0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
Because of the FBI's over-enthusiasm to prosecute Dotcom, news articles on the subject are still front-page material even months after the fact. Thus, in trying to suppress the sharing of information, the FBI increased Dotcom's ability to become a household name as well as public scrutiny on the broader issues of internet and privacy rights. |
I find your comment to be a simplistic view of the business model. Media piracy will never be completely eradicated and will only grow with advancement in time and technology. Bit torrent technology is fascinating to me and I think it has the potential to positively impact the world in a huge way. I agree that giving away your product for free does not seem like a sound way to earn a profit, but free content can certainly make money. I know its not exactly apples to apples here, but Youtube is certainly a profitable business and it does not charge for content.
I don't advocate for people to share copyrighted material without permission, but bit torrent downloads offer a superior level of quality and service for the price than traditonal media outlets. What I mean by this on torrent sites media is available for download before any other outlet, downloads are easy and often fast, there are no restrictions on what you do with the content you download, and you can share with anyone with an internet connection. Of course the best feature of bit torrent downloads is obviously the price, but I believe that if given the opportunity some pirates would pay for their content.
I doubt my rant made any sense, but I see bit torrent technology as the distribution channel of the future and I cannot understand why groups like the RIAA and MPAA have not embraced it. For instance I think its outrageous to pay $10+ to go see a feature film, but if my movie ticket entitled me to a digital copy of the film at the dvd release date, I would most likely be willing to pay what I think is a high price for a ticket. The RIAA and MPAA seem to think that time and technology do not change their industry, but the fact is the film and recording industries must adapt to survive (just like any other business). If one torrent site shuts down, ten others will pop up immediately, so fighting losing battles against copyright infringers will not help copyright holders at all. |
I was just poking fun at the vague statement in the article. "1000% less than what you pay for it" = Negative amounts of money.
For example:
10% less than $500 = $450
50% less than $500 = $250
100% less than $500 = $0
200% less than $500 = - $500
1000% less than $500 = - $4,500
Just building the car makes you an instant $4,500 whether you sell it or not, mathemagically. |
As 3D printing technology develops I think you will be able too. I believe you'll have to print the individual parts, and assemble it yourself (no problem if you're a hands-on car-guy like me) but I think it will get to that point eventually if the copyright industry doenst ban the technology. We cant print metal yet, but I think eventually that may happen, or find a similar process to create metal objects at home. We're in the very early stages of this tech I think, and it's developing quite quickly. |
True, in the UK Liverpool has the biggest cup size with an average of 34E, I'm almost certain most of that is attributable to boob jobs.
Edit: The fat/obesity size Is shown less in the cup size, more in the back size. Going on about cup size is irrelevant and more to do with own personal taste. It just makes anyone look stupid arguing about it being connected to body fat. If a person has a size 32 or 34 back they're slim regardless of the cup size. Anything 38 back size and up is on the large size. You could be morbidly obese and still have a cup size a, b or c.... The back measurement would probably be something in the 40s or 50s though. |
Finally! I'm not the only one frustrated!!!
I own an Alienware m17x R4 and I constantly get the blue screen! They made me run the same check countless times, In addition try sent someone over who made the issue worse!!!
I've wiped my system, installed drivers, replaced the GPU, reinstalled windows, replaced a new HDD, replaced the ram, and all they tell me is that my case is expedited, but still being deliberated!!!
This issue has been happening for three months!! I can't complain to anyone either, I'm getting to ticked too!!! |
A lot will happen in 100 years. Right now, there is a revolution in the way people communicate/take in information and this revolution will continue past the computer and smart phone. Google Glass is the first of a tsunami of innovation. It's hard to imagine what tech will be around 10 years from now, let alone 100. I think there won't be desktops or laptops 50 years from now. They will all fit in your glasses or whatever small device will take over. Personal computers or tablets will be built into your desk and walls in the years ahead. This is the part where Apple and Microsoft both die. Google's Android interface will take hold of this new market. The personal computer came just 30 years ago and look what has happened. The internet came about and revolutionized how people learn and communicate. I have no doubt that google is the best off to ride this wave to wherever the beach is 100 years from now, but I do have some doubt for wikipedia. However, I still think they have a great shot of still being around in 100 years (if google doesn't beat them at their own game later on). Facebook is a different story. They're already falling behind the wave. I am 100% certain that in 100 years, Facebook will be a little blip in a brief history. They are a sucky company and innovation isn't their thing. |
Have you read the official announcement? They didn't get kicked out. There was another incident where someone did get kicked out for using drugs. I am afraid that is getting misreported as the response to this incident. |
Not only that, he was specifically emphasizing the P in P-Programming!
You like water sports, boy? Well, do ya? Urinating on females for sexual pleasure is frowned upon in this classy community! |
The responses to this thread are infinitely more interesting than the story.
In the real world, the one outside our computer monitors, the non-reddit world, the dongle and forking jokes are like pun cascades. They're hilarious for the idiot participants who think they're full of witty, brainy intelligence. To the rest of the class, you're the kid in the back of the room giggling to herself because the word "fart" crossed your mind. Reddit's reaction to the story is super interesting because so many people think idiotic pun threads are funny and can't understand why anyone wouldn't be amused by them.....just like reddit's reaction to dongles and forking and just like these to men's reaction to dongles and forking. But the rest of the class is shaking their heads and tsk-tsking because no, it's not funny, you immature idiot.
Also, old farts on reddit. Stahp. No one cares what you think is sexist. You're not the one feeling offended. It's like a white guy saying the "n word" isn't racist because <insert stupid cop-out here>. You're on the outside looking in so you cannot accurately judge the situation. Shut up. |
I am what most would consider a slightly smaller than average build guy, around 5'9"-160lbs, but in good shape as I work out and exercise. I have been mocked by female coworkers my entire career at different companies because of it. Often calling me scrawny, tiny, little, etc., as well as pointing out that size does matter "wink wink" when commenting on my body.
One day though, it went well beyond innuendo.
I was helping unload some desks from a truck and move them into the offices of the HR Director and the Practice Manager , both were women. One about my height and slightly heavier, the other a few inches shorter and about 120lbs.
They were remarking to me that they doubted that I could move the desks since I wasn't a big guy like their men, joking that they themselves were bigger and stronger than me. Trying to keep my cool I informed them that I am quite strong for my size and it wouldn't be a problem.
The female Practice Manager then said "You don't understand, a girl is supposed to be able to wear her boyfriend's boxers home the morning after and I doubt that I would fit into yours."
Seeing my shocked and confused face the HR Director wanted to help clarify the statement. "What she is saying is, we couldn't have wild sex with you because you're too small."
At that point we arrived at the truck and I picked up one of the boxes with a desk in it, by myself, and carried inside while they double-teamed the other, not saying another word to them. I put the two desks together and left the office angry and humiliated. I couldn't file a harassment claim because the two highest people in the company were the ones harassing me and it honestly wasn't worth my time since I know they weren't trying to be malicious, just stupid, and I've pretty much gotten used to the fact that's how women see me. (except my wife :P). |
Indeed. This incident has made me, as a guy in the tech world, not to think to myself "Gee, I should self-censor more often to avoid offending the thin skinned" but instead: "Gee, I should interact less with women at tech conferences."
But then I remembered that 80% of my tech-knowledgeable friends are women, and that they are equally crass, perverse, and downright awesome people. |
You missed out on the part where nobody was actually being sexually harassed. I've been through that training several times for as many companies and they've never accounted for anyone this sensitive(that training is usually centered around interpersonal conversations and not eavesdroppers).
The issue here (in case you can't see it) is that the two men were having an exclusive conversation and the blogger in question decided to exploit social media and get them fired. The company that hired one of the men is at fault of course since they in turn over-reacted and fired the employee, but this is basically character assassination over a dick joke that wasn't aimed anywhere near the blogger. |
Why should I go ballistic over a comment about a joke about anatomy and an unfortunately named piece of hardware?
If you ask me: you shouldn't :) My reply was just an (obviously failed) attempt at a joke. Apprently, you are not alone with being terrible at expressing yourself.
I can accept Adria feeling offended - that's a personal thing, we all have our things that make us tick one way or another. I don't see how it's the two guy's fauklts - and the way she dealt with it was basically from the social gutter of interpersonal immaturity.
What really makes me angry is the amount of preemptive defense that people feel is necessary to not be discounted as a misogynist. |
Making dick jokes that aren't even aimed at a gender (much less any specific person) have absolutely nothing to do with harassment.
Maybe you need to read over what happened again, but this woman involved herself in something that was unrelated to her and reported it as if she was in any way affected by it. Maybe you think you know how a court works, but that would definitely not hold up in one.
This has absolutely nothing to do with harassment of any variety because there isn't a single witness in that crowd who would say any of it was aimed at her. There is no law against making jokes to your friend because that would be absolutely fucking ludicrous.
Let me make this very easy for you: the only reason there's controversy AT ALL is because the man was unfairly fired. If she'd reported it and nothing came of it then it would have blown away in the wind. Nobody (except for some incensed feminists who will jump on every bit of anti-male news they see) is actually upset that a woman, "had to be exposed to an "unsafe" environment" with innuendo in it. Nobody in their right mind would be. It's humor, it's harmless, and even in a "professional" environment people just turn the other cheek instead of being tattle tales who can't even tune out other people.
