I want my Dodo-burger and my Moa-burger too.
They can wait with the elephant bird and the terror bird until I get peckish again.
Gastornis parisiensis they can keep, I don't want them to tread on my feet.
But more seriously, instead of editing the genes so that Californian Grizzly doesn't eat people, they could do some editing so that they can be employed to pick oranges, that would be the day.
I don't know about bears picking oranges. Next, they'll discover fire and then it's just trouble after that. See this story.
And what if I don't want to live in society? Will society let me independently exist, or will they force my participation, through such means as property taxes? And if I'm not given a choice, who's the parasite?
Born, never asked, eh? I think the choices then are be dead or live on an isolated island in the remote Pacific. With rising sea levels, the second choice may not be the better option. With the human population spread across the globe the way it is, it's getting pretty hard not to be part of some sort of society.
It's a way to get their foot in the door. They will either make a new agency, or expand the FCC to essentially police the internet. You'll need someone to check up on ISPs to make sure they're staying neutral, and a bunch of new regulations that define exactly what neutral is. ISPs will probably need a license to operate which can be revoked in the event an ISP is found not to be neutral. From there, they can probably add new regulations to prevent sharing copyrighted materials without even passing new legislation. Since its already illegal, all they'd need to do is expand the meaning of net neutrality as necessary.
And net-neutrality advocates really need to get real about this. The Internet is moving away from preferred content, not toward it, and users would perceive blocked content as "broken links." Customers would have a shit fit, and probably sue their ISP for false advertising if that happened (not to mention the Feds could bring antitrust charges). Net neutrality legislation is an unnecessary opportunity for the government to break the Internet. Don't fall for it.
You are assuming that competition exists among ISPs. This is not the case in many parts of the US. Where I live there is one choice, excluding satellite which is a lousy solution. Without local competition, a monopoly can do whatever they want in the absence of regulation. By the time customers get together and sue an ISP for throttling or blocking sites, the damage is done. A net startup would be out of business before folks realized it was gone. Monopolies have to be regulated. Net neutrality is minimal regulation. It says keep your hands off content. If there were any real competition, it wouldn't be necessary.
If you'd like to see the extent of surveillance in US, watch this video released by anon:
Scary to say the least. 1984 is already here.
Isn't this convenient, the video has been deleted from YouTube. That is doubleplusungood.
Well, for the most part...the music being produced today, just isn't worth keeping, and owning to replay over and over again in the coming years.
That's not just my "get off my lawn" mentality either...I hear it from younger people today. They go through tons of music, but it is quite often disposable, I've heard them say.
I think the problem is just the opposite. There is so much great music, from all time periods, available right now that we're in some sort of golden age of music. There's always something new and exciting to discover, so why limit yourself. I listen to everything from Gregorian chants to hip-hop and my personal opinion is that the stuff being produced right now in any genre that you can name is as good and as anything from any past period. It's just different because it's built on what came before. Of course, there are giants like Coltrane or Beethoven, but new giants will always come along and revolutionize music.
What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency?