"That's a wiretap"
No, it's not. It's deep packet inspection for purpose of network management.
"blocking a service without a DMCA notice is criminal."
No, it's not. First, the world is bigger than the US, and second, we do it as sysadmins all the time. We blacklist spammers, and people involved DDoS attacks.
None of this matters, however, to a system like this, which involves watermarking the content, and blocking it on the upstream side. The provider watermarks all the streams of their videos, and when it shows up on the internet somewhere, that subscriber is shut off. Perfectly, completely legal.
"So every single stream is going to have a unique watermark embedded in the audio or visual data? The original will be decompressed, the mark added, then recompressed and streamed to each specific subscriber to allow identification? Tens or hundreds of thousands, simultaneously?"
No. The watermarking technology is put in the decoder - the set top box, the Widevine DRM module (in browsers), in iTunes. The stream is watermarked so capturing it and re-encoding it will have the watermark present.
There is a proper solution - the headphone jacks on the MacBook Pro also do optical audio out. There's your isolation and noise resistance.
Right now? The phone generally complains about the lack of encryption. Same thing that happens when you go to a site with an invalid SSL certificate.
Grandma may still click "Continue", despite the warnings, but the people who care will have the info they need to make an informed decision.
Alternatively, run an anti-stingray device that scrambles everyone's IMEI and IMSI upstream. The towers will know to reject it, but the stingray device won't.
It might be possible to detect the stingray and only activate when it's in use.
Trump will release his tax returns when the voluntary action buys him more than giving up his privacy loses.
Nobody has a right to his tax returns but the IRS, so there is no real reason for him to release them. The same goes for Hillary and her health records. The difference between the two is that Hillary's health is visibly bad, and Trump's finances are visibly good.
The non-replaceable batteries are more a function of being smaller and smaller. With quick charge, it's less necessary the first few years, and it's actually not too hard to replace the batteries with the right tools, or going to a shop.
As for the upgradable storage, that was more a function of the OS than anything else. Memory cards were originally mass storage devices running variants of FAT. While convenient, this caused a lot of problems - the Android security model requires processes not writing to each other's data or reading it (otherwise your games can steal credentials from your online banking, for example).
When running FAT on the memory card, any app with SD permissions could read all the files (a very bad thing), and it led to some real problems (such as very bad things being possible for users of LoJack, which included many Samsung Phones by preload. Disconnecting the mass storage would break apps that required the files on the card.
Addressing these issues first required the use of something like MTP (which uses a daemon and doesn't require exclusive access to the SD card). This makes it possible to write and read without breaking apps. Next, the card needed to be encrypted in order to protect the user data - otherwise, anyone who steals the phone can extract all the data on it. Locked boot loaders are designed to wipe the device when being unlocked for the first time, so that stolen devices aren't easily hacked.
Finally, cards needed to get fast enough to be functional as internal storage. Android marshmallow added support for external storage being treated as internal once those requirements could be met (accessible, secure, fast enough), and now we have phones that have external storage again. Apple does their own thing, but on the android side, it was more technical reasons than anything else for the lack of upgradable storage. It caused a lot of problems and took up space, so companies removed them.
You can see this with the Moto X. The X2 (second edition) took SD cards out. The pure edition added them back, using the same tray as the SIM card. Samsung's S5 had removeable batteries and external storage. The S6 took those out (for size and technical reasons). The S7 added the card back, but added quick charge instead of a removable battery, because the technical issues for the SD card have been addressed, but the size constraints stay.
Apple, on the other hand, wants to charge a bundle for more storage. They are control freaks, too, but the embedded encryption make external flash storage a viable option for them without losing that control. They may relax this requirement at some point - they finally made RAW photos an option in IOS 10, coming off external SD card. All data from an SD card has to be imported in their own app - it can't be read directly by other apps.
The biggest advantage to buying new cars is consistency and ability to plan.
I've been running the same car since 2012. It had a catastrophic engine failure, just a little past the warranty. It cost me $8,000 to fix.