For more information on sexual harassment laws specific to California ( |
So... a nanny state? That goes against everything I stand for. How can a bunch of men who have only experienced the lifestyle of a senator dictate what is best for the whole country(one of the most diverse places on the planet might I add)? The government is there to deal with foreign nations(regulate trade, protect from invasion, etc) and stop the people from infringing on eachother's rights, not dictate how the people live their lives (read: Dictatorship). So that guy wants to eat a big mac for every meal? I say let him, that's his choice. But don't facilitate his decision by ensuring him a safety net that I have to pay for. If he is educated about the repercussions his actions will have he will be less likely to do them. You seem to assume that people are mindless zombies controlled absolutely by advertisement. Despite all the crap on TV, I don't smoke, drink(often), and get a healthy amount of exercise. Why exactly? because I was educated on what results my actions would have. The same can't be said for my cousin who has 3 kids with 3 different men(She's on medicaid by the way) who, if educated correctly, probably wouldn't have made the same mistake and therefore wouldn't need the aid in the first place. |
Imagine that we are not all animals and that fighting and war is not ingrained in our humanity. Imagine a reason we would build a colony that was not built because of economic or military reason. If China announced tomorrow that they were going to build a military base on Mars, we would be planning on how to build one first before the press conference even ended. We love to remember the Space Race as this human need for exploration and space being the final frontier and all that jazz, when really the only reason we were doing it was to catch up to Russia. Russia put the first satellite up, put the first animal into space, then put the first human into space. Their next step was the moon. So as Americans, we decided enough is enough, we have to be the first ones on the moon. So 10,000+ scientists and engineers made it happen. We beat them to the moon and planted the flag, we made a couple return trips for some research and to bring stuff back, but basically it was just a big middle finger to the Russian's saying, "We Win". That and now we also had another thing to hang over their head militarily. We could feed them all sorts of misinformation about us planting death rays or other crazy shit on the moon so that they would stay in line. |
It's a nice concept and in a couple of years might be viable. Web technologies have increased in recent years due to a number of factors such as iOS not supporting flash and adobe discontinuing it giving rise to HTML5 and webGL becoming more popular. The problems aside from download times and constant connection is that interpreted code as used in a browser is for now at least muchslower than native code base. Not only that but running applications in browser also pretty much means you have to do lots of processing server side or give the code base away to every user, and if thats just sitting out there how do you even make money from it and justify making another that people have easy access to. |
In dense urban areas, new construction is usually buried with underground transformer vaults. If you already have poles up, good luck ripping up a busy city's roads and sidewalks to install duct banks, etc.
I prefer the look of buried, and I'd rather live in a neighbourhood with buried utilities but mostly because I don't trust existing aerial construction that I or somebody I know has not engineered. I see poles every day that need to be replaced and it is usually because they weren't designed and installed properly.
Aerial is cheaper to maintain and can last for 30+ years if you build it right the first time, allowing for future expansion and periodically checking for deterioration and damage.
Buried is expensive up front, difficult to upgrade and repair and hard to troubleshoot when you have an electrical fault. But it is aesthetically pleasing and there is less danger of a truck hitting your pole and knocking out power or endangering lives. |
No, for a number of reasons. The only way to "kill the public police scanner" would be for police departments to go to encrypted communications. But the moment you do that you risk the police in one community being entirely unable to communicate with the police in another community. Communities would end up using incompatible encryption, different encryption keys, etc.
Imagine another scenario like what happened in Boston. You had police coming to Boston from as far away as Cape Cod to assist, probably more than a dozen different communities all told. But if the SWAT team from Cape Cod used different radios and different encryption than the Boston Police then there would be no effective way for the two groups to communicate when timely coordination would be necessary. The Cape Cod SWAT radios would likely be useless in Boston. Multiply that by all the different departments who sent resources and you'd end up with a massive cluster f*ck when it came to communicating with one another.
The cops KNOW that a lot of people listen in on their radio traffic. They also know that if they need secure communication for something sensitive that they can switch to using cell phones, their in-vehicle computer systems, etc. In some places paramedics, volunteer fire fighters, etc. routinely listen to police radio traffic to keep informed with incidents they may be responding to. It can also be useful just for the general public to know when something big is happening so they can keep out of the way.
I spent 10 years in the US Coast Guard. The USCG uses open marine VHF radio for most of its radio traffic, in large part because that's what most boats use. If a boat is sinking, has a medical emergency, etc. they'll likely call via VHF. And if the USCG gets a report of a boat that's sinking, on fire, etc. they'll issue a broadcast asking for assistance of all boats in the area. The public nature of marine VHF is what makes it so effective. And again, the USCG has ways of having private conversations if necessary - through cell phones, Nextel phones, encrypted radio, etc. |
I think waiting until the fourth of July to deal with something that is going down now is a good way to set yourself up for easy-target repression
Clearly stating your intentions to disrupt a major commuter highway on reddit isn't a good way to set yourself up?
If even people didn't want to go to work, and wanted to support you, they wouldn't be able to get anywhere.
The police will come post-haste, cart you off, and the people of Suffolk will be cheering them - not you. |
So as someone who is not very articulate and doesn't work in PR or advertising I wouldn't even know where to begin with some people. I'm going to ramble for a bit but I'll try to keep it concise and to the point.
I brought up this subject to a friend of mine last night to gauge her opinion. She studies Political Science and is in general pretty receptive to outside ideas but that conversation did not go very well. I'll break it down a little:
I started by asking her about her civil liberties and how important they are to her. According to her national security is more important (not a real big surprise since civil liberties are meaningless if we aren't safe in our homes) and since she has not spent her life defending the citizens, she feels she cannot make a definitive call on what is and isn't necessary to protect the citizens. If the people who spend their wholes lives dealing with these things think it is necessary who is she to judge? The politicians, the media, in general anyone that matters seem to be on the same page - this is completely necessary to keep us safe.
Okay, I can't refute that. I can't tell her, well if we did things like this we would be safer. I have no knowledge of what is or isn't the best method to protect the citizens. I also do not work in this field, so, like her, what do I know?
So I moved on since this approach was clearly a dead end. My next move was to ask her what exactly it is that she is so afraid of? Why she felt it so necessary to give up everything just so she can feel a little safe... from what? The obvious answer came, terrorists. I mentioned to her that statistics clearly show that she needs to worry more about being hit by lightning than she does being attacked by a terrorist. Her response? Well it isn't as if terrorists are the only threat, this will allow them to protect us from many other things. Not to mention just because a terrorist attack is unlikely, that doesn't mean we should ignore it and do nothing. Again, I tried to explain that we are by no means doing nothing, I just feel that spying on every citizens life is not really legal, necessary, and ultimately gives the government too much power and control. She still did not agree.
Again, I moved on and tried a different approach. This time I tried to use an anecdote to help put it into perspective for her. My family is originally from Germany so this subject matter can hit very close to home. I tried to explain to her that in many ways my grandparents went through a similar experience. I tried to point out that to a very large part what happened in Germany was only possible because little by little the government took away their power. It was a combination of liberties being taken away, propaganda, and lots and lots of spying. Opposition was squashed from the get-go. People became suspicious of each other and ultimately fear took over.
Her response? I'm nuts and there is absolutely no way this would happen in America. I asked why, what makes America so unique? What makes her trust her government so unconditionally? She said it is the people, they would ultimately never allow it to come to that. I tried to point out that she is in fact one of these people and if she can't admit the government is overreaching and taking powers it should not have, why would other citizens react differently? Does she not worry that there comes a point where it is too late? Once the government has the control and power it needs, how can we stop it? To this she said we can always go to the streets and topple it.
Needless to say at this point she was already getting a little frustrated (nobody likes to be questioned in their beliefs) so I made one last attempt. I pointed out that maybe instead of waiting until the government has complete control and then taking it back we should think about these things now before it is too late? Understand the implications and repercussions of the governments current actions. I asked her to do a little research into governments that have openly and willingly spied on its own citizens throughout history. I asked that she take a look at what the reasoning for it was and what the end result was EVERY time.
In the end even though she listened I do not think I accomplished anything. People are stubborn and set in their ways. They have been spoon fed how to think by the media and the concept that the government might not always have her best interest in mind is almost ridiculous. I means who choses the government and how it is run? We do, so we have nothing to worry about.
I could have kept trying but in the end I felt like it would just go in circles for hours. I changed the subject and asked one last time that she do some research into countries that have had this happen and how it ended. Maybe she will or maybe she won't. One thing is for sure. Nothing I said seemed reasonable to her, it being completely outside the realm of possibility. |
I guess this is to be expected. Some people care about privacy and don't want to be tracked for what they search for. But then again, are we just supposed to take DuckDuckGo on it's claims? It's super easy to just say "Oh yes we don't track your searches on our website." Simply saying that doesn't necessarily mean that it's not tracking anything. If nothing else, it's capitalizing on a market trend. People suddenly realize they are being watched, and want to stop being watched. So what do they do? They go and they use this site, which means they get increased revenue. The PR manager at DDG is probably having a field day right now. |
For one, this system is intended to be used for FOREIGN signal intelligence, so your prime targets (middle eastern, eastern europeans) would be totally safe because they're using mail services like Yandex hosted in countries such as Russia and Saudi Arabia where the NSA would never get corporation with companies or governments. If the NSA is trying to gather intelligence on terrorists, all they have to do is avoid Google and Facebook and use Russian or Saudi social networking sites/search engines? What is the point in that?
to not cross the us security line. work underground. the dumber terrorists using gmail will be caught, however (see: boston bombers.)
