...western half of the country were 3G wastelands, particularly in mountainous states such as Idaho and Nevada.
Yes, the economic loss to the nation's economy has been estimated to be in the tens of dollars as people who live in more hospitable areas refuse to subsidize infrastructure for those who lack the brains to move out of unfarmable land with no source of water for hundreds of miles.
If you "Like" something on Facebook, Facebook has every right to let your Facebook Friends know you liked that thing.
Perhaps people are finally realizing that the limits placed on corporations regarding the handling of personal data is grossly in favor of the monentization and re-use of their information for purposes which the majority of people would disagree with? If that is so then any government claiming to be "of and by the people" should draft legislation assuring that the traditions and customs of its citizens be upheld.
This case goes to the heart of that, by weighing a legitimate public interest against a private interest which is worth many billions of dollars and built entirely on a misconception by the public of what information may be shared, and what may not be shared. Let's be clear here: Facebook's entire privacy and business model has been under intense scrutiny by privacy advocates because it often intentionally misleads its users, often reverses itself in the face of criticism, and has been a frequent target of high-profile publicity as people became aware of it. All of this strongly indicates that the people using the Facebook service are fully aware (or told) how this information may be used. Now that it is about to become a publicly traded company, it seems essential this matter of law be resolved.
Afterall, once something is on the internet, it doesn't leave. That can be a real problem for anyone searching for a job, should the wrong thing become public. And by real problem, I mean real unemployment and personal hardship. This is not just a matter of "privacy" -- it has fast become a matter of survival.
it's simply not economically viable to manufacture here in the States.
As long as we continue to allow imports of materials covered in the blood of the workers who produced it, then yes, it will remain "not economically viable". Should we suddenly have an outburst of compassion and decide to ban such imports, I imagine it will magically become economical again to manufacture here. Also.. you're only getting about a 10% discount when you buy products produced by sweatshop as opposed to regulated and safe working conditions.
And let's be clear: The product you're buying isn't essential to your livelihood. It is a status symbol and a material comfort. Is that 10% really worth it? There are some standards that we should not compromise on: We should not allow business with companies or countries that have to place nets on and around their buildings to catch people committing suicide because of it's poor working conditions.
If you're an anti-social shut in who just found out you don't even have to talk to your therapist face to face, what incentive do you have to better yourself?
The success of the web-only series The Guild comes to mind...
Body language is huge in therapy, because a lot of what therapy is consists of getting the patient to talk about things he or she finds uncomfortable. Discomfort can be hidden much more easily in a person's tone of voice than in their body language cues.
It's not like the people who've been pirating for the last ten years are just going to say to themselves "Hey, let's go back to the way it was in the 90's and forget that we've gotten used to not paying for our movies and getting them instantly.
Interestingly, the most popular items are not movies but television shows. But that's neither here nor there -- Even if the MPAA stopped charging for movies and TV shows "pirate" distribution would continue, because the quality is superior. Let's look at the selling points for "pirate" distribution content;
The MPAA currently can only compete on one of these points -- cost. And they've been competing like mad here, by sending anyone who even looks like they might download a cease and desist, airdropping lawyers by the hundred on college campuses and filesharing sites, and spending hundreds of millions on political contributions to induce law enforcement to attack downloaders. They aren't trying to win the war by arresting everyone and giving hackers 30 years in the electric chair... they're trying to win by making the cost of downloading look less appealing compared to their own product offerings, through their distribution channels.
99.9999% of end users will never visit anything with a *.verisign.com domain.
There are over 2 billion internet users... so you're saying only 200 people in the world will visit that site? Is now a bad time to note that millions of websites have a 'Verisign Approved' widget on their site that has a referred URL back to the *.verisign.com domain?
ctrl-c, ctrl-v
ctrl-c, ctrl-v
ctrl-c, ctrl-v
The favored tactic of the oppressors is to simply redefine things. In the United States, for example, citizenship can now be revoked without a trial and the person deported, even if they were born in this country and never left, because the authorities simply redefined what a citizen is to get around that pesky constitution. In this case, since he didn't actually speak the words, but instead typed them, he is not entitled to any free speech protections. Or any protection. At all. Ever.
I can see an argument being made that people don't want an "operating system", they want a computer. And when most people say computer, they don't mean the box. That's what geeks say. When an average person says computer, they mean all the applications, peripherals, internet access, etc., that all gets packed into the magic box.
Linux and its supporters have never quite managed to grasp the Magic Box school of thought. Until they do, they'll never be a competitor. This is a cultural problem, not a technological one. Look at Apple. First we ignored them, then we laughed at them, then somehow, overnight, OS X became a contender and Apple became a massive corporation. How did that happen?
Hint: Apple doesn't sell 'operating systems' or 'ipads' or whatever. They are selling an experience. And if you ask the average person what the Linux experience is... they'll look at you, facepalm, and say flatly "I couldn't get the damn thing to work."
Linux vendors need to sell an experience, not a product. It needs to be well-supported, preconfigured with everything the average person wants on a computer (or whoever their target demographic is... IT managers, server lackies, whatever...), so all they do is push the button and there it is. It. Just. F*cking. Works.
Drinking makes such fools of people, and people are such fools to begin with, that it's compounding a felony. -- Robert Benchley