With a leased car (or a new car), I know exactly what my costs are, and if it breaks (like mine did on occasion during the warranty period), it's not my problem - it's theirs.
As the head of the executive branch, Obama has selectively refused to enforce the law, reducing actual deportations significantly. President Trump is free to make enforcement of existing law a priority.
Illegal immigrants are already criminals; Trump won't need congressional approval to ramp up deportations significantly.
Trump has more primary votes than any other republican ever has, despite the huge number of opponents and anti-trump coalitions. He's neck and neck with Hillary, and more popular in some polls.
It won't be one in 10, and he may very well be president.
If something doesn't work, you haven't done enough of it?
More people increases GDP, but it does not increase wages, nor standard of living. Losing that GDP is ok, if there is upwards pressure on wages due to decreased supply, and increased disposable income to pay the now increased prices.
In other words, the country is poorer, but it's people (the working and middle class) are wealthier. I'm fine with that.
Statistics Canada concluded that every 10% shift in the labour market resulted in a 4% shift in wages in the other direction.
In other words, more immigrants, poorer citizens and vice versa. Ultimately, immigrants increase the GDP, but that's not good for people with jobs. It's good for the government.
I wouldn't because it's safer not to. The stats are really clear. If you try to use your own weapon for self defence your likelihood of being shot dramatically increases.
That's not true at all.
There are two main ways of looking at the statistics. Both have their error rates. The first is to look at people who died by a gun who own a gun. This tends to lead to false positives, as it includes (for example) people who buy a gun but don't use it, as well as people who buy a gun because someone threatened them - they were going to end up shot anyway.
The second approach is to look at people who die by their own gun. This leads to false negatives, as there are indeed cases where drawing a firearm escalates a situation where there would not have been a homicide.
In addition to going with data gathering that includes false positives, the anti-gun crowd tends to lump in suicides in the "firearm deaths" statistics, which leads to more false positives (cases where people were going to kill themselves anyway). They also like to compare only "odds of dying from a firearm" between owners and non-owners, which is of course higher, for exactly the same reason that "odds of dying from a car" is higher when you own a car. The problem with this approach, is that it does not include the chance of self-defence, so it's impossible to have any other outcome. Even though the odds of dying may be lower, the odds of dying from a gun go up.
Recognizing that, even using the pessimistic numbers, you're still almost certainly safer with a firearm than without. Here's why:
In the US, if you are not a 18-25 year old black male, you are actually safer with a firearm than without. That single segment is responsible for a huge portion of both homicide victims and perpetrators.
In addition, there's also the matter of training. Parents who own pools are more likely to have their kids drown (unsurprisingly). Parents who teach their kids to swim are less likely than those who don't, even if they own a pool (also unsurprisingly). Likewise, the firearm statistics include people who carry that are stupid and untrained. Don't be one of those people, and your odds get even better still.
Likewise, if you have children who don't know how to use firearms, keeping loaded guns around the house makes negligent deaths far more likely. If you don't have kids, you're much safer.
On top of that, whether or not you are safer depends on whether you are likely to be a victim, and how strong you are. My 85 year old grandmother (for example) is not in a position to defend herself from a violent attacker. She has no children in the house whatsoever. For her, a bedside firearm is far, far, far more likely to defend her than to be used against her, as she's already in a position of weakness to any likely attacker.
I prefer to defend myself with gun control and a more equal, fair society
So, you prefer rule of the strong and the many. Good for you. Some of us have been assaulted (and have family members that have been, too). What would you say to rape victims - "just sit back and let it happen"? Scream, and hope he gives up? Guess what, he didn't.
On balance, that seems to work better than the American model.
If you subtract the black population, the firearms homicide rate is on the higher end of Europe. If you subtract the Hispanic population, the rate is closer to the low end of Europe.
The US doesn't have a gun problem. It has a minorities with guns problem.
"It's when they say 2 + 2 = 5 that I begin to argue." -- Eric Pepke