>Furthermore, you still haven't answered the question as to how they are getting past SSL encryption. You're telling me that if I set up my own personal mail server with SSL encryption, its safe because the government is only collecting data from GMail? How are the NSA collecting lists of ever visitor to a specific website then?
ssl encryption goes to an endpoint. beyond that endpoint the data is clear as day. here is how must internet applications work:
[YOU] - [Your Web Browser]-{INTERNET}-[SSL Web Server] - [Tomcat/JBOSS/Websphere JAVA Application Server]-[SQL Server/MySQL/PostgreSQL]-[Hadoop/Membase/MongoDB]
Key: BOLD: encrypted data. ITALICS: non-encrypted data
Facebook is merely an applicaton that runs on the JAVA application server (it's actually php, but you can replace facebook with your favorite internet application. reddit, for instance, uses python here). Once the application is processing your data, it gets sent off to storage either SQL or big data (hadoop/membase). At this point, your like, or your comment is sitting unencrypted in a database. NSA comes in with a warrant for information and requests specific data from your database. They do not need to monitor your communication. All they know is you communicated with Facebook, Gmail, or Reddit, then they go to these sites and request the unecrypted data.
SO yes, if you run a mail server the NSA can come to you with a warrant requesting your data stored in your mail server. There are safeguards you can take, such as encrypting everything and plead the 5th amendment.. but they're taking EVERYTHING if you don't cooperate. |
First, reliable is the trick. A difficult trick indeed. And as many firms in every walk of business (and a spate of dead iKillers have found), not all attention is good attention.
I can see nobody learned thing one about the dotcom bust. Attention is the easy part. Monetezation is the hard part.
And utterly neglected -- most especially in tech, online, and the discussion of online tech as business is: you actually have to make the money. And tech in general and phones specifically (MicroNokiaSoft most recently) the easiest way to make a small fortune in the cell phone business is to start with billions and wait. |
One way of valuing companies is the price divided by*(thanks) earnings, known as the P/E ratio. A reasonable p/e is 10, expensive would be in the 20s or 30s. Tesla is at 220. It is absurdly overvalued.
Basically, if a company becomes popular enough then the market is saturated by people who know nothing about investing and dump money into stocks they think are cool. The stock becomes a fad rather than an investment and trades based on popularity rather than on earning potential. |
By "no car is an investment", Simurgh doesn't mean that it wouldn't be fun, cheap or awesome. Simurgh is saying that you lose money the moment you drive it off the lot and continue to do so until you sell/junk it.
This is true, but for in two circumstances: You sell the car for more than you originally paid (rare, but it happens). You use the car to conduct your business. |
Yeah, there again, its an issue. If you're surrounded by people all trying to keep up appearances, and said appearance is "Tesla is the best thing to happen to the automotive industry ever, and saying otherwise is equivalent to heresy and punishable by exile" then the probability that someone would admit any dissatisfaction is pretty low.
Also, there's an element of not wanting electric cars to fail (again) in the market. I firmly believe electrics are our best way out of gasoline dependence, so if someone asked me what I thought about the model s, I'd tell them the only way it could be better is if it gave me hand jobs, regardless of how I actually felt about it. I don't want to be a member of the naysayers crowd, or even potentially associated with killing the electric car before it gains market traction. |
I think it's just the fact that it is kind of exciting to see an electric car compete in the mainstream market, even if it is still overpriced for the average car-buyer. There are a lot of Nikola Tesla fans here, too, and the association may explain part of that as well. |
That's not really a good comparison.
The total amount paid for the tesla (loan+interest) will be far greater than that of the fiesta. Fiesta after 36 months at 5% APR with payments of $419.59 will bring the car's total cost to $15105.24. Tesla with the same financing options will cost $899.13/month which ends up being $32,368.68. That's clearly not an economy price, but I'll extend our loan so I can get your monthly payments down to something more reasonable.
Ahh here we go. At 72 months with all else constant, the tesla will cost only $483.17/month which brings the total cost of the car to $34,786.65. Those numbers are clearly what you would expect from an economy car. Now let's compare that to the fiesta's fuel costs. To keep things fair, let's add up the cost of fuel over those 72 months. I'll be generous and jack up the price to $4.00. Over 72 months driving 10,000 miles per year, you'll drive 60,000 miles which at the fiesta's 38 mpg would mean 1578.9 gallons of gas which comes to $6315.78.
Now with a final price difference between the two cars being almost $20,000 I can safely say that you don't save any money on gas during that time. Now let's see how long we would have to drive a fiesta to have it cost the same as the tesla assuming the tesla's fuel costs are 0. With the fiesta burning 38 gallons per gallon and fuel being "$4.00/gallon", the cars being $19681.41 apart, and driving 10,000 miles every year it would take almost 19 years for the fiesta to be as expensive as the tesla. That's 190,000 miles. That's obviously not including the reduced cost of insurance on the fiesta after the loan is up or any other factors. Remember that the tesla will need new a new battery after a while. I wouldn't be surprised if it required more than one matters replacements.
Edit: I forgot factor in the price difference between the fuel costs before the loan goes up, which actually sets them apart $13,366.41, which is still 12 years added on to the 6 years of the loan. |
I agree with you in that it sounds biased. But i do want to play devil's advocate. The tesla has been receiving a bunch of negative media attention. I completely agree with reddit that the media is blowing everything regarding tesla's "fires" out of per-portion. But to me that is exactly why this article is in the right for saying it is a "rare piece of good news". IT IS. Tesla needs this right now. With stocks dropping since october it has been a bittersweet couple of weeks for Elon. And unfortunately reading this article, more specifically reading the word "rare" is in the eye of the beholder.
I am just glad that Tesla has this silver lining among the shit-storm we call the media. Especially right before the holidays. Its too bad that consumer reports didn't mention anything about the statistics regarding fires in gasoline cars vs the tesla. |
If there's one thing to be learned from this thread - it's that people who can't currently afford a Tesla - STILL THINK IT'S A GREAT CAR.
So, when the new models come out, and the prices are more comparable with gasoline powered vehicles - just exactly what do you suppose might happen to the currently depressed stock price? |
Although yes, I see what you're trying to say, that it is possible to swap out the drivetrain on a normal car, it is nowhere near as easy as it is in the Tesla Model S (speaking from experience as a former tuner/hobby mechanic having done engine swaps and such on regular ICE cars). In the Tesla, the whole drivetrain is basically one very compact unit with the rear axle; look at those pictures /u/GloriousPeanut posted!! The only thing even remotely close to this would be a mid-engined car such as the Porsche Boxster, and even that would be substantially more of a pain in the ass to remove than the unit in the Tesla (because there are fuel lines, shift linkage, exhaust system, etc. etc. that don't exist on the Tesla, not to mention it is a much larger flat six engine plus transaxle, compared to the Tesla's small electric-motor-transaxle-combined-unit). |
In most cases of this happening you're pretty fucked no matter what you do.
Top Gear tested it: |
7) Technology licensing
They are definitely the leaders in electric car tech at this point and have already started licensing existing technology to Mercedes
8) Battery technology breakthroughs
Tons of research into battery technology may end up uncovering a huge find.
I've been long on Tesla since I bought in at the $20 range. Once the run up started I was positive the tearing down would follow shortly. Wall Street is completely fucked up and their valuations are really stupid.
Telsa might be a fad and get gobbled up but I really like the way the technology is moving and they are disrupting the automakers and dealership models which has been sorely needed for years.
If it can keep above the $40 mark, not bleed cash and keep on producing amazing cars I am very happy. Splits will come as soon as they need production to ramp up and eventually it will stabilize itself |
I think that is because many engineers look at things slightly different than some people. good or bad, an automotive engineer for example may look at an engine that most people just see as a hunk of metal with some moving thingies sticking out. and oh there is that thingy I use to check my oil. that automotive engineer may subconsciously envision the the pistons moving up and down at mind boggling speeds, the connecting rods holding onto the spinning crankshaft as it connects to the transmission, they may then see the planetary gear set that makes the transmission work.
instead of seeing that glass and thinking well it is just some glass, an engineer may see that glass with its smooth seemingly lubricated surface defending against all manner of attackers. they may wonder, what about a self lubricating surface vs something that is really just polished real smooth, they may weigh in there mind if such a compound exists and how it may benefit or detract in that particular usage. |
The logic is straightforward and simple:
1) Current infrastructure is sufficient to reasonably accommodate traffic at peak times.
2) ISPs view "heavy users" as a threat to 1).
3) To discourage heavy use, or to upgrade infrastructure to deal with it (lol), ISPs want to charge heavy users more.
4) Since total ISP revenue is adequate to currently support 1), then any increase in heavy user rates should occur in tandem with a lowering of "light user" rates.
Since 4) is not occurring, then premise 2) is called into question. Re-write 2) as "ISPs want to make more money without providing additional service." |
Because they know we can't do shit about it.
Google is the only serious competition for ISPs, and it'll take them 20+ years to roll out service to the whole country.
They have nothing to lose. In today's society you are REQUIRED to have internet to accomplish pretty much anything. Nobody is going to just drop off the grid. |
Verizon CEO is an idiot. I'm glad I switched from High Speed DSL, 6 months ago.
For years, I've been a loyal customer with their DSL high speed service because I live in an area where I am not eligible for cable/FiOS, and I was virtually stuck with Verizon. I was paying $40/month for 3.0Mbps/768kbps. Then last year, the speed was throttled to 1.5Mbps/768kbps where my monthly cost was unchanged. No changes in my house setup, everything was running just as it was all these years. I complained, but they told me they had a new pricing 'model'.
