It's much better to use whatever comes with your distro.
Which Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive clients in the Debian or Ubuntu repository are any good?
Dolphin (and other KDE applications) works well with Google Drive. There's a KIO slave for OneDrive here, but I haven't used it, nor do I know which distributions include it in their main repositories.
Between Google, Microsoft, and Apple, it's easy to find alternatives that offer free tiers with more storage
Among these three, how many offer a GNU/Linux client? Or are GNU/Linux users instead expected to either A. lease a VPS on which to run NextCloud or B. pay the ISP to upgrade to a plan that allows forwarding ports and leave a PC at home turned on all the time?
I don't know if Google has a separate storage system besides Google Drive, but KDE's Dolphin file manager supports Google Drive.
Serious Question.
I still don't understand Net Neutrality.
The goal of Network Neutrality is to prevent ISPs from abusing their monopoly position in the ISP market to affect other markets, such as movie/television content.
Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?
No, unless you mean ISPs blocking certain legal websites. YouTube and Facebook are not ISPs, and anyone that gets kicked off YouTube or Facebook is free to use some other similar service.
Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?
No, the part of the packet that can't be used for prioritization is the source/destination address, whichever is the remote end. Quality of Service is still allowed for prioritizing packets that require lower latency in order to function correctly. ISPs can prioritize VoIP over BitTorrent, but they can't prioritize VoIP packets to the ISP's service over VoIP packets to Google.
Does it mean that companies cannot come to agreements with content providers? After all if TMobile give free data access to Netflix it is promoting that company above Hulu.
There's some debate on this point, but by the strictest definition, yes, agreements that make e.g. Netflix's data not count towards your data cap would be prohibited. Such an agreement would result in the ISP degrading Hulu's performance in a way that it doesn't do so for Netflix, which would be using their position in the ISP market to influence the video streaming market. Something like your ISP paying for your Netflix service is also debatable; obviously it's favoring a certain video provider, but other video providers would still work equally well. It's also less of an issue when the "free" video streaming company is completely separate from the ISP, because it isn't as clear a case of monopoly abuse for the benefit of the abuser.
But the ban only applies to the federal government. It would be difficult to argue that the clause restricts state or local governments.
It would be trivially easy to argue that it restricts state and local governments. The Supreme Court has repeated ruled that protections in the Constitution apply to the states as well as the federal government. They just reaffirmed this last week (9-0 decision that the 8th Amendment applies to the states).
No, tax rates don't have to be the same for everyone, but it is unconstitutional to have laws that include exceptions for specific, named people or companies. Instead, you get tax deductions added to the laws that have bizarre criteria; technically, any company can get the tax deduction if they qualify, but in reality, there's only one company that can meet the criteria.
Annually, about 20% of flu deaths in otherwise healthy children (so kids without other conditions that would make them particularly vulnerable) in the US are children who were properly vaccinated.
This isn't quite the same issue. The more common reason that people get influenza after being vaccinated is that there is no single influenza virus. Each year, the flu shot includes the strains that medical professionals predict to be the most common, and it's very difficult to get that prediction correct.
So you have to also include the question of how many of those 20% died from an influenza strain that was part of the vaccine that year. It's almost certainly greater than zero since, as you said, no vaccine is guaranteed effective, but it's probably less than all of them.
A state cannot set regulations that are less strict
Two words: "sanctuary state".
If you're talking about enforcing immigration law, that isn't an issue of setting regulations, but an issue of local and state law enforcement being required to enforce federal law, which the US Supreme Court has already ruled is unconstitutional.
California's state legislature regularly passes laws regarding pollutants, so do several others. This "apparently unaware" dig is just a form of ad hominem attack.
States can set regulations that are stricter than the federal regulations, because complying with the states' regulations necessarily means that you are also complying with the federal regulations. A state cannot set regulations that are less strict, since you could be complying with the state's regulations but still be violating the federal regulations.
Same with pollution that can be reasonably shown to have either no interstate transmission or its interstate transmission does not meaningful damage to people, property or commerce.
