Not to mention, lets face it.. during an investigation, a lot of cards are being held close to the chest.. so their may be no PUBLIC smoking gun as some may claim, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.. All it means is we have to wait..

But lets also be realistic.. if this was a standard criminal trial, a large amount of circumstantial evidence still can and often does lead to a conviction. And in this case, there is a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence.. especially coming from a group that LOVES to brag "if you have nothing to hide then why can't we look through your life?"

And you think that would make it better?.. I mean your logic is they should ban all untraceable forms of currency including cash because they COULD be used to do nefarious things.

Of course, governments do stupid things.. and people are easy to goad through fear. (aka: terrorisim)

And how is tucking tail, closing boarders, and turning allies into enemies going to make it any better.. all it means is you now fear outsiders AND your own citizens..

Terrorism thrives best with disinformation, mistrust, and fear and all Le Pen was pushing for was basically playing into those fears. You may be SURVIVE that way.. but survival and thriving/growing are completely different things.

In a perfect world where the profit itself remains stable... then yes.. as the production cost goes down.. the outward cost to the consumer goes down.. but that will never happen... Companies are not investing in AI to make "cheaper" goods.. they are doing it to increase profits.. which means THEIR value goes up.. the outward cost will remain as it is.. which mean increased profits.. And with a reduced head count, the ancillary costs of human workers goes away further increasing the cost.. (Enticement programs (medical, 401K, gym, etc...), taxes, legal/liability of humans, insurance, etc...).

In short, unless we adapt and decide to make some serious changes to how we treat AI's (tax on them similar to human's, Universal basic income, etc...) Poverty would rise (not fall) which increases disease and crime, and increasing the separation of classes.. (the haves vs. the have nots would be even more stark)

its going up by a 25%, not a quarter.

Example (I can't speak for all schools).. but in NY, a medium sized HS pays approx. 210K annually for Internet access and support. (based on today's rates.. that number should be, based on market rate, closer to 300-350K). (smaller schools will pay less (depending on region and bandwidth), and larger schools pay more.).

210,000 x 25% = 262,500 (or 52K more).. Now in the grand scheme of things... that may not SOUND like a lot, but 52K on a small (and increasingly smaller) budget means schools have some very hard choices.. (drop it in favour of other programs which may make it less effective for today's student, etc...). And keep in mind, with no cap, prices CAN go as high as they want (of course there is a point of you "kill the host").. but making them bleed to death is not going to benefit anyone either (but remember, they don't like public schools.. so none of this is really surprising)..

Put in charge of education, someone that wants to see public education gone.
Deprive it of federal funds
Use the FCC to remove pricing caps which allow for more expense (notice, available funds have gone down).
Use the decline in quality as "proof" of why public schools should be abandoned..
Rinse and repeat until the problem goes away on its own.. or parents (en mass) vote to eliminate it.

Actually.. the markets work when there is sufficient competition to drive down costs... But basically as we continue to consolidate... (in most cases, there is only ONE provider of service in a given area), there is ZERO competition (or zero meaningful competition). And in today's tech landscape, its not like internet is a "toy" that can be easily dismissed unlike say "cable TV" in which there are over the air options (for now). Basically the landscape is coming back to the old "ma bell" days of "this is the price, and suck it because where else will you go"?

Increases would be the classic 3 pay periods (some months), also bonuses (performance, commission, etc...) Dips would be additional deductions are taken out, performance penalties, etc... and other variances..

In short, there are always dips.. we (from a budget stance) tend to average it out.. but there are months that are boons and some that are banes.. and the point of the article is a 25% negative swing, when you are the bottom is VERY painful... and can exacerbate the problem.. (money drops, you need additional money to pay home expenses, you take out short term loans to address it.. at higher than average rates.. this, in turn causes more burden.. and lowers the average number even more.

I disagree with that. If the workload itself prevents you from taking time off because if you do, you will have triple the work load, then there should be compensation for the fact that you have lost "downtime with your self or your family" . Now, while I would love it to be at overtime rates (from a personal perspective)... I don't believe it should be since it would be compensation at your normal rate typically so I don't any reason why a company would provide extra compensation for that. (I say that as business owner).

Not just that, but RECORDING the data on the phone, and doing lord knows what, because they don't do those things in FRONT of a person.. so absolutely not.. I've already advised my workers to focus on telecommuting/video conference calls, and the US has dropped from a priority country to a to be avoided country... I've encouraged my staff to if at all possible, avoid going into the US for any reason. (most have very little reason, but actions like this, again, put the US on that "do not fly into" list).

My company used to spend about 1-2 Million USD in travel to the US annually, that's dropped to 80K.. and we continue to lower it. I'm one of about a 2 dozen firms that do similar amounts... which will be reduced.

