How does it "stop doing business in France", except by attempting to block IP addresses that originate from France? What do you do when someone uses a proxy or VPN to access Facebook? Who is at fault then? How can you enforce that? Does France plan to build their own Great Firewall?
What does "doing business in France" even mean? The servers are located in other countries.
Again, if I have a blog up somewhere that violates a law in France, with the server hosted in Botswana, how can I be fined for "doing business" especially when there's no monetary action between my site and the visitor?
But unless servers are hosted inside of France, does French law really apply? Can it be enforced? They can levy all the fines they want, but unless Facebook exists as an entity inside of that country, does that country really have any jurisdiction?
I run a few sites hosted in the US and I know that they would violate laws of Saudi Arabia. Can they come sue me?
Many porn sites show nipples and the tips of penises. Can they be sued by Japan, who demands such things be covered by little black boxes?
If a local town here in the US were to pass a law saying, I don't know, that you must pay a Website Tax in order to operate a website, then can they try to collect that tax from any website they access from the town?
I don't like stories that are not nerd oriented,
I consider myself to be a US national politics nerd. I follow this stuff daily. There's more to being a nerd than generating electricity from trees or arguing over whether Han shot first.
$1 per week is not that great a deal, considering they already sell a 2 year subscription, website and print, for $30. Plus you get a hat.
What if there was a site dedicated to this purpose? One micropayment site that multiple websites could integrate with. Hell, if there was a micropayment standard, with a single sign on service, then you could easily have multiple micropayment sites. Then you keep a balance on the micropayment site, the site keeps track of how many people have paid for a site's content that day, and they cut a check every month.
When I reach the "10 Article Limit" on a site I just clear my cookies and continue reading.
While true, this kind of effort can help scientists discover things that they have overlooked.
I know that it is difficult to believe, but scientists are generally human and they're not omniscient. Their experiments often have some kind of problem.
Ted Cruz and Rand Paul both oppose mass government surveillance and want the government to get a warrant - just as our constitution dictates.
Rand Paul, however, has dropped out of the race.
Many of the other candidates have the same stance on this as Rubio - Christie, Bush, Kasich, and I believe (but I don't know 100%) Carson as well. Not sure where Carly Fiorina stands on it, I hear so very little about her because she doesn't tell advertisements on the networks the way Trump does.
If this issue is important to you, then there's really only one candidate left who is on the side of privacy - and that is really, really sad. It should be all of them.
What about the port you stick the power cable into?
General public - should be free to view.
If you want the public to be able to view all footage, all the time, at no additional cost, then the police department is going to have to spend the money to make all of that video available.
That costs money.
So the city will need to:
A: Raise taxes to pay for the program
B: Cut other parts of the department (likely officers)
C: Cut other city services
There is no such thing as free. If nothing else, there's always opportunity cost.
You pick. Me, I'd rather pay for just the portions of video that are of interest. It's a hell of a lot less money than a blanket availability of everything.
Remember that these videos need to be reviewed and modified to remove the faces of minors and things like that. It takes time and resources. This ain't free.
It's actually not $200 an hour.
Reading the article, it will take about 304 hours, at $120 an hour.
This is for an office to review all of the video and make the proper privacy redactions (probably blurring children's faces, license plates, stuff like that).
$120 an hour does still seem excessive, though. Seems like you could hire 2-4 other non-officer people with the appropriate experience and education to do the work, and keep that officer on the street instead of behind the desk.
Nope. That's not what I'm saying. The question is meant to b'e taken quite literally: "systemd seems to have quite a lot of flaws, so why are so many distributions accepting it so quickly?" I apologize if you ended up taking more meaning out of that than what was intended - it's really that simple a question.
I did a bit of searching around and found this, but it seems tin-foil-hatty and I don't have the deep, low-level linux experience to tell if it is true or not.
The whole open source thing is great, in that people can integrate new pieces as they see fit, but the whole systemd thing just seemed to appear one day and take everything over. If one man, or one company, is able to force this kind of change then perhaps Linux is not nearly as healthy or independent as we may think it is.
There's one thing about systemd that I don't understand: If it is terrible (and I have no doubt that it is, from its philosophy to its implementation), why have almost all of the major Linux distributions moved to it?
This is one of the reasons I've stayed away from Drupal. The community is pretty awful, in my experience.
Now that I know they had a patch to move their update request to HTTPS back in 2012 - and ignored it - I'm definitely staying away.
That's truly amateur hour.
We can predict everything, except the future.