Because it's well known that air pollution is very careful to never cross state borders. Stupid scientists.
Raise capital gains taxes. Phase out corporate tax exemptions for companies earning more than 100M annually or add a business version of the alternative minimum tax. Make our tax system fair.
I've started suggesting the following ideas to try to make the tax system more fair:
1. Eliminate all taxes on corporate profit
2. Increase taxes on individuals who receive shares of corporate profits to compensate (along with increasing the tax rate on the highest regular incomes, as necessary)
3. Close loopholes that allow executives/managers to avoid taxes by using company-owned property in lieu of regular wages
Maybe if corporations don't pay taxes, we can get closer to overturning the stupid idea that corporations are people.
Perhaps, but if they were "paying" taxes to the government, they'd just raise the price on their products and services by an appropriate amount until their profit margins were once again where they wanted them to be.
If they could raise prices without losing customers, they would have done so already. Why would Amazon settle for a 20% profit margin when they could have a 25%* profit margin instead?
In an enlightened society, businesses that need supervision would be licensed by a non-profit, consumer supported organization free of corrupt government influence. Underwriters Laboratories used to be such an organization but lately their endorsement doesn't seem to mean much.
In other words, leaving it up to "a non-profit, consumer supported organization free of corrupt government influence" ends up not working?
I took that as a general concept for other stuff of the same type. You know, vitamins, supplements, pills and cremes and everything else that claims to have some effect on your body. If you can get it outside a pharmacy, it probably does nothing you couldn't do yourself with the equivalent of a damp towel.
Be careful of getting too broad. Vitamin supplements are perfectly fine for dealing with conditions that are known to be caused by vitamin deficiencies. Someone claiming that a vitamin supplement will cure cancer is full of shit, while your doctor telling you to take a Vitamin C supplement in order to cure scurvy is giving you correct medical advice.
Are you asking about the exact process and procedure? It's probably the same as enforcement of regulations by any federal agency. Like other federal departments, Health and Human Services has Administrative Law Judges, who can issue rulings regarding federal regulations. If a company ignores a ruling from an ALJ, it's probably treated the same as any other contempt of court.
Are you suggesting that there are fewer than three misogynists total in all sales departments or warehouses? The point wasn't that no tech workers are misogynistic (good luck finding zero anything in any large group of people), only that a smaller percentage of them are.
I think you're viewing restitution too narrowly to limit it to material/financial interests, as recompense can take many forms. How do you feel about forcing a perpetrator apologize publicly? I feel like that's part and parcel to making the victim 'whole' via an acknowledgement of the crime against them, though forced public shaming would fall under the 'revenge' banner as well.
1. reparation made by giving an equivalent or compensation for loss, damage, or injury caused; indemnification.
2. the restoration of property or rights previously taken away, conveyed, or surrendered.
3. restoration to the former or original state or position.
1) returning to the proper owner property or the monetary value of loss. Sometimes restitution is made part of a judgment in negligence and/or contracts cases.
2) in criminal cases, one of the penalties imposed is requiring return of stolen goods to the victim or payment to the victim for harm caused. Restitution may be a condition of granting a defendant probation or giving him/her a shorter sentence than normal.
A public statement would only be (partial) restitution if it reverses damage caused by the crime, such as defamation. Publicly apologizing for stealing someone's money doesn't return the victim's money.
Slashdot Mirror
And this conclusion is based on what, exactly?
Is there any science at all that indicates they're unsafe? Or is it just that word "cigarette" that makes them unsafe?
You're still inhaling smoke, which is never good for your lungs. Typical users are also still getting a dose of nicotine.
As the parent poster said, though, e-cigarettes are still much less dangerous than regular cigarettes.
So the flavored vodkas and other candy flavored booze should be immediately removed from the shelves so no one of legal age can enjoy them?
Yes.
Oh, you were talking about marketing and targeting minors. Never mind then.
It's much better to use whatever comes with your distro.
