Sounds to me more like people looking to cash in on the "that's sexist" craze.
Where does the line for "getting paid to tell the government my opinion about stuff" start, anyway? Or will I have to hire a grantwriter?
The real question is, does Europe have a crazy guy in a question mark suit selling them a book with the "secrets to winning government grants?"
Tell me I'm not the only one who remembers those commercials.
The credit card company isn't forcing you to adhere to the contract: the government does, via contract law.
Contract law is fucked due to corporate influence on government. Which should be a pretty strong indicator of why "have the government do it" isn't necessarily a wise decision.
Rating systems are subjective regardless of what entity is pushing them. At least an outwardly private company isn't going to pretend they're unbiased like a government could and would.
It would be pretty obvious bullshit if, say, EA was in charge and every other game company mysteriously received shit ratings. Not so much when the governing authority can make back room deals while pretending to have the public interest in mind.
Caveat, I am American, so dealing with our political system is probably coloring my view. Shit brown.
You can call bullshit all day long on anything you want, won't make you any less of an idiot.
Instead of using computers to figure out who's most likely to take their own lives, how about we use machine learning to figure out why these people are killing themselves, and fix the actual problem?
Slight caveat, you can totally own a three man machine gun in the US, provided you have the resources to purchase one. And yes, private citizens can own tanks...the catch is, we're not allowed to have ordnance.
It pretty much is - the only thing preventing Regular Joe from sticking a Ma Deuce in the back of his jacked up 4x4 is how expensive mounted machine guns are.
I doubt you'd fit an ICBM back there.
Also, unilateral contracts. Consumers will have about as much say in the matter as we do with cell phone carriers and ISPs.
The problem I see is that 'permission' is very vaguely defined in the US legal system.
Unilateral contracts and all. Basically, they'll set it up so you can't buy any car without signing something that gives them 'permission' to share your data, just like what the cell carriers have done. This isn't a move to protect consumers, its a preemptive strike.
Right, he couldn't have shot them without illegally carrying a gun... but he could have stabbed them, bludgeoned them with something, waited until they left and hit them with a car, blown up the restaurant, or just walked up and beat them to death with his bare hands; wouldn't be the first time it happened while a crowd stood around watching.
Couldn't help myself... as you said, left wide open.
They know what they're doing - notice how the ads for those drugs always, always have a "warning" about giving it to adolescent males.
But this is 'Murica, and somebody's gotta make a buck, so who cares if a few tiny lives get ended in the process? Give that boy more dope so I can put a down on this new Ferrari I've been eyeing.
I would wager the real difference between you and Columbine is that fact that unlike those boys, you probably weren't all doped up on prescription psychotropics.
Amirite?
For the inevitable citation demand:
After any salary raise, you will have less money at the end of the month than you did before.
