Notice they are saying "inequality" and not poverty. The prevailing wisdom of the last couple of decades is that, in even fairly prosperous societies, the mere fact that there are very rich people makes others miserable, even if all of their needs are being met. So, the reason there is crime in places like Finland and Sweden, with fairly robust social safety nets and worker protections, is because rich people live there, too. It doesn't make any sense, but it's a Marxist reading of complex socioeconomic factors, that boils everything down to class and assumes little else matters.

Not sure how this is allowed as ITAR covers a lot of this ground already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Horsecrap. Reading makes you a better writer. If you need to communicate with other humans, the more you read, the better you are at communicating with them. In general of course. If you read garbage then that's what you are learning from.

https://www.masterclass.com/ar...

Ah, you're right, I completely misunderstood your argument. You don't understand the most basic of economic principles. Got it.

So your argument is that the art that artists create has no inherent value, and others can reproduce it and profit off of it as much as they want and the artist who created it should get nothing?

I agree with the general concept that copyright law and enforcement is screwed up and should be reformed, but copyright itself serves an important purpose.

One of the big local chains has stopped checking to see if you have bought a ticket when you walk in. I think they do a cursory glance at the theater and that's it. I've heard rumor that they make so little money on ticket sales it's more profitable to have a well staffed concession stand than to bother checking tickets. The flip side is that they play some good old movies (I've only cared to see one new movie in the theater this year) so I'll happily shell out to see a cool old movie in the theaters rather than the new shlock they are putting out.

LOL, I think the DOJ itself has been caught fake-redacting legal documents before. There was a mini-scandal a few years ago IIRC.

The correct way to redact - use the Acrobat Pro "Redaction" feature which removes the text from the PDF.

The cheap crappy way of redacting - draw black boxes over text in word and "Save as PDF" which does almost nothing.

It's been done, by Netflix, five years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Also in the series is a SAW ripoff, a romantic comedy, and a standup special.

Capitalism in the US has never been uncontrolled. Nearly every facet is regulated, licensed, taxed and tariffed. You also having the government printing money out of thin air and dumping it semi-randomly into entire economic sectors, driving up prices and making certain corporations very wealthy. Want to know why Boeing can't build anything successfully? Because the US government showers them with cash, and there is zero incentive to produce anything of quality in a timely fashion.

CNN averages around 500,000 viewers a week. That's roughly 1.5% of the population. So Ellison wants to spend $40 billion to end critical news coverage of Trump to half a million people? $80,000 per viewer? That... makes no sense.

I'm no fan of surveillance, but in Detroit they have a "Green Light" program, where high-risk businesses, like gas stations and 24-hour convenience stores, can opt in to a program where the police department gets direct access to their camera system. So, if a place is held up, once an alarm is triggered the video gets sent to the police immediately, and they can get a description of the perpetrators and vehicle immediately.

From people I know who are familiar with the project, it actually does work. Crime trends down on businesses that have the green lights outside. I don't mind it much because:

1. It's opt-in - business owners are under no obligation to sign up for the project
2. It's obvious when a business is using the service - there's a big green light out front
3. Police only get instant access to the video when the owner says there is a problem, otherwise it's up to the owner to give up the video, or the police can get a warrant for it, as it's always been


I'll take a program like this over Flock that tracks everything everyone does everywhere.

Yes. Exactly. That is my point. Behaving badly or in a manner that disadvantages others is not evidence that you are a monopoly.

Antitrust laws are there to protect consumers, not manufacturers or corporations. Are there viable alternatives to an iPhone? Yes? A lot of them? And Apple is making it more difficult to develop for their platform? Sounds like a self-solving problem.

The OP seems to think so. I'm only commenting if Apple is an absolute monopoly, which they clearly aren't. It's incredibly easy to not use any Apple products at all.

Eufy sends all images from their security cameras to a central server somewhere, whether or not you agree to it. Are they an absolute monopoly?

GM dropped CarPlay and Android Auto from all their EVs. No customer wanted or asked for this. Are they an absolute monopoly?

Subaru is popping up ads in their in-dash displays. Nobody wants this. Are they an absolute monopoly?

There is a gap in your logic.