To further screw me over, they switched to a speed tier plan where, you pay $34.99 + Tax for 1.1Mbps - 7.1Mbps. Depending on your location, your speed will vary. They basically told me that if you're not getting the speeds, it's changed because now they are only obligated for 1.1Mbps to 3.0Mbps for my location. It's robbery. I'm done with Verizon DSL. Switched to a local provider, for 12Mbps/1Mbps for $40/month. Still expensive, but worth paying texa$ dollars. |
As I said, I don't have a problem with a business (Comcast) charging what they want (i.e. for greater usage). But this is only fair if I have freedom of choice amongst multiple ISPs (which I don't). So if you want a monopoly, then you have to take government scrutiny and regulation breathing down your neck. |
They can't if we fight back. I know this is kind of a shameless plug but join the revolution on /r/SummerOutage. |
I was one of Microsoft's engineers (Senior Program Manager) on the Win8 Explorer team. I was specifically responsible for the ISO mounting (and VHD/X), Copy dialogue (multiple operation support, pause/resume, more-details graph, conflict resolution experience), and filing a number of patents related to the same.
We already knew the dominance the new UX would have when we signed on to the project. We also knew that as Win8.x was deployed in corporate environments (through OEM sales, volume licensing, etc) that the 'classic desktop' would continue to rule. Thus, I knew that the work that I and my teammates put into those experiences would be seen and loved , even if the path to 'feel' that experience was different than it would have been in Win7. |
Everyone who says that XP going EOS is no big deal, go ahead and search "MS14-013" - I'll wait.
...
Back yet? Good. Did you see this part in the MS KB?
> The vulnerability could allow remote code execution if a user opens a specially crafted image file. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user. |
I'm happy to see someone has already called out the the smoke and mirrors of Windows 8 "speed improvements"
For those who don't believe that Windows 7 starts up just as fast as Windows... Here is a test you can try....
If you have a Windows 7 machine
Enable hibernation (if it's not already enabled)
Then put computer into Hibernation mode instead of shutting it down.
When you boot up next time take notice that your "boot time" is substantially quicker.
--
Now if you are thinking "Why would I enable hibernation it takes up space etc....." If you are using Windows 8 you are using hibernation by default (with the "hybrid shutdown") because if you disable the ability to hibernate on Windows 8 it disables the hybrid shutdown functionality. |
Theres also BrightSpot Mobile (owned by Target) which allows 300 minutes 3 GB unlimited text for $35 a month, $25 gift card back every 6 months 5% off if paid with RED card. Uses T-mobile
T-mobile prepaid $30 100 minutes 5 GB LTE, unlimited text. Extra minutes $0.10 per minute.
Cricket Wireless using AT&T will do 2.5 GB unlimited talk and text. $45 a month with auto pay as well as provide $50 credit to upgrade your phone for every 12 months of service if you are on their pro or smart plans, $50 and $60, $45 and $55 with autopay discount. Family discounts available as well doesn't stack with autopay $10 off 2 lines, $30 off 3, $60 off 4, $90 off 5 |
I don't REALLY get how this is a violation of net neutrality
From the very first line of the [wikipedia article on net neutrality:](
Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. |
Nope, nope, don't worry. You and I have only 3 GB/mo of hotspot data because we're grandfathered on the older $20/mo data plan. Folks on the newer $30/mo data plan also have unlimited data on their phone, but have 5 GB/mo of hotspot data.
So if you want to pay an extra $10/mo because that additional 2 GB of hotspot data is really important to you, you can just hop over to [My T-Mobile]( and login, then click on the Plan option in the header, and under your smartphone line click on Change Data .
Note that the $20/30 is referring only to the data portion of your Simple Choice plan. There's still the base $50/mo for unlimited texting and calling, and $10/mo for JUMP! if you have it. |
Use a VPN. Suddenly the throttling stops.
You are correct they are not throttling the service by the usual definition. They are however funneling the data through connections that cannot handle the traffic.
That's what a VPN does, it connects to a different "node", which does not have as much traffic through it.
Think of it like a highway. If the highway (verizon) tells all the traffic heading to a certain destination (data from netflix) to take a single exit (the connection point) it will cause a backup if the exit isn't large enough. In this case the exit is not large enough. Cogent (the carrier for Netflix data, source of the traffic) has offered to expand the exit (install new hardware) at no cost, but the highway said no.
However, the exit before and after the congested one are perfectly fine. No slowdowns. A matter of fact, they are barely used. If the highway would say "use exit 1, 2, and 3" there wouldn't be slowdowns. Instead they are currently saying "only use exit 2".
That is now Verizon is" throttling" Netflix. They aren't slowing the Netflix traffic down, they are making it travel through a hole too small for what is needed. |
It may seem benign at first, and perhaps part of the problem is the implication that they are discriminating against Facebook. They aren't. They are discriminating in favor of Facebook and the other partners by offering a privileged access plan.
Imagine a more extreme situation. Say the "regular data plan" was just 1 kb per day, making browsing ridiculously difficult. And the only other plan available is unlimited data for $10000/month. Unless , of course, you are interested in unlimited access to Bing only for just $1/month. Now, there is a strong motivation for you to ditch Google and use Bing for all your search needs and whatever other needs Bing may provide. Potential new competitors like DuckDuckGo will have no hope of market entry whatsoever.
Now you may say, "that's an extreme example and this won't have the same consequences". But if this is OK, that's OK too. There is no good way to differentiate the two. |
I saw something in your comment that I just have to say my words on.
I used to have T-Mobile, loved the service both on my phone and from them & my bill was fairly cheap. After a few months of having the phone, I started to hit my data caps & I was just like "Oh well, I can still use it." A year and a half down the line, I changed jobs and use my phone for work (sending photos, texts, emails, etc...) and when I hit my data caps one month everything stopped. I just thought it was my phone since my bill rolled the next day. So half way through that month it does the same thing. So I just decided to go to the T-Mobile store and see what's up.
When I get there the guy that worked there told me, "Well, it's still unlimited even if they give you .01 kilobytes. You just won't be able to do anything." So he told me that when they throttle you, it basically makes your phone do nothing.
Fast forward a year later, I'm now on a Verizon plan, talked my way out of the ETF with T-Mobile, saving money over T-Mobile, and I just watch my data just to be careful. But even if I do go over, it's still cheaper than T-Mobile was. |
Here is how I am reading this.
Sprint has a new plan which is great for someone who is trying to spend as little as possible. If I'm reading the article right, you can get unlimited access to Facebook, 20 minutes of talk time, and 20 texts for $18.98/month. This is great if you mostly contact people through Facebook and don't need unlimited data, minutes, or texts, saves you a bunch of money. I don't see this as a huge net neutrality issue, just trying to capture a group of customers who might not previously be purchasing a phone/data plan.
The net neutrality issue I see arising from this becomes "why offer an unlimited/unrestricted data plan for $X? We can just charge people for unlimited access to each item they want!" This means you wouldn't be able to check out something like the Facebook and Youtube alternates, Facetube and Youbook, without paying extra for it. Why pay extra for something you aren't sure is actually better, when what you're paying for works already? Facetube and Youbook, while actually better, die because they can't get a user base, either because users don't pay for the access, or the services can't afford to pay to be included in a premium/bundle package. |
Hi Sprint! You've stepped in a small pile I've been predicting for almost ten years! You are now guilty of copyright infringement!
Please refer to paragraph 3, where you will find the copyright owner has the exclusive right to distribute its works by "rental, lease or lending."
You are also guilty of trademark infringement
There is a substantial likelihood the public will be confused as to your possible partnership with the companies and the intellectual property you are illegally trading on. You are not permitted to use another company's trademarks in commerce without a license.
I would like to kindly invite you to try and do the same with my company's copyrights and trademarks. I'm sure the people who work for me would love to spend a large sum of your money. |
Basically every couple months I find a discrepancy on bills (which is super easy with all carriers if you look hard enough) make a decent deal over it. When they either fix it or don't, I just ask them if they have any plans that can save me money.
The last time she asked a series of questions like, schooling, work, etc... Well, first thing is my employer gives me a 16% discount (just changed this month) on my bill. Then she put me onto a program that was like a special invite type thing just to please me. |
As someone who sells Sprint (and VZW/AT&T) at retail, I can tell you that Sprint has probably the worst-run operation all-around.
The other day, my boss was doing a contract, and literally had to call 5 different numbers because everyone was giving him the run-around. "Oh you want credit, here's the number." "Oh, you activations, here's the number." Finally, he finally just gave me the task, since I was done with my project, so I took care of it. Now, since I've been doing contracts longer than the boss, I can pretty much walk a rep through their job anymore, so I got it done fairly quickly. This problem doesn't even exist with VZW or AT&T.
Sprint is the only carrier that requires any sort of information from us, at a store level, to do credit checks. Only slightly annoying, except for the fact that our Sprint rep is all but impossible to get a hold of and our credit check PIN tends to expire before we use it more than once or twice. Last time we carried Sprint (last year, we dropped it for about a year), we lost at least four sales because of this.
