The fact is that the vote of a person living in Wisconsin counts for 3.8 times as many Electoral Votes as my vote as a Californian.
I don't have to point out that the "people/electoral vote" ratio from WI to CA is only about 1.1 (others beat me to that), but even that's misleading: the all-or-nothing nature of (almost) every state's EC voting gives large states a extra-large influence on the election outcome. In a race that's tight in the state, a change of only 1% of votes can cause lots of EC votes to swing from one side to the other. Read recent history for OH and FL to see that play out.
Beyond lives, I see potential in preventing "oopsie, I backed into a parked car"-type accidents, avoid just one of those over the life of the vehicle and the camera more than paid for itself.
What I don't get is why this data is so useful to advertisers. I've almost never bought anything based solely on an ad.
Everybody says that, and yet companies spend untold $billions on marketing and marketing-effectiveness research. Which means either (A) this pervasive marketing is a huge waste-o-cash, or (B) we ("consumers" as a whole) are mostly unaware of the heavy influence that marketing has on us.
Knowing how much those companies would love to keep the dollars headed toward executives instead of blowing it on expenses, my money's on (B).
Libertarians believe in necessary regulation.
Everyone believes in "necessary" regulation. The question is what do you, I, etc, consider necessary?
I'm thinking maybe American Medical Response of Connecticut is about to have less to say about the web, and more to say on it.
Since percentages aren't distorted by exponential growth, that means he's responsible for a 10% reduction in the world's current population.
Suppose for a minute 2 parallel timelines- one where Khan killed lots of people, a second where he didn't. You can't assume that timeline-1's (relatively uncrowded) population would would increase at exactly the same rate as timeline-2's (relatively crowded) population. Maybe timeline 2 would produce more children (people closer together plus a safer societal environment equals more couples having children). Or maybe the higher population density would subtly discourage having children (causing a leveling of population growth, as we're seeing in some places today).
If he doesn't like that then he can make his own phone and his own app store
App store I understand, but why would he have to create his own phone/tablet? Why can't the people who own an iPad be able to run what they darn well please?
Because the wrong people invariably end up with the job security and ridiculous pension. There is no real method in typical US union contracts for weeding out the bad, since they're seniority based rather than performance based when it comes to job security.
Because the wrong people invariably end up with the job security and ridiculous pension. There is no real method in typical US CEO and Senior Executive contracts for weeding out the bad, since they're seniority based rather than performance based when it comes to job security.
You're missing the point entirely. When US gov. officials use the term "secure" they mean precisely "control and oppress those in question" or often "retain power at all costs". You must learn to read these statements properly.
It's naive to only call out "US gov. officials". Every gov't wants this power, and quite a few (maybe more than you'd like to admit) are working hard to get it.
Check out his TED talk...
1) Avatar was ALWAYS meant to be an eye candy spectacle. A proof of the capabilities of his company that he founded for the purpose of making 3D art.
2) Titanic was just an excuse to dive the real wreck...
3) He sought to make more films, but there wasn't any money in it, so he returned to make another Hollywood film.
4) Avatar's subsequent release merely funds his true passion of science and exploration.
Were those his goals before Avatar (and Titanic) were made, or is this the director's version of tripping on your shoelaces then exclaiming "I meant to do it!"?