That brings down their profit as well.
What about the rest of the country? This is benefiting one group of people in a particular city and screwing the rest of the United States.
2) Bull. Not teleportation. Anymore than magnetism is antigravity.
3) Not instant, but otherwise true.
4) A little bit true.
5) Not likely
6) already building houses out of it. But won't - too expensive
7) Totally true. Space applications are great.
8) printing food is a silly idea.
9) Replicators are hundreds, if not thousands years in the future. This is not the beginning, anymore than the printing press was the begining of the internet.
What happens is this:
1) To pay for this, they raise their price by x%.
2) A small percent of people choose to get lesser service (i.e. slower broadband) as a result in the
3) They end up splitting the cost to pay for the broadband among their customers and their own profits.
Yes, we will end up paying slightly more, but their profits will also go down.
If they did not have a warrant, then it is an illegal invasion of privacy.
They electronically entered his computer and that is no different than entering his home. The fact that he had to click on it is meaningless. The creation of the malware would be illegal, without the warrant.
Now, the police may not be smart enough (or ethical enough) to have asked for the warrant, but that is what is clearly needed.
I can see how the phone is convenient, especially if you are already wandering the the aisles of the store with phone in hand, texting away, but people's phones die all of the time. Hell, maybe the reason you are making that purchase is because your phone is dead and so you are trying to pay for a taxi instead of calling your husband to pick you up?
Doesn't seem like a battery powered device is going to be a suitable 100% replacement for a card anytime soon.
That sounds like service from a cable company.
If she has Comcast in here area perhaps she can qualify for Internet Essentials? $10 per month broadband service to low income families.
If not what about DSL?
The word unlimited means NO LIMITS. None. Zero. Nada. Without any restraints.
You can't advertise something as 'no peanuts' and then put peanuts in it. Similarly, you can't advertise something, or worse, put sell a contract for unlimited and then put limits on it.
The basic problem is false advertising here. The providers wanted the right to lie.
That is against the law. They deserve to be punished, and punished severely.
Of course, we really should throw in an "adjusted for inflation"
Now, the one thing you note is that Ello could charge extra for special features... Privacy obligations could be tied into those features, where they have a penalty if they breach. But in a system in which users pay specially so that they remain anonymous, isn't it implied that non-paying users have their demographic information sold? In which case, isn't Ello doing exactly what Ello said they wouldn't?
Basically, all of this navel-gazing is stupid. If you want to avoid ads, don't use free services that have ads. Or, if you're going to use free services, accept that the service provider has to make back their costs somewhere, and your eyeballs are a valuable asset.
If it's done for personal gain, it's always a crime, but that is not always the case for other kinds of intents. A prime example: f a cop kills a man because he hated him it's a lot different than when a cop kills a man because he was kidnapping a little boy.
Even when a random person kill someone by accident, is a different and lesser crime than killing someone on purpose.
In addition, Nixon's crimes were both for his personal gain and hit democracy at it's heart - elections. Those make it incredibly evil crime.
The CBS reporter's incident, assuming it is entirely true, does not have these issues. There is no evidence that it was for any one's personal game, nor was it an attempt to circumnavigate political system.
As such, Nixon's crimes are far worse.
I am not saying that GMO stuff will be totally harmless. But it isn't any worse than non-GMO stuff, like asbestos.
As such, it does not need to be outlawed, just reasonably regulated (and that does not mean labels that will encourage fear).