method of interstate commerce is used in the extortion, it can be a federal crime.
They published their threat on-line in numerous places for public display.
IANAL, but that does not mean one needs to be to understand the Law. On a legal level it does meet the criteria for extortion. The agency responsible for extortion threatened to release this persons identity and information which they know (and admit) would cause them financial harm, as well as pose serious risks to their person. The criminal actors openly admit that their threat is to prevent a behavior they dislike, which in this case is suppressing a persons right to speak freely as guaranteed by the US Constitution..
The bigger question is, is there an honest prosecutor and just to take and hear the case. This is a bigger problem in an overtly corrupt Government.
SNL and Alex Baldwin commit Slander every Saturday. But then again, I'm guessing you didn't bother to consider your asinine logic before typing. Is that you Socky?
This is extortion, plain and simple. The people making the threats should be charged for extortion. The people pushing the story line and maintaining employment of criminal actors should be charged with conspiracy. The victim of this extortion should sue the parent company for a tremendous amount of damages, and win considering this company is sponsoring extortionists who are openly violating the individual's liberties.
I say this fully realizing that what should happen by law does not always happen.
CNN has been spreading lies and propaganda since at least the first Gulf war. This is one arm of the US Pravda I have no problem watching burn down.
Uber operates in our society under our rules at our pleasure. We get to decide what its obligations are regarding things like tax, safety and disabled users.
If they disagree that's fine, they can fuck off and stop using our roads. I'm sure the market will build some for them.
We (Society) did give them money and allow the to operate. Society sanctioned them without issue. YOU on the other hand differ from society and wish to have control over other people, or give that control to people YOU like and who YOU believe acts in YOUR interests, not caring if Society benefits at all.
You are an authoritarian, and promote authoritarianism. The US is not supposed to be such a system, and by our Constitution should protect Society from people like you. If you enjoy authoritarianism so much, GTFO and live in one!
It really gets tiresome repeating facts to the ignorant and shills who refuse to work with those facts.
When 90% of a the people following a particular Religion are not impacted by the travel moratorium, it is not "xenophobic" policy. Making such a claim is lazily disingenuous. "You are a racist" is not an argument. Even if it were true, the policy being debated may not be. It is failed logic called a fallacy.
Considering that the countries impacted are all either failed states or have governments who support terrorists and terrorist organizations, the policy purpose is obviously to address potential terrorism. While we may be able to argue the actual risks involved, you make that impossible with "more" ad hominem based on failed logic. "You are a racist and homophobe" is not an argument.
Lastly, Countries _ARE_ REQUIRED to control their borders. This is a well known fact and every single nation on Earth does exactly that, because without doing so you have no country. (See Tibet for an example). More lazy arguments based on faulty logic won't make that untrue. More ad homimen (you are a racist, homophobe, misogynist) is still not an argument and is a simply lazy and disingenuous. If you have doubts that countries in fact do need to control their borders, leave all your papers at home and try to enter Mexico, or China, or Russia, or Germany, or any other place you wish. You will be begging for your papers and demanding to see the US embassy in little time. Attempting in fact to rely on the nation that you are attempting to subvert and undermine with your lazy disingenuous arguments!
I understand the law very well, and even better have seen countless acts of fraud ignored by various law enforcement agencies. Various media outlets flat out lie every day repeatedly with little legal action against them. Enron, Solyndra, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton are all easy examples of companies and people breaking the law with little to no accountability for breaking the law.
Understanding "law" and seeing human nature at work are not the same thing.
We have all of these pushes for IoT and voice, but as we just read on/. earlier Intel is laying off a bunch of IoT staff. There is no real growth in voice recognition, we are just moving around people who already use it. Apple's Siri big advancement in the last couple years is adding new voices, not really improving or adding new technology. The work involved is more about data storage, transfer, and compression than "new" technology.
Like VR, it's a niche market and overly hyped for exactly the reasons people dislike it. It's intrusive and can be used for nefarious purposes as well as just being easy.
Slashdot Mirror
If Facebook does this it would have to be highly regulated to protect people. If my company did this, I would not accept the housing. Can I get my annual raise? Sorry, rent control means we can't raise housing costs as much as we'd like so no raise. I quit! You are also homeless. I'm fired? You are also homeless. Here is my letter of resignation, effective in two weeks as expected. You are homeless as of right now, but good luck to you.