The only things that Sprint has going for them are unlimited data and the fact that their deposits tend to be significantly lower (typically 100-150 when VZW expects a 500 dollar deposit). |
There is no grandfather plan, I made absolutely sure my data plan never changed from the first smartphone I had, the HTC Dream (best phone ever) with G1 UNLIMITED DATA, the first and only truly unlimited data plan T-Mobile has ever had, until they changed it. I used hundreds of gigabytes of data. Later, I switched to a faster LG G2x (overhyped garbage, no thanks LG) but I managed to retain my same data plan due to the way I purchased it at Radioshack, rather than across the street at T-Mobile where they told me I was required to change my data plan. I was in Mexico when the first cap hit me (about a year into my new two year contract) I did 5GB and was restricted for using any more data, even though I was trying to use Wifi Calling. They wanted to me to the 10GB unlimited and all I could say was... that's not unlimited. I have unlimited. I don't have unlimited with a limit. I hit the bandwidth limit every single month after that and my user experience was degraded, I eventually ported my number away to Google Voice and I haven't looked back. I have true Wifi calling now. from any smartphone or computer. Fuck you T-Mobile, you're fair like Fox and Murdoch Inc. Convincing people of a new meaning of unlimited, one minimum wage employee at a time. Like when Blockbuster "had no late fees" and then sold you the movie after a week, but if you brought it back within a certain time frame, there was a restocking fee. Call a spade a spade, grow some hair. |
Huh? Facebook has an app and they're going to remove the ability to send messages to people. They're shifting focus on Facebook Messenger because they know that a lot of people use it for one purpose: communicating.
I rarely use the Facebook app but I definitely use Facebook Messenger more often. Lots of people have it and sometimes, it's just easier to contact someone I'm already friends with. It beats asking for their number through a mutual friend. |
I was looking for the first person not freaked out by this sensationalist title. I can't believe how alone you are.
They claim that the Sprint is charging $12 on top of data, but their first source, Sprints page says the following
> Special offers: “Add-ons” that provide unlimited access to such apps as Facebook or Pandora, or provide 30 minutes of international calling to specific countries, can be added on a recurring or non-recurring basis.
There is no mention of data plans available for this plan otherwise and no mention of price. Sprint themselves say literally nothing about it either way.
His second source, The Wall Street Journal, actually contradicts his claim:
>For about $12, Sprint will soon let subscribers buy a wireless plan that only connects to Facebook.
>For that same price, they could choose instead to connect only with Twitter, Instagram or Pinterest—or for $10 more, enjoy unlimited use of all four. Another $5 gets them unlimited streaming of a music app of their choice.
This appears to be where he's getting his price and plan details, and by the way WSJ doesn't list their sources either. |
short version is that the standard of the IR remote is a bit antiquated, it still works just fine so no one feels a need to replace it. the technology for remotes has only been around since the 70s and it was a quick jump from a corded system to a very simple "dumb" wireless technique. While it would be hypothetically possible to throw in a more intelligent processors into remotes the justification in cost isn't there.
More advanced remotes have come a round using either proprietary RF, bluetooth or even wi-fi however they are expensive and usually after-market additions and not directly supported. considering the proliferation of Cellphones to TV owners I'm surprised that these same devices have not been fully integrated into the TV experience.
My Galaxy S4 (and the S5 as far as I know) have an IR sensor that can be used to control the functions of my TV or even an entire home theater but the options to do so are limited. the apps present either generic interfaces or laggy and inaccurate remote "codes" that don't always work. Even for TVs and home theater systems that use the after-market remotes are a bit hit or miss. I'm sure you've noticed how long it takes to fire up all the devices in your home theater using one universal remote, this is because of the limitations of IR tech, every device IR code has to be sent to each device and it will take a moment to preform that operation and not all IR receivers (the "eyes" as they are usually called) see the codes.
No one has really come up with a way to standardize the next generation of the remote control even though the hardware has certainly been invented by now. it is nearly impossible to convince all the Television manufacturers on the planet to invest or implement one standard over the other even if there is a financial incentive (i.e. cheaper components) because of the ubiquity and simplicity of proprietary IR codes.
the |
as far as i can tell, the article is talking about two modes of operation:
low-power "dazzle" mode to temporarily blind people aboard another ship
high-power "deathray" mode to melt stuff on another ship
hitting ANYTHING with a laser requires incredible precision. hitting a moving target from another moving target with a laser requires a precision that humans cannot achieve manually. |
Lasers cause explosions by igniting the fuel, warhead, or messing up the airflow on the wings causing it to break apart.. That and hitting an incoming target with its own Ewar and antimissile systems (which are not hard to build at all nowadays) change the equation on missiles.
Also, Current anticarrier tactics call for either hundreds of missiles fired at once saturating the defence network and running them out of interceptor missiles, or hitting them with a ballistic conventional missile, where the missile's sheer speed makes intercepting almost impossible without lightspeed weaponry. lasers can protect in these scenarios. Also, an interceptor missile still costs tens of thousands of dollars.an enemy could build twenty inertial guidance missiles for the cost of one interceptor. Lasers are much less expensive to operate per shot. |
asymmetric, which isn't really a thing in naval or air warpower
Sure it is. Conventional Naval power comes from Aircraft Carriers. The US is in control of [10 of the 20]( carriers in service in the world. Look at what China and Russia are pushing; Missiles and Submarines. The thing is the US's military is so big that now the Navy is filling out the low end as well. The Navy is developing autonomous light boats to provide defence for the bigger boats that are providing defense or the carriers. |
The answer is yes, it can in theory. But it would take a mirror so insanely perfect that it would take countless millions of dollars and several years to polish it, and even then it would have be hit in the sweet spot. |
Not sure if serious, but:
The solar output able to be absorbed by a tank is pretty minor. There just isnt enough surface area. So then the issue becomes storage. In theory, if you have a high enough density of superconducting capacitors, you can store energy when you're not needing it, and discharge when you do, you could theoretically store sunlight during downtime and use it to power the laser.
However, if you have enough storage capacity to use a laser like this on a tank reliably in a battle situation, then you don't care where the power comes from. Generate it wherever and however you want, and store it in the tank. |
Your answer is incorrect, because such a mirror doesn't exist, nor would it be possible to put such a mirror on such a target. Thus, no, it can't. |
Continued...
Originally Quicktime was a base component of the system, so no separate install was needed. In the mid 2000's other non QT formats became popular while Quicktimes' responsibilities in the system were replaced by OS X centric code like CoreImage, so eventually quicktime itself wasn't necessary. Just like OS X originally depended on Java as a core system component, but apple eventually built new components to take over those responsibilities, and java is now an optional install if needed. [Here]( is a simplified map of the basic structure of the early versions of OSX. Java and quicktime were core components that handled LOTS of responsibilities and capabilities. "Core" services do most of it now. So, quicktime wasn't some player, it was code that handled lots of capabilities, like handling the MP4s that the iTunes purchased media came in, which is an industry standard that was based on quicktime. Remember that open or industry standard doesn't always mean "most popular". Avis were the most popular format for a long time but that doesn't mean they were an open non proprietary standard. Just like lots of apples choices are open or industry standards but people bitch and say they are being closed because they don't support whatever proprietary format people want to use. Go back to old articles bitching about iTunes not working with WAV, when it did work with AIFF and MP3, and somehow using the non-proprietary stuff made apple proprietary. |
This is because the video is not downloaded in one big file, it is many smaller files. When you rewind or fast-forward, it may be forced to reload the stream because of how it tries to accommodate your available bandwidth. Watching a video all the way through is faster with this technology, but seeking can be slower due to content having to be re-downloaded. In many cases seeking isn't slower, but it can be annoying because the progress bar shows content having already loaded to that point even though it will have to be thrown out when you seek.
See: [DASH](
DASH is a method used to help with network and datacenter load while improving experience for the end user. It splits a video up into 'slices' and then loads the best-quality slice it can based on your current connection. As it loads slices, they may not all be of the same quality. If you seek to a point that the player does not want to start from, it requests an entirely new video stream from the server which requires the DASH algorithm to reload the whole video from that point.
When seeking, you are directed to the nearest keyframe. A new one is not calculated for your stream. ^[1]
As to whether YouTube is able to send partial slices, I cannot say.
This post has been edited (fixed) because my other answer was wrong based on my flawed understanding of the system and I was mislead by something I heard before. It was right in some ways and way wrong in others. This is more accurate.
^(1. "The player will advance to the closest keyframe before that time unless the player has already downloaded the portion of the video to which the user is seeking. In that case, the player will advance to the closest keyframe before or after the specified time as dictated by the seek method of the Flash player's NetStream object.") [^(via)](
My faux pas is below for posterity:
It's because the keyframes (full-image) are created by the server.
YouTube videos have a minimal number of keyframes. So when you seek, instead of relying on your local computer to generate all the frames from the previous keyframe, it sends a request to the server for a new keyframe at that point. The server generates a new keyframe and then you have to re-load new delta frames (only contain pixels that changed) after that point. |
I'm a subscriber, but I'll try and be neutral.
SRS posts exactly what it says "Shit Reddit Says", which means posts and comments that would or could be considered offensive(and not downvoted) are linked from SRS to show that Reddit might have a thing against minorities. For example, if you made a joke at the expense of someone's race or gender, and it gets upvoted, you might did your post linked there.
Now, SRS uses www.np.reddit.com links(and it's enforced by the subreddit mods) to try and avoid vote brigading, since if an offensive comment gets downvoted it goes against the idea that Reddit is a hive mind of racists, but don't be surprised if a comment still gets a few downvotes by aggressive users.
Reddit Admins actually do watch for vote brigading and ban accordingly( I was actually shadowbanned early when I first became a subscriber and had to talk to a mod about it, and since haven't downvoted any linked posts) but this Ian always the case, which is where the not-too far fetched idea of the hate brigade comes from(It's not as bad as /r/bestof tho, who will destroy you with thousands of downvotes of they can IMO.)
Also, the comments in SRS aren't usually serious. |
Web developer here. The article is not necessarily correct. This is the same as any auto-complete feature on a website. You can view what's happening yourself. On Chrome, go to google or facebook, hit 'F12' and the developer tools will appear. Selecting the 'History' tab will show a log of all requests. If you type into the search, you will see the requests stack up. This is because each time you stop typing, Google will search for what you have typed.
