And when I want my robot butler to do my shopping for me?

For that matter, wouldn't this prohibit my Amazon Alexa Echo buying me coffee pod refills, if it became law?

Just another example of political posturing without thinking through (or caring about) the unintended consequences.

Is it actually any better than a standard size? What about if you don't have a perfect six-pack and don't want it to fit incredibly snugly?

Does it work for other types of shirt, jackets etc? You don't want a jacket to fit tight to your body, but it still benefits from being tailor fit, if the measurements are done right. For those less than perfectly svelte, a well-cut jacket can help to hide the flab. Can the AI do as well as a tailor?

It really pains me to say it, but this is spot on.

2020 story. Who had "Microsoft EOLs Windows kernel, switches to Linux" for October?

In Scotland, both Scots and English are spoken, with each being more prominent in different areas.

This is very misleading to foreign audiences who don't know any better.

Overwhelmingly, the language spoken in Scotland is English. While in the 2011 census 1.5 million people claimed to be able to speak Scots (out of a population a little under 5.5 million) in the same census 93% of people reported speaking English exclusively at home; only 1% reported speaking Scots at home, broadly on a par with Polish.

What you're reading in the previous comment is a reflection of the desire by some Scottish nationalists to encourage, promote and overestimate the prevalence of Scots and Gaelic in order to bolster a distinctive Scottish political identity. To be fair, historically the English did exactly the same in reverse - suppressing the teaching of Scots and Gaelic in order to support integration into a single British political identity. Nonetheless, if you are genuinely curious about the facts, English is overwhelmingly the language spoken in Scotland, with Scots and Gaelic spoken rarely, and even more rarely as a first language.

Saying "Both Scots and English are spoken in Scotland, with each being more prominent in different areas" is technically true, but only as much as is the equally misleading statement "Both English and Navaho are spoken in the United States, with each being more prominent in different areas".

Is that before or after controlling for population density?

Definitely.

It’s interesting that OP is so keen on censoring the Judicial Watch claims they don’t actually provide a link to them, for us to read and evaluate them ourselves. We’re supposed to rely on accounts of what Judicial Watch said, by those who also want them censored. If we had a link we could also read Judicial Watch’s reaction/rebuttal: clearly OP doesn’t want us to.

Well, I suppose it’s consistent with the policy of censorship. Not so much with a free society.

Freebies for everyone. Everything is free. No matter that even those lauding this say the freebies won’t change behaviour, because the main issue is people from another country, it’s all free! What’s not to love? The only concern is, maybe this will slow making other things free, things I want. Oh dear, what to do? Surely the solution is simple: make everything free. What could possibly go wrong?

Is Win7 getting this patch?

If not, an âoeextraordinarily seriousâ crypto hole being the first item to hit as soon as Win7 goes EOL would really set the tin foil hats going.

If people are likelier to drink a lot, but less likely to drive drunk, it is hard to say what the overall public-health impact of ride-hailing firms has been.

Converting the infliction of harm on unwilling third parties (other road users) into merely voluntarily undertaken health risks to self, is *clearly* a win.

If you’re so caught up in authoritarian health paternalism that you can’t see that, there’s clearly something wrong with your moral compass.

I'm surprised the neither the article nor this discussion mentions the connection between pirate radio and drugs.

By the time I personally encountered pirate radio, in the 1990s, it was essentially run by drug gangs. The radio played music, to get listeners, and "advertised" to those listeners by promoting (also illegal, unlicensed) raves, which were a major distribution venue for the then-popular synthetic drugs, Acid and Ecstasy, and some less common synthetics. (Not pot).

At the turn of the millennium I was commercially involved in a government project to bring early wi-fi to a deprived council estate (US: federal housing project) as part of a regeneration exercise. The drug gangs aggressively defended their rooftop transmitters, and it required some negotiation to agree to share space: they were also concerned about radio interference!

It was these experiences that convinced me that the drugs trade is not a metaphor, it's the literal truth that it's a business like any other, with illegality being an (unpleasant, dangerous and damaging) detail of the trading environment not a fundamental category. Successful drug dealers become media barons and patrons of the arts, just like other business leaders.

Well, that seems the go-to verb in Slashdot headlines is "sue". Whether that's a comment on editorial decisions alone, or a comment on the state of the tech world, I don't know. A bit of both, I guess.

a worker at a company with more than 500 employees is guaranteed $13.50 an hour, while a worker at a company with fewer than 500 employees is guaranteed only $11 an hour -- these workers' exclusion from the study's results is an especially germane problem (note that low-wage workers in Seattle have had an incentive to switch from small firms to large firms since the minimum wage started rising).

Hold up a minute. If the smaller business is allowed to employ people at a lower minimum wage than the larger business (and remembering here we're talking in both cases about a wage above the unregulated market wage for that job) then the smaller business has gained a competitive advantage relative to the larger business, compared with the prior situation.

So you'd expect the larger businesses to be contracting, and the smaller businesses to be expanding.

If the study shows that the smaller businesses are actually contracting, that means the damage in absolute terms to those businesses is greater than the benefit from being able to steal a march on their larger competitors. But that doesn't mean they aren't winning some trade away from the larger businesses, just that it's not enough to fully cancel out the damaging effect.

Not covering the larger businesses is a limitation of the study. But far from proving - or even suggesting - that they've expanded by an equal or greater degree to the contraction by SMEs, actually we can guess that the contraction there is EVEN WORSE. (Note here that we're talking about contraction in employment: it's possible the larger corps limited the damage to their profits by contracting employment even more sharply, e.g. the robo-servers we see taking orders in McDonalds).

Bottom-line: OK, that study had limitations. What study doesn't? But don't be too quick to say that implies the opposite of the study's conclusions: it might be even worse than you think.

It seems pretty clear to me at this point that those with a right/conservative perspective generally consider "fact-checkers" like Politifact to be leftist partisans, while those with a left/liberal perspective overwhelmingly consider them objective and unbiased.

If only there were some way to tell who was right.