Which Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive clients in the Debian or Ubuntu repository are any good?
Dolphin (and other KDE applications) works well with Google Drive. There's a KIO slave for OneDrive here, but I haven't used it, nor do I know which distributions include it in their main repositories.
Between Google, Microsoft, and Apple, it's easy to find alternatives that offer free tiers with more storage
Among these three, how many offer a GNU/Linux client? Or are GNU/Linux users instead expected to either A. lease a VPS on which to run NextCloud or B. pay the ISP to upgrade to a plan that allows forwarding ports and leave a PC at home turned on all the time?
I don't know if Google has a separate storage system besides Google Drive, but KDE's Dolphin file manager supports Google Drive.
Serious Question. I still don't understand Net Neutrality.
The goal of Network Neutrality is to prevent ISPs from abusing their monopoly position in the ISP market to affect other markets, such as movie/television content.
Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?
No, unless you mean ISPs blocking certain legal websites. YouTube and Facebook are not ISPs, and anyone that gets kicked off YouTube or Facebook is free to use some other similar service.
Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?
No, the part of the packet that can't be used for prioritization is the source/destination address, whichever is the remote end. Quality of Service is still allowed for prioritizing packets that require lower latency in order to function correctly. ISPs can prioritize VoIP over BitTorrent, but they can't prioritize VoIP packets to the ISP's service over VoIP packets to Google.
Does it mean that companies cannot come to agreements with content providers? After all if TMobile give free data access to Netflix it is promoting that company above Hulu.
There's some debate on this point, but by the strictest definition, yes, agreements that make e.g. Netflix's data not count towards your data cap would be prohibited. Such an agreement would result in the ISP degrading Hulu's performance in a way that it doesn't do so for Netflix, which would be using their position in the ISP market to influence the video streaming market. Something like your ISP paying for your Netflix service is also debatable; obviously it's favoring a certain video provider, but other video providers would still work equally well. It's also less of an issue when the "free" video streaming company is completely separate from the ISP, because it isn't as clear a case of monopoly abuse for the benefit of the abuser.
But the ban only applies to the federal government. It would be difficult to argue that the clause restricts state or local governments.
It would be trivially easy to argue that it restricts state and local governments. The Supreme Court has repeated ruled that protections in the Constitution apply to the states as well as the federal government. They just reaffirmed this last week (9-0 decision that the 8th Amendment applies to the states).
No, tax rates don't have to be the same for everyone, but it is unconstitutional to have laws that include exceptions for specific, named people or companies. Instead, you get tax deductions added to the laws that have bizarre criteria; technically, any company can get the tax deduction if they qualify, but in reality, there's only one company that can meet the criteria.
If we are going to incarcerate people for incompetence, we are going to need a lot more prisons.
We do incarcerate people for incompetence. It's called negligent homicide.
Thanks for clarifying that.
When their kids start dying, maybe they'll get a Clue.
And when your kid that can't be vaccinated dies, you'll just shrug your shoulders and hope they got a Clue?
Those 355 individuals can now never have a driver's license, or a normal job.
Would they be better off if they were dead?
Annually, about 20% of flu deaths in otherwise healthy children (so kids without other conditions that would make them particularly vulnerable) in the US are children who were properly vaccinated.
This isn't quite the same issue. The more common reason that people get influenza after being vaccinated is that there is no single influenza virus. Each year, the flu shot includes the strains that medical professionals predict to be the most common, and it's very difficult to get that prediction correct.
So you have to also include the question of how many of those 20% died from an influenza strain that was part of the vaccine that year. It's almost certainly greater than zero since, as you said, no vaccine is guaranteed effective, but it's probably less than all of them.
just in trying to tie Pai's decisions to Obama which is entirely indigenous.
FYI, I think the word you were looking for there is "disingenuous".
A state cannot set regulations that are less strict
Two words: "sanctuary state".
If you're talking about enforcing immigration law, that isn't an issue of setting regulations, but an issue of local and state law enforcement being required to enforce federal law, which the US Supreme Court has already ruled is unconstitutional.