Facebook most likely used this data in the Update Status box to check for names. You know how if you type 'Ben' and your friend 'Ben Dover' appears in the list? Facebook needs to know that you typed in 'Ben' to do that search for you.
The important bit here is that Facebook (or google, or any other website with an autocomplete service) will receive your written text. But that doesn't mean they log it. I have built many sites that have an autocomplete feature, and none of them log that search data. I'm not saying that they don't log it, but there's no information suggesting that Facebook does collect this data. |
knowing a lot of people who've been involved with projects like this, and seeing a lot of innocent reasons they would want the data
I agree with your distinction between collecting vs. having data. However, the 'just doing my job' ship sailed 10 months ago. My tin foil hat leanings might argue that it sailed 10 years ago. Of course it's one thing to have a crashed application send a bug/environment report home. It's another to fingerprint your users and then suck up all of the usage data. If you're a developer, you know which type of code you're working on, and there are many who are comfortable working on the latter.
"The cloud" has really been rubbing me the wrong way. "The cloud" is just a brand for file synchronization and a fancy browser frontend. Why are users willing to use it? It makes an already existing solution less tech-laden. Why are providers willing to provide it for free/discount? Data . They aren't just harmlessly collecting aggregate runtime info about the user experience. They're mining the data you upload. "The cloud" uses cutesy TV commercials to make you feel secure in handing over your private data.
It would seem to me that anyone who is interested in analytics would be working full-tilt to find an acceptable privacy solution before this whole thing eats itself. Instead, most tech-heads, who could do something about this, seem happy with the big paychecks from Facebook, Google, and any other VC startup looking to take a bite of this shitpie.
By collecting data, you are also taking on the responsibility of protecting it. That is my opinion, but it is not the law. Most people inherently assume their data is protected, but it's not legally true. If we were talking about dollar bills instead of data, the level of responsibility is obvious. However, there is no precedent of fiduciary duty for data. Until there is, dragnet data collections are not okay because I can't trust you to protect that data. If I get caught up in one, it's because you [the dragnet operator] or your partners misled me. |
The point that Toe-Bee is trying to make is that relative screen size is a stupid thing to talk about. A 10" screen will take up a greater portion of your field-of-view if held at an arm length away than a 50" screen 10 feet away, but a 1" (or whatever the tamagochi's screen is) right in front of your eye will take up a greater portion of your field-of-view than either the 10" or 50" screens at the distances that they're meant to be viewed. |
That's MasterLe. While there's no doubt that he does incredible work, he's got a bit of a reputation. His threads usually go from circle-jerk to MasterLe vs. everybody (even [Adam Savage]( There are things like claiming a particular and popular costume fabrication technique is only for noobs while clearly having a helmet built from that technique visible in the background and general douchebaggery. |
If you are only purchasing the product because of the drop in price you have to realize that even if they update it with another new model it will be at a much higher price for a long time. If you weren't willing to pay the large price for it to begin with then chances are you shouldn't wait hoping they come out with a new model for you to pay the higher price on.
I've found that for the most part with technology the best time to buy is ever so slightly behind the curve. That way you get good deals on parts that will still be very powerful for years to come, and you always know what you're buying (by that time reviews are out and obvious problems a la iphone 4 antenna are out in the open).
Doing things like that allows you to be a relatively early adopter for all gadgets that interest you for the cost of being one of the first adopters for one gadget you're interested in. |
It's not technology because it's the U.S. Internet?
It's not r/technology because it's US politics.
> If it were U.K. Internet would it be technology?
No.
> How about global Internet?
I'd be willing to not complain then, but the right place would still be r/cyberlaw . It's the more specific reddit.
> How the fuck is the Internet not technology?
The article isn't about technology, it's about politics. An article elaborating on changes to technology (e.g. TCP/IP stack, Router management, Bandwidth, cf. "developments [...] in technology") due to those inane US politics would be on-topic. The inane US politics, themselves, are off-topic. |
Self driving cars don't hit each other.
That only works if all cars are self driving. You can't integrate self driving and manually driven vehicles and expect no accidents. You can't switch all cars to self driving overnight, ergo, you can't eliminate accidents.
Additionally, I still haven't seen a self driving system that responds reasonably to dangerous situations. Some can avoid collisions at low speeds, but that's a far cry from avoiding an out of control truck on a freeway. I've also never seen anybody demonstrate self driving on anything other than perfect road conditions. It will need to cope with wet, icy, oily, muddy, dusty, unpaved, etc. roads, all in different ways. Computer vision isn't at a point where these conditions can even be detected yet, they have enough trouble just identifying the road itself. |
The dude took a "gadget" and turned it into a "fashion accessory".
MP3 players existed before, no one cared about them until the ipod came out and every consumer wanted the thing because it played music, while looking pretty.
He took ideas that were already out there and made them popular to consumers. |
Relying on legislation in these cases is not the answer. Remember that every scrap of power you give to legislators is another bit that can be abused.
If a company asks for something so ridiculous as your Facebook password, leave the interview. State very clearly why you are leaving, and that you find this practice completely unacceptable. Let them know that furthermore you will advise your networks and those under your influence to avoid business with the company based on these policies (or in the case of Government agencies, they will certainly not apply or bring their talents there). Don't play lawyer games or make veiled, empty threats - make a real threat. It's a small threat, but it is a seed that can grow.
If enough people take an attitude of personal responsibility, rather than running to the government hoping for legislation in their favor that will never be abused (impossible), then real change can be effected. Businesses will start to learn the policy is unacceptable, and that people will change how they spend money and where they direct their talents as a result.
This isn't discrimination or civil rights, it's just a stupid hiring practice. Businesses that are doing this are doing it because they can get away with it: people keep applying and people keep pouring money into their coffers. Change the job market through participation, not by ceding more of your rights to a party well known to be just as interested in invading your privacy as these employers. |
So are you willing to pay money for the "exclusive" content in lieu of advertising for the company in exchange for merchandise? They aren't giving that shit away out of the goodness of their hearts, somewhere a marketing team has determined that losing X amount of merchandise is worth the trade for Y amount of advertising through Facebook. |
MaunaLoona said that people raised the same fuss over social security numbers being requested by employers. My point is that it's not the same fuss, the Facebook fuss is by far more meaningful, because for employers requesting Facebook information to become the social standard, like SS#, you'd also have employers breaking federal discrimination laws as the social standard. There were never any federal laws forbidding employers from discriminating based on SS# or any other information obtained through the background check your SS# is used on. |
I for one am glad this law got shot down. There shouldn't have to be a law preventing every stupid thing that someone wants to do. Businesses should have the right to ask stupid questions, and you have the right to not answer them. I would guess that in most cases a clear, level-headed defense of why you will not give out this information would suffice. If not, then you have the freedom to choose not to work for that company. If you're in a financial bind and are desperate, then I would refer them to the existing laws that prevent them from asking about religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. which are potentially available on your facebook account. |
This is what you guys get for not negotiating on a reasonable internet controls bill.
The internet will be regulated, there will be laws, and just like everything else in life, there will be consequences for breaking them. You can disagree with these statements, but you will be shown to be wrong. DMCA immunity is overly broad as currently interpreted and if not modified or restructured, poses a systemic risk to our economy.
You have the opportunity to negotiate for fair laws, for good laws, but when the tech industry and popular voices align like bitchy little girls with no desire for rational debate or meeting in the middle, you are going to get fucking treated like children, and handed down the most draconian over-reaching shit imaginable that fucks you in the ass.
Ironically, this bill has immunity for tech companies, so don't expect them to give two shits.
I said this four fucking months ago, and I'll say it again: open a dialogue, negotiate on respect for basic intellectual property rights so that you can maintain privacy rights, or be prepared for the worst. If you honestly think there should be no civil or criminal consequence for someone blatantly uploading illegal shit to YouTube, you are either advocating a conversion from capitalism to socialism (which is fine, you just need to understand that's what is at hand), or you're fucking insane.
The irony here is that you allowed the tech industry to conflate this as a free speech issue (what it cares about is immunity against automated infringement of property rights, not free speech) which made you guys all jump on board — it was never about free speech, because while you may have the right to free speech and the press, you are not guaranteed the right to have access to a press, and you are not allowed to use a fucking a megaphone in public without a permit. Get it? Having hurdles set it front of you to broadcast with amplification, or making you go out and buy your own printing press (your own hosting service) IS NOT PRIOR RESTRAINT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND NEVER WILL BE. (And the idea of someone using their own printing press to print whatever other people want printed, without risk of liability is radically new and unprecedented; see Walmart and CVS not doing prints of copyrighted work).
There are three parties here: traditional industries, the tech industry, and the people. You need to negotiate for yourselves, because you got USED. What the tech industry wants is to extract capital surplus from you without risk of civil actions, and traditional industry wants to be able to protect its investments. No one, in any of this, save maybe the ACLU, gives two fucks about what happens to you guys.
I am honestly sick of the fucking head in the sands stupidity on this site and many others when it comes to internet regulation. |
I will never understand how the government makes it's actions and decisions. I will never understand it because each person in the government is an individual, who has there own story, and who was once just like everybody else, part of the majority. And if they still were just like everybody else, then we wouldn't have political parties dictating your decisions, even if it is against your beliefs, we wouldn't have unfair and unjust laws, and we certainly would not be in a country where, as a government, each person individually does what is best for themselves and protects their power, now what is best for the country. JFK once said "Do not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." It is sad that the only ones who really try to make the country better are the ones who don't have the power.
