I'm not sure you are aware, but crime rate has fallen across the world, even in countries that never went through a "get tough on crime". One plausible theory (I won't say it is correct, just possible) is that Lead poisoning in youth resulted in criminal tendencies later (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/). Attributing to the incarceration the reduction in crime though is a pretty tough sell, in particular when you look at crime statistics of juvenile offenders who's father is incarcerated: http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_basic_facts_swisher_on_children_of_the_incarcerated.pdf.
When I wear a watch of any sort, it aggravates the nerves in my wrist. As such, the entire smart-watch wars are something I simply have to "watch" by the wayside. I suspect more people have the same issue, but haven't put 2+2 together on what is triggering it.
How about post a PSA in it's place, and just not include the snuff films?
Good point, in addition, the question can be asked that if Tesla builds the factory (which they will in one state or another) will they be controlled under the remaining CA regulations better than other states. In other words, CA can say "this is such a big factory, we need to look at the big picture and understand that if we can regulate them, it will be better for the overall health of the WORLD than if they go somewhere else. As such, we will reduce some of the requirements such that the overall benefit will be greater." It isn't necessarily a "one state vs. another" but what is best for the world. This is such a big project that it is likely to be better managed than most by both the company and the state, that they can agree to cut some regulations simply because others will be better enforced.
The infamous commerce clause trumps states rights
No it doesn't. It's just abused as a power grab. It was only meant to apply to a limited number of things.
See, it DOES trump states rights, as proven by matters of law. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't change the facts. In this particular case, I think that there should be Federal Law to unify what everybody should expect as far as recording rights are concerned, and the law should be "anybody can record any conversation they are having at any time through electronic means". Since any conversation could in theory result in a verbal contract, it is only reasonable that said contracts should be legally recordable to protect the individuals entering into said contracts.
The infamous commerce clause trumps states rights, so there should be a Federal law, and it should take priority on this.
This requirement is normally done at the network boundary, so a hardware firewall will meet this requirement, although for web facing servers, often companies also like having application level firewalls (protocol level) that can inspect for suspicious activity at layer 7, not just the simple stuff. There is a huge business around certification and auditing for this, nobody should just jump into handling credit cards without knowing what they are getting into.
As soon as they start handling credit card transactions, they will need to conform with PCI standards, which will mandate much much higher levels of protections. There are significant fines associated with non-compliance so you may want to forward them over information about this.
You do know it's been done, right? http://laughingsquid.com/disunion-an-immersive-guillotine-simulator-for-the-oculus-rift-virtual-reality-headset/
DNA testing would see the parentage of the third doner without specialized testing. Mitochondrial DNS are ONLY passed to offspring by their mothers, and given the procedure, there will still be a "DNS" mother involved, insuring that a reasonable set of parents can still be determined using the normal procedures. Not a nightmare at all.
Not a valid comparison, because even then, they don't actually send the dns names. They send a hash of them, meaning you can't reverse the hash and find the name. In your comparison, they would send a value that allows them to determine if someone else's webcam had the exact same image visible, but nothing more. Privacy is protected.
If you think looking at DNS is abusive, you probably don't want to know what it takes to find installed rootkit based cheats or similar. The fact that they are only sending hashes of the names found, in my mind, makes this a reasonable approach as a 2nd pass to verify that they don't have false positives. From the way I read this, the idea is to do a 2nd check just to verify that the first check didn't flag you incorrectly.
did you even read his response? They look for indications that the cheat is in play, THEN they check DNS as verification, and send a HASH of the dns name to their servers for comparison. This means they don't even see the actual dns name on their side, they can just check against known hashes of the sites the DRM used for verification. That is why it is two staged. Simple existence of the names in your DNS cache won't trigger the ban hammer.
I think the idea is that if they have visas to hand out to companies, the companies will be willing to put offices in Detroit for those people to work in. From there, services will be needed from the lower-skill people in the area, think food service, etc. This will then eat into the 17.1% unemployment. The problem isn't the number of workers but the type and skill of the workers, and getting things back in balance. I'm not sure this is the right solution to the problem, but I am willing to consider that it may be A solution to the problem for now.