I suspect the prevailing winds most of the year are South to North. So any pollution they generate goes to Canada.
Wouldn't crossing an international border make it even more clearly a federal issue?
California's state legislature regularly passes laws regarding pollutants, so do several others. This "apparently unaware" dig is just a form of ad hominem attack.
States can set regulations that are stricter than the federal regulations, because complying with the states' regulations necessarily means that you are also complying with the federal regulations. A state cannot set regulations that are less strict, since you could be complying with the state's regulations but still be violating the federal regulations.
Same with pollution that can be reasonably shown to have either no interstate transmission or its interstate transmission does not meaningful damage to people, property or commerce.
Because it's well known that air pollution is very careful to never cross state borders. Stupid scientists.
Feel free to go ahead and develop your own internet, then.
But this one already has blackjack and hookers, so what's the point?
Raise capital gains taxes. Phase out corporate tax exemptions for companies earning more than 100M annually or add a business version of the alternative minimum tax. Make our tax system fair.
I've started suggesting the following ideas to try to make the tax system more fair:
Maybe if corporations don't pay taxes, we can get closer to overturning the stupid idea that corporations are people.
Perhaps, but if they were "paying" taxes to the government, they'd just raise the price on their products and services by an appropriate amount until their profit margins were once again where they wanted them to be.
If they could raise prices without losing customers, they would have done so already. Why would Amazon settle for a 20% profit margin when they could have a 25%* profit margin instead?
* Numbers invented to illustrate the point
In an enlightened society, businesses that need supervision would be licensed by a non-profit, consumer supported organization free of corrupt government influence. Underwriters Laboratories used to be such an organization but lately their endorsement doesn't seem to mean much.
In other words, leaving it up to "a non-profit, consumer supported organization free of corrupt government influence" ends up not working?
I took that as a general concept for other stuff of the same type. You know, vitamins, supplements, pills and cremes and everything else that claims to have some effect on your body. If you can get it outside a pharmacy, it probably does nothing you couldn't do yourself with the equivalent of a damp towel.
Be careful of getting too broad. Vitamin supplements are perfectly fine for dealing with conditions that are known to be caused by vitamin deficiencies. Someone claiming that a vitamin supplement will cure cancer is full of shit, while your doctor telling you to take a Vitamin C supplement in order to cure scurvy is giving you correct medical advice.
Shut down how, exactly?
Are you asking about the exact process and procedure? It's probably the same as enforcement of regulations by any federal agency. Like other federal departments, Health and Human Services has Administrative Law Judges, who can issue rulings regarding federal regulations. If a company ignores a ruling from an ALJ, it's probably treated the same as any other contempt of court.
Are you suggesting that there are fewer than three misogynists total in all sales departments or warehouses? The point wasn't that no tech workers are misogynistic (good luck finding zero anything in any large group of people), only that a smaller percentage of them are.
I think you're viewing restitution too narrowly to limit it to material/financial interests, as recompense can take many forms. How do you feel about forcing a perpetrator apologize publicly? I feel like that's part and parcel to making the victim 'whole' via an acknowledgement of the crime against them, though forced public shaming would fall under the 'revenge' banner as well.
I'm going by the dictionary definition:
1. reparation made by giving an equivalent or compensation for loss, damage, or injury caused; indemnification.
2. the restoration of property or rights previously taken away, conveyed, or surrendered.
3. restoration to the former or original state or position.
Or if you prefer a legal definition:
1) returning to the proper owner property or the monetary value of loss. Sometimes restitution is made part of a judgment in negligence and/or contracts cases.
2) in criminal cases, one of the penalties imposed is requiring return of stolen goods to the victim or payment to the victim for harm caused. Restitution may be a condition of granting a defendant probation or giving him/her a shorter sentence than normal.
A public statement would only be (partial) restitution if it reverses damage caused by the crime, such as defamation. Publicly apologizing for stealing someone's money doesn't return the victim's money.