It is amazing how much power and money can corrupt and change people. |
Proof of phishing? I logged in because you told me not to, and everything was fine. You be paranoid mayne.
[edit]
>
However even on trusted proxies (such as , you will notice that you often cannot login because the IP of the proxy has already been abused and banned from thepiratebay. Reasons for logging into an account may include uploading torrents, and posting comments, on some accounts people simply prefer their saved settings which make it easier to search and browse. Serious uploaders will have to use a vpn or private proxy to login and upload torrents from blocked areas. All users can still browse, view, and download torrents on thepiratebay via proxies. Hopefully a better solution is in the works. |
How to shave almost half your phone bill off:
Last year I was fed up with paying $90 a month (on T-Mobile, with whom I've been a customer since I first got a cell phone around 8 years ago) for text, data, and 650 anytime minutes, on a horrendous Windows Mobile phone. I started snooping around for other options. I considered joining my parents' plan; they had finally gotten their first cell phones, which are AT&T iPhones, but since they got into the game so late, adding me would have been around 90 bucks a month anyway. So I started looking into prepaid companies like Virgin, Cricket, and Boost Mobile, but they got very mixed reviews (although people seemed to like Virgin pretty well).
Finally, a friend of mine hooked me up with his old iPhone 3GS. I had a local shop unlock it so I could use it on my T-Mobile network. After my contract ended, I switched to T-Mobile's prepaid plan. I'm now paying $55 a month, after taxes, for unlimited talk, text, and data, and since I didn't get my phone through the carrier, no contract. My service has not suffered AT ALL. |
The point you're making is definitely the prototypical argument against monopolies. But I don't think the "history has shown" statements is totally correct.
For an example within telecommunications, just look at the 1984 divestiture of AT&T's telephone monopoly. Despite AT&T's efforts to protect their monopoly, the US Government stepped in to break them apart into different companies with different geographical regions and product offerings. Also, look at Microsoft's legal mess in the late 90's when people accused them of holding a monopoly in internet browsers. |
You seem to miss the point - the article used that statement as pure FUD - it didn't create a clean argument, it was just put out there, insinuating.
You're missing the entire point, you're arguing semantics, yadda yadda trying to deconstruct what an argument is:
> Apple v. Samsung is not the problem in itself, but it’s a symptom of a broken system.
AGAIN it treats it as a symptom of:
"credit card collection" software patents (troll patents)
Microsoft style patent litigation
WHEN THAT IS A FALLACY.
Apple are suing over infringements to their design and software patents that have nothing to do with the myriad of notable cases that show the weaknesses in the patent system, yet this article dishonestly, without creating an argument for doing so, just by doing it (dishonestly) makes a link between them.
READ THAT AGAIN. This is NOTHING about patents.
THIS COMMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PATENTS, APPLE, SAMSUNG,EARTH, OXYGEN REDDIT OR ANYTHING. It is about argument fallacies.
It is about an article that says "this is a symptom of an unrelated problem", then me saying that is wrong, then you NOT BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURE AND SEMANTICS OF A RATIONAL ARGUMENT, thinking I am now talking about something entirely different, then you start talking about morality. |
It's not about shapes it's about a picture. Trying to reduce the issue to shapes is like describing a work of art by enumerating brush strokes. At some level of detail the picture is lost.
Before Apple's iPhone: crappy phones, frustrating to use
After Apple's iPhone: phones that were a joy to use and were a game changer
Apple are not done yet. Protect their innovation process and they'll give us more and better. Do not lose sight of the bigger picture. |
Yeah, I tried it out on my sister's phone.
You "tried it out"? I guess I'm just another drop in the invisible bucket of people who aren't having problems . I got one myself and really like the little changes. The little car icon to get directions from current location in one tap. The ability to reorient north with a simple twist. And all my local information is correct. I lookup residences often in google maps, it's sometimes wrong about rural ones, and I had to use bing maps cause it did better. Apple maps going off tomtom is working much better for certain homes. Not to even mention turn by turn so I don't have to look down and hit a tiny arrow and read tiny text at the top to get the right exit number. No one goes on reddit to say everything works fine. People go to the Internet to complain! What the hell do you expect? Just please don't re-cry about an issue you aren't experiencing. |
i had to log in just to downvote all the stupid shit you're talking about. he was accused of sneaking into a basement, plugging in his computer and downloading a bunch of files that the library freely gives out to people. it doesn't seem like could have been any hard evidence of this. files on his computer? he could have gotten them legally. plus, it would be just as easy for someone to hack in and dump those files on his computer as it would be for him to download them himself. did they have video of him sneaking in and connecting? if so, I guess that makes sense. but so then he kills himself all of a sudden? did he really kill himself? did somebody set him up and then knock him down? sounds like a conspiracy theory waiting to happen. |
But when was the last time a kickstarter fund was made for something "technical, critical, or important" that was backed by an organized entity which actually had the resources and man-power to follow through on any promises they made?
It's far easier to donate 5, 10, or 20 dollars to fund some movie, because you know that however much money they get, they'll be able to budget themselves and work with the funds they have to create some kind of finished product, even if it's not as great as you'd hoped.
When you're dealing with a nuclear reactor R&D program (for example), not only do you need way more money, you're also not even guaranteed a useable end product for X amount of money.
You just need to keep funding the project until they can make it work, because ultimately you can't know how long it will take.
And if that wasn't enough, people are additionally skeptical about donating to such technically complex projects, because they're skeptical about whoever they donate to actually having the already-built-up capital/resources to utilize the funds they donate.
The amount of resources you need to be able to utilize $3 mil for movie making is quite a bit lower than the resources you need to be able to utilize $3 mil for nuclear reactor R&D. |
I've seen a lot of CISPA posts here, and read a lot of fear-mongering about it, but what I haven't seen is a large number of individuals that understand what it actually does. Everyone seems to believe it's like SOPA, because it's an acronym and it's from the gov't.
CISPA is a LIIMITATION on what the government and private entities can do. It is an EXTENSION on the [National Security Act of 1947]( Essentially, technology has gotten ahead of what the laws were written for, and without these laws, actions can fall OUTSIDE of regulation. It is not a new way for companies to share information. They could do this before. It's a defined way of how then can share the info, and limitation on how the gov't can use and share it. It is also a limitation on how the companies can use information that the gov't gives.
So, let's say the gov't discovers something that is specific to the technology infrastructure of AT&T and T-Mobile. And they share that information to the tech community as a whole. AT&T's competitors are not allowed to utilize that information in an attempt to gain an advantage over AT&T.
There is the repeated posts about government being able to look at data given to them by the tech companies without a warrant. Needing a warrant for that is absurd. What this allows: if a private company has evidence of a crime they can give it to law enforcement. This has been true for the longest time, but CISPA works to limit the sharing that companies can do, and the sharing that gov't can do within its agencies.
Requiring a warrant to look at data that was volunteered to you is absurd. Let me put this another way.
Let's say that someone robs your house, but you had a video security system and you caught the robber on camera. So you take the video and go to police, and say, "Here is the evidence that I have for the crime." The requirement this guy was asking for would be like then requiring the police to get a warrant for something they already had consent to look at.
Bring this back to technology, the gov't can't just demand stuff from Google without a warrant or other court order any more than they can from you. At the same time, Google, as an entity, can provide law enforcement with evidence of a crime in the same was any private citizen can. Where it comes to you as a user is that you have a contract with Google (or whatever company), and agree to abide by its rules. Part of those rules is that what you do on their systems is theirs. They have the servers, they maintain the data, etc. They do state that they will protect your data, but that is more for them as a company, rather than you as a user.
The 4th Amendment is a contract between you and the gov't, but no little bearing between you and private companies. If the government wants to get info on you from them, they need a court order, and will still need a court order. However, if the company sees you committing a crime, and wants to report you to the police, they can, as they always could, but they are not compelled to.
In the same way that you stay in a hotel, and the maid has access to your room. If the police show up and want to search your room, if you are still within contractual obligation with the hotel (you are paid up on the bill or are not squatting) the hotel cannot grant the police access without a warrant. Only you can give consent. Once you violate the contract (overstay without extending your stay properly, destroy property, murder someone), ownership of the room reverts back to the hotel and they can grant access. They can also not grant access. Someone could be murdered in a room, the police could show up, and the hotel could entirely refuse them access, and require that the police get a warrant, and that's exactly what the police would have to do, unless there was a belief that someone was currently in danger.
There was another big stink in that it didn't add the ability for people to FOIA private companies. You cant FOIA private companies. You never could. FOIA applies solely to the gov't. You FOIA request the government for documents.
If you want to cite for debate, please cite from the [actual text of the bill]( and please have a basic understanding of how the Constitution works, and how court orders work. It's a lot better than random conjecture based on "privacy concerns" without actually pointing out what they really are.
Edit Since StoborSeven was the first person to respond, and cited his concerns (which I broke down for response), I would like to point out one thing. CISPA isn't that complicated, but reading bills is nothing like reading a book. If you really want to understand this thing, you have to be willing to set aside 20-30 minutes for reading it, and understand that you will be reading things more than once during that time. It references different parts of the bill, so you will have to jump back, because I don't think anyone would go so far as to completely remember sections. For example, if you read Section 3(c)(1)(A), it references subsection (b) (defines how the gov't can use the info), uses the term "cybersecurity purposes", which is defined in Section 2(d)(2) and references the definitions from section 1104 of the National Security Act of 1947, and that the stuff in that last part is extended by way of additions from section 3(a). |
I disagree, I may be wrong about this but I urge you to look into both sides of the story to make a more informed opinion. I grew up in India where they have a multi-party system where every election cycle (5 yrs) there's about half a dozen political parties are voted in to the parliament. After this, a coalition requiring a majority of the parliament needs to be formed to successfully form a government and be able to shape policy for the next 5 yrs (failure to do so will result in elections being held again which is an expensive affair).