Considering there is no regulation and no discussion of such, this won't end up well for people in that housing. It's not like we have not seen this same scenario play out in the past right? I'm sure this Utopia will work out, really..
Anyone disagreeing with UBI takes a Karma hit. The fact that you can't read history does not mean I need to provide citations. Citations don't matter to idealoges who want to promote their religion of communism. Facts, like economists and history, result in being karma hit as a troll or posting flamebait. This is even though the proponents of UBI provide nothing except "Elon Musk says." or "Mark Zuckerberg says" as their great citations.
UBI isn't debated here because one side of the argument is punished for discussion.
"Bailing" is not a thing, personal responsibility and accountability are things. "Bailing" is a symptom. Computers have made us less accountable for our acts, and less responsible. The only aspect I would say is "new", is that these traits are promoted as good and righteous. Not by everyone, but have you ever "worked" in Silicon Valley? Have you ever attempted to debate UBI on this site?
In the Military we called it slacking, and if you are a slacker in one area you will be a slacker in another. Basic human nature and psychology.
Slackers have always been around. The only difference between today and 50 years ago is that slackers are being promoted as the new "norm".
Oooooohhhhhmmmmmm
ps I actually loved Notes specifically because it was so damn secure. Hard and expensive to manage, so the bean counters didn't agree with me.
Who doesn't have a point? Now it's censoring a news source? Was the 20 second animated GIF an ansi-bomb that took out CNN? Good grief, you admit that he took down information _AFTER_ CNN started to contact him. You don't even bother to deny that he could have done so over fear and go right to the reductio ad absurdem!
So if CNN started sending you emails stating that they wanted to talk to you about a "damaging" video, you would not start to worry about how they would spin anything you ever wrote or posted? Anyone without a PR firm, attorneys, etc.. would be concerned and fearful of what was coming.
I have not seen the correspondence attempting to initiate contact, but neither have you (at the time of this post).
Lies, beget lies, which beget lies. CNN was so outraged that they hunted down a person of no importance simply because they wanted to punish them for a GIF they didn't like. People who follow CNN feigned moral outrage with them. The few watchers of CNN foolish enough to keep them on a pedestal were outraged on behalf of CNN hearing only the side CNN presented. CNN ratings, which were already low have dropped even lower. If not for deals with airports, they would have far far lower ratings.
Extortion, and specifically blackmail, is law and can be found relatively easily. Ted Cruz was the first, but not the only, person to publish the laws and statutes. You are simply denying facts.
As I said several times on this topic (perhaps different threads) the only question is whether or not someone would have balls enough to prosecute the correct people at CNN for the extortion. Based on law, if the case made it to a Jury there is a high probability that they would be found guilty of at least 2nd degree criminal extortion. Especially true in NY and GA, but not limited to those jurisdictions. Those two are viewed in particular because CNN has a HQ in Atlanta GA and business offices in NYC.
Your post reads like a shill, but on the off chance you are simply ignorant..
Coming from Texas where there's not a whole lot of federal government representation (outside of the federal court system)
If you are really from Texas you have much more than just courts. DEA, ICE, FBI, and shit tons of military. I served in the US Army and spent most of my permanent duty station in Texas.
it always stuns me to hear this great hatred of the federal government
Expressing distrust in the accumulated powers is not "hatred". The Federal Government has a purpose, and is restricted in its purpose by Law. The name for that Law is the US Constitution.
and I've not understood why a "power grab" that is represented as better health care for everyone.
Well, then you don't even bother to try. The only way to pay for "health care for everyone" is to take money from those of us who already pay into the system. More than 50% of my income goes to taxes, 28% of which is Federal (not including extra Federal like SS, Medicaid, etc...) I don't make enough money to have shit tons of write offs like a millionaire, but like most Middle class people can't get very far ahead because of taxes. The claim that this money all comes from the top 1% is simply bullshit, because there are not enough of those people to pay the budget. In fact, we are 20Trillion dollars in debt even with all of the billionaires, millionaires, and people like me who pay taxes.
Is this a states' rights issue or who exactly are they stealing power from, and why are you so opposed to it?
With even cursory knowledge of the US Constitution you would understand that any power not expressly defined for the Federal Government is a State issue. If NY wants to overtly tax people and give their money away, that is their power. What would happen is what we see happening already, where people from NY and CA are moving to States who don't tax the shit out of them to redistribute their income.
So when CA and NY go broke (I can't say much about NY but CA is already broke and will be bankrupt in 5 years by the best estimates) people will vote in new leadership who will change the laws and make taxes fair.