Enjoy your deconstruction and isolation..

I think that's exactly what they want.. remember.. to a paranoid's mindset.. anyone that is NOT under 24 hour watch with constant blood tests and brain drains is a risk.

But they always forget, these actions do nothing but CREATE NEW enemies, give strength to the existing ones.. and alienate your allies.. But as I said, that's exactly what they want because in that world, they direct control.

What are you talking about?.. the countries on the "Ban" list don't have known terror issues, unless you count the occasional bomb, in which case, ALL countries (With the exception of Singapore, New Zealand, and a few others) have had "terror" issues.. (the US has the most).

The difference is.. with groups like google, there are definite terms of service (ie: limitations on what they CAN use and what they CAN do with the data) (and they have a vested interest in keeping the data secure and anonymized because breaches engenders distrust which hurts the profits), and their use of your data can't toss you in jail, or potentially harm your life (assuming you are not doing some clearly illegal). Vs. a CBP officer has the ability to do with your data as they wish without any clear terms of regulations, and they have a wide latitude on what they consider "inappropriate" and can detain almost for any reason they wish under the guise of "security".

THAT is the concern. Basically its a system that is primed for abuse and in a manner that is almost impossible to fight unless you are visible enough (politician, celebrity, etc...) or wealthy enough (legal fees are not cheap). Outside of those extremes, its pretty much a prayer vigil every time one enters the damn country. And most us decide its just not worth it and keep our billions of dollars OUT of the US.

It applies to all PERSONS (not citizens) that are within the US's territorial boarders.

I fail to understand how this is difficult to accept.

One reason the courts adopted the stance of ALL PERSONS within the US's territorial boarders is because:
1: It prevents the law from essentially shafting a person by arbitrarily excluding a person by deciding they are citizen non-grata when someone else decides.
2: It insures a uniformity of law to all persons (citizens, those visiting, and those in process to become citizens) to prevent the case of "we didn't know they are a citizen" (ie: incarceration/imprisonment/murder of an innocent person).. which is also why the new laws are scary.. basically its a nation wide "stop, frisk and show your papers" and woe be he/she who doesn't carry their passport/birth certificate now.

This is also why the US is trying to keep GitMo.. because the laws apply to ALL Persons within its territorial boarders (hence having ops sites outside of them so they are not subject to US laws).

Actually it DOES have an impact on our work.

Some of them are self-employed (which means a smaller market, and a shifting set of regulations that we can't plan around or who we can even sell to)
Also with this "political crap" going on.. its going to change who can be employed, which means potentially a lot of new faces (ie: projects will get delayed, or even halted, some projects will be cancelled due to workforce issues.
And if you think all these "changes" are going to be good for operating expenses, doubtful.

So yes, if you mean the nuts and bolts of our work, no.. but will have an impact on our jobs and by extension our lives.

If you really believe that, then you have no idea how the economy works.

1: It COSTS money to round up those illegal immigrants. So your taxes will go up in some ways. (data point: http://www.newsweek.com/how-mu...)

2: Those illegal immigrants most of who are working and actually contributing to society. (in the form of taxes and general purchasing) they may be illegal but they are give far more than they take). - (data point: http://www.politifact.com/pund...)

3: The places that employed them were doing so not out of the goodness of their heart, but cheap labour, which means they will now have to pay standard wages.. which means, costs where they were working will go up, which WILL be passed on to you the consumer. (ie: Post Tax money from you)

4: A tourist, in general, is a net positive gain for a country, ie: someone that spends money, but consumes so little in services that they are net positive for a country (its a reason why lots of countries with little industry go to tourism, as its a vehicle for revenue and requires relatively little investment.

So 3000 per year for one family may not sound like a lot, but lets assume most spend half that, and in 2015 there were 38 Million visitors to the US.. (so lets quarter that for families (figuring a typical house of 4) or about 9.5 million families visit. Now lets assume about half of them are business travelers (and many companies are looking to stop sending bodies to the US and go virtual) so we have 4.75 tourist families.. now lets assume half them are skipping the US (which most I know are.. I know personally the CEOs the top travel agencies in the Europe (western) and Asia (east) and they are have noticed that since Trump's election, over 20% of the reservations they had for families that were coming to the US have cancelled or changed their plans to other places). We have no stats on personally booked travel and other travel agencies, but if their numbers are similar, then a 50% reduction is not far off, which puts us at about 2.35 Million familes that won't visit. Which means a reduction of 3,562,500,000 dollars (3.5 Trillion dollars) annually gone from businesses (some of which depend on tourists), which means those businesses will reduce staff (ie: more people looking for work).

Add that to the other things going on...

Well, its not good.