Until about 10 yrs ago such a coalition used to be very unstable (For the last 10 yrs one center-left party has had a slim majority, thus able to form a stable government and hence deemed by many as the reason for India's economic growth). For example, a majority government would have lets say 40% of the MPs but the rest of the 11% which helped form the coalition would dictate policy since they would be the ones who'd threaten to withdraw support if they didn't have their way when it came to voting on a bill. In 1999 there was an instance when we had a prime minister for a total of 11 days before the coalition failed and we had to hold elections again.
I know the system in the US is a bit different but my point is, when you have a multi-party system, the party with the least no. of votes in Congress will carry the most power. Lets say for example, the Democrats have 40% of the House & Republicans also have 40% of the house, then if a 3rd party were to come into prominence, say The Tea Party which would have 20% of the votes will exact the most power as they can chose to caucus with either the Republicans or the Democrats. And lets say all the members of this Tea Party in Congress are from one state, say Texas, this will effectively mean Texas has the power to control federal policy & political rhetoric hence deeming rest of the nation politically defunct, as they already are if they're not part of the swing states.
The problem you have right now is that both parties are ideologically promiscuous & hypocritical in their rhetoric. This is mainly because of the system of lobbying prevalent in Washington. The amount money in politics is too high and that is going to be really hard to fix. |
I already told Rep. David Reichert [R-WA 8th] that if he voted to approve this one more time he would be losing my vote and I would be warning everyone I know not to vote for him. |
Well, there are people that went through many years of post highschool education that have came to that conclusion. I might add two different fields of discipline at that -- [Anthropology and Political Science](
George Washington highly cautioned not to have a dual party system for this very reason. The problems we are facing is nothing new and it's clumsy cluster fuck where, imo and many other make elected officials focus on values rather than performance.
Think about it. At your next job performance would you rather talk about your merit or would you like to interject a value that you know your employer would respond with rallying cry and immediately respond validating your existence and a raise?
Well, there's essentially USA politics today and the media thrives on it as well. Just watch as they have staged arguments yell at each other and create emotion for you -- the audience -- and keep you enthralled as if you are really learning something about "politics."
Then a commercial airs and now my education kicks in -- Social Psychology -- where you are told how all your troubles in the world would be soothed if only you could drive this new Lexus... |
Probably nobody listens because when states compete it's a race to the bottom. States already compete for corporations to set up shop in their cities. The governors of Kansas and Missouri already do stupid short sighted things to Kansas City by trying to get corporations to set up on one side of the border or the other. If, as a corporation, you can get massive tax breaks for setting up in one area over the other, you can easily get situations where true costs are hidden.
For example, it might cost the corporation less overall because of tax beaks to set up on Site A rather than site B, but perhaps Site A causes higher fuel usage and causes traffic problems, or a certain bridge needs to be widened unexpectedly. In many of these situations the corporation promises XYZ economic activity to the state, but over say a 10 year period ends up costing the state more than it provides. If the corporation then downsizes due to economic conditions, the state hasn't even gotten tax revenue from it in order to recoup its costs in providing infrastructure.
In a global economy, even zero tax rates offered by states still does absolutely nothing to help them compete against China.
While I agree that it makes sense for states to have more local flexibility, there's no way poor and sparsely populated states like Montata are going to be able to provide anywhere near the same level of health care as New Jersey without at least some outside help. There has to be some middle ground where states are given flexibility but within some sort of federal oversight and standards. |
you keep saying the same idiotic things over and over regardless of what I say.
again a false statement. I have sourced lies and corruption in federal policies that have killed millions of lives (both American and non). I have sourced above how you are very wrong in your statements and make statements as if they are truths.
I am showing you make a pattern of being an ideologue and not person who wishes to discuss topics to find the truth. Never have you sourced real information or made cogent statement. I am proving my point and you are not liking it as all.
Now I will have some fun.
Paul Krugman, [a liberal]( NY Post columnist, Nobel Prize winning Economist and Author of "End This Depression Now" Agrees with me about your Governor and your perspective. [Your precious Governor boast and even rolls her eyes at 10:40 only to be shot down by Kruger.](
> This is a very misleading point ... That's an effect not a cause.
And once again, I go down the research for other people to find you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are just supporting your political view with blanket statement "as if" they are true. Learn to question people who want to get elected and tell you bullshit (you or themselves) about how they failed their constituents, Maskirovka. |
LOL, you don't see it do you.
You only gave generalizations without any support or "specifics".
Then you expect me to do greater than you. I then generalize vastly more and you still hold great accountability to me. FFS, I just have to say WMD and invading IRAQ and I have specifics wrapped up. A topic I imagine your heart goes pitter patter about how evil one party is. And yet seldom does the naive of the other Party realize how theirs is just the same:
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
> In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there." (KQED 2006) He was also reported to have said "“Hell, those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish!”
Within hours, President Johnson ordered the launching of retaliatory air strikes (Operation Pierce Arrow) on the bases of the North Vietnamese torpedo boats and announced, in a television address to the American public that same evening, that U.S. naval forces had been attacked. Johnson requested approval of a resolution "expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia"
And you want more power to the "creme" that surfaces to this "top"?
That's why you are disingenuous. You might as well say unicorns exist then show a video of a Disney production. If you wish to be taken serious be cogent. Otherwise, you are demonstrating you don't know what you are talking about and giving me nothing to reply to except a woman wanting to sell her book and you stating I know something about this topic... ◔_◔ |
Why did all the Massachusetts senators no-vote? Also, What is so good/bad about CISPA? What is it the internet is so afraid of, and why does it keep coming up in Congress if it's so bad? (the |
You are close, but here is how I see it going down:
There is going to be several bills up for vote that have nothing to do with internet "security." These will be bills that either have major voter support or are those that no one really cares about.
Certain politicians in those committees will tack on provisions against internet security that have nothing to do with the bills that are being voted on.
One-by-one, those provisions will become law because the politicians were paid to back them. |
This would be a terrible, terrible rule. You are only thinking about the legislation that gets voted down that you are against . This is just shortsighted for a gigantic host of reasons:
If its a law - it will be passed by congress. Which means they can pass another law invalidating it. It's procedural nonsense and would have zero binding effect. You know how you overrule a law that says you cannot pass new laws? You pass a law saying that the first law is invalid. Simple.
Who is going to judge if multiple bills in this time period are duplicative? What is the standard of judgment going to be? Spoiler: these questions are rhetorical, because this is not a possible thing to do. And why should it be? This is the old 'semantic content' problem - should a law that says companies cannot give up your information to the government fall under this rubric? How about a law that says companies can give up your information, but only with informed consent? What if, it turns out, as a nation, we really do want this? Limiting congressional power based on previous and failed legislative attempts is just - nonsensical.
Let's say congress passes a bill that turns out to be disastrous - don't you want to the ability to pass another bill on the same subject matter modifying or amending the first bill? This shit happens all the time. Modifications and amendments are a gigantic part of the legislative process. The original copyright law was passed in 1790 and updated in 1831, 1909, 1962, 1964, 1976 and 1998, and is in current desperate need of reform. In fact, any proposed reforms will fail multiple times, because of the strong MPAA and RIAA lobbies. So do you want the fact that a modification to copyright law that says you are not a felon for jail breaking your cel-phone to fail simply because it has already been voted down by a bunch of gray haired idiots, who, hopefully will be voted out next session? No. You don't. Because that is really dumb.
There are many perfectly good laws, including certain civil rights laws, that were voted against, several times, before they were passed. Do you want to prevent this from happening in the future, as in the copyright example? Let's put it another way: a really good law is voted against by your asshole congressmen, and when he comes up for re-election, you vote for the other guy because you want to see him vote 'yes,' and he winds up getting elected. Hooray! Should he not be able to vote for this legislation because it failed previously? Of course not. That is idiotically anti-democratic. The fact that the people in a whole new congress to completely reverse, or amend, or modify, the acts of the previous congress is literally the foundational idea of our democracy. Trying to hamstring congress to not have this ability is just profoundly backwards.
I'm sorry to say, your view on how legislative politics works is just painfully naive. You are only thinking about the fact that certain bills which displease you keep coming up for votes. I hate to break it to you, but as an attorney, and a sophisticated adult, I'd much, much rather defend a system that threatens - but fails - to pass CISPA multiple times in a few years for the fact that this same system passed the key provisions of Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the third attempt in a seven year period. From wikipedia:
>They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the 1957 and 1960 Acts. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights. |
Whats amazing is the the demographic that is most vocal about sopa and cispa (namely, you and I) are the least likely to vote- middle class, probably urban or suburban, young.
Even if we do turn out to vote, it's probably only once every four years.
Were I a senator or congressman, I would have very little to fear from passing cispa- I mean, what are you going to do, vote for someone else? We, as a whole, are too busying bitching about Internet Freedom to get off the internet and secure it.
As a politician doing anything to get re-elected, I would cater to the poor, white and conservative instead of the middle class, "ethnic" liberals because they're not going to bother trying to keep me in office. I'd thump the bible, talk about eliminating or reforming "welfare" while fighting to get it increased for my poor, white constituents and spend more time in office than Strom Thurman. I'd portray myself as a workin' man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps because I know that's what people who actually vote dream of when they're buying scratch-off lotto tickets. |
Subsets and Splits