Perhaps you have heard the phrase "No taxation without representation!", but then again you could be a product of public schools. Time to do some homework.
In the US, truly good hackers are generally given limited sentences as long as they promise to work for the government and not break the law in the future. I'm guessing that Russia has a similar policy.
A 2 year sentence for that type of crime is relatively light. In the US, the minimum sentence is 5 years _per_ criminal act (which does a good job of explaining the Aaron Schwartz suicide.) As with government employment, I'm guessing Russia would have similar sentencing.
Flagrantly false equivalency. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox SNL writers, comedians, and staff for writing skits. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox writers, comedians, or staff for writing new skits.
The outrage here has nothing to do with the "comedy", it is all about the reaction of CNN staff who by their own admission blackmailed a person because CNN didn't like the comedy.
If this was Fox threatening a person for creating a 20 second meme, my reaction would be the same. I am extremely doubtful that you would say the same thing.
Rand is just one of numerous Philosophers who believed that the individual is more important than the State. Natural Law predates the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution by thousands of years. Socrates, Cicero, Luther, Locke, much later Rand, and countless others in between.
Many of the ideas like UBI sound like new Utopian ideas, but they are regressive. Same stuff we see from Hegel, Marx, and others who promote a State over the individual.
The US is known as the great experiment because it was the first nation to promote the individual over the Government, not the Government over the individual. The Government being untrustworthy if given too much power has been played out over and over since, and it never works out well for the individual.
GP is correct, there is a difference between two schools of thought in Philosophy. It is very distinct. By your own statement, somehow marked informative, your answer is "That's a simplistic, Carl Marx view of the world that a 13 year old would have. Life ain't that simple, kiddo."
Oh how the masters would love to have complete power to take money from some and give to others under the guise of "helping" society. Seems quite strange that the people promoting these policies are consistently the richest people in the world doesn't it? Would Gates, Zuckerberg, and Musk be worth many tens of billions by themselves if they were so worried about the poor lowly commoner? Think very hard about that answer.
SNL makes fun of the President, first lady, his staff, his staff, and all the people that support him. By name, individually. They do so with mocking, satire, and people doctored up with makeup and lights.
Guy makes a GIF based on 20 year old footage, and it's moral outrage from those same people.
F&*king hypocritical don't ya think? Of course not, that doesn't fit the agenda you were fed.
While it's true that we all have the right to record and expose conversation, we don't have the right to threaten people _not_ to release that information to get what we want.
Perhaps redundant, but for clarity: If I record you saying "those N words drive me crazy!" I can surely release that to the public and expose you and your statement. I can not however threaten to release that information unless you do something I wish.
TV lawyers often interpret blackmail as a for cash or property issue, which it is not. A much more nefarious use of blackmail is to change someone's behavior. Journalist investigating someone, someone investigates journalist and finds dirt, uses that dirt to get the journalist to drop the investigation. Police investigating someone, someone investigates an officer and finds dirt, uses dirt to get the police to drop the case. Politician discusses putting forth a law or regulation that someone dislikes, person digs up dirt, uses dirt to get the politician to drop the law or regulation.
Surely the statutes differ from State to State, but CNN in this case has vocalized and written the case for a prosecutor. They openly admit that revealing the author of the GIF's name would expose them to harm. They then stated that they reserve the right to expose the name if the person does something they feel goes against the apology.
The only part that is circumstantial is whether or not CNN coerced the apology from the person. Given the time line and rhetoric from CNN, a jury may likely side against CNN.
FWIW, I am not a lawyer. I can read, and do study law and opinion, but that does not make me a lawyer. I have heard numerous legal opinions over the last 2 days which at least give the basis for a case.
The real cure for your ignorance would be to read.
Extortion Statutes
Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. (last emphasis mine)
Obama didn't get resistance because of who proposed it, he received resistance because this is, and was, a massive government power grab which is unconstitutional.
I realize it's easy to get lost in the MSM rhetoric where both sides are progressives, but that is _STILL_ the issue.
Society and the Government can surely have some responsibility for helping those in need, but the ACA and it's proposals coming after that are not about helping those in need. It's about removing control from those who pay into the system as a method of wealth distribution.
If all you hear is the same old crap, try finding some different sources for the debate. MSM is not honest, and has no interest in promoting Constitutional arguments!
Let me quote some basics, but first chastise you for not performing even a cursory glance at the law and opinions expressed by legal experts. One source of thousands possible.
Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of
See item 3.
Extortion is a felony in all states. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing and damaging information to family, friends, or the public. Inherent in this common form of extortion is the threat to expose the details of someone's private lives to the public unless money is exchanged.
This matches my assertion exactly.
Another common extortion crime is offering "protection" to a businessman to keep his business safe from burglary or vandalism. For example, Dan goes to Victor's place of business and demands monthly payment from Victor for the business's "protection" from vandalism and after-hours theft. Fearing that he or his business will suffer harm otherwise, Victor agrees to pay Dan.
This exactly matches my assertion as well.
Extortion can take place over the telephone, via mail, text, email or other computer or wireless communication. If any method of interstate commerce is used in the extortion, it can be a federal crime.
They published their threat on-line in numerous places for public display.
See "John Doe" use in court. Not very difficult at all.
The bigger question is, is there an honest prosecutor and just to take and hear the case. This is a bigger problem in an overtly corrupt Government.
SNL and Alex Baldwin commit Slander every Saturday. But then again, I'm guessing you didn't bother to consider your asinine logic before typing. Is that you Socky?
This is extortion, plain and simple. The people making the threats should be charged for extortion. The people pushing the story line and maintaining employment of criminal actors should be charged with conspiracy. The victim of this extortion should sue the parent company for a tremendous amount of damages, and win considering this company is sponsoring extortionists who are openly violating the individual's liberties.
I say this fully realizing that what should happen by law does not always happen.
CNN has been spreading lies and propaganda since at least the first Gulf war. This is one arm of the US Pravda I have no problem watching burn down.
Uber operates in our society under our rules at our pleasure. We get to decide what its obligations are regarding things like tax, safety and disabled users.
If they disagree that's fine, they can fuck off and stop using our roads. I'm sure the market will build some for them.
We (Society) did give them money and allow the to operate. Society sanctioned them without issue. YOU on the other hand differ from society and wish to have control over other people, or give that control to people YOU like and who YOU believe acts in YOUR interests, not caring if Society benefits at all.
You are an authoritarian, and promote authoritarianism. The US is not supposed to be such a system, and by our Constitution should protect Society from people like you. If you enjoy authoritarianism so much, GTFO and live in one!
So you used the term "xenophobe" and have no idea what it means? Argumentum ad ignorantiam is another type of faulty logic.
It really gets tiresome repeating facts to the ignorant and shills who refuse to work with those facts.
When 90% of a the people following a particular Religion are not impacted by the travel moratorium, it is not "xenophobic" policy. Making such a claim is lazily disingenuous. "You are a racist" is not an argument. Even if it were true, the policy being debated may not be. It is failed logic called a fallacy.
Considering that the countries impacted are all either failed states or have governments who support terrorists and terrorist organizations, the policy purpose is obviously to address potential terrorism. While we may be able to argue the actual risks involved, you make that impossible with "more" ad hominem based on failed logic. "You are a racist and homophobe" is not an argument.
Lastly, Countries _ARE_ REQUIRED to control their borders. This is a well known fact and every single nation on Earth does exactly that, because without doing so you have no country. (See Tibet for an example). More lazy arguments based on faulty logic won't make that untrue. More ad homimen (you are a racist, homophobe, misogynist) is still not an argument and is a simply lazy and disingenuous. If you have doubts that countries in fact do need to control their borders, leave all your papers at home and try to enter Mexico, or China, or Russia, or Germany, or any other place you wish. You will be begging for your papers and demanding to see the US embassy in little time. Attempting in fact to rely on the nation that you are attempting to subvert and undermine with your lazy disingenuous arguments!
I understand the law very well, and even better have seen countless acts of fraud ignored by various law enforcement agencies. Various media outlets flat out lie every day repeatedly with little legal action against them. Enron, Solyndra, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton are all easy examples of companies and people breaking the law with little to no accountability for breaking the law.
Understanding "law" and seeing human nature at work are not the same thing.
We have all of these pushes for IoT and voice, but as we just read on /. earlier Intel is laying off a bunch of IoT staff. There is no real growth in voice recognition, we are just moving around people who already use it. Apple's Siri big advancement in the last couple years is adding new voices, not really improving or adding new technology. The work involved is more about data storage, transfer, and compression than "new" technology.
Like VR, it's a niche market and overly hyped for exactly the reasons people dislike it. It's intrusive and can be used for nefarious purposes as well as just being easy.