>The issue is TPM 2.0

Yes, Big Brother wants to take full control, you can't be trusted to take responsibility for your own security. Of course, they can't be either - they're happy to turn your personal info into profit.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

>Isn't it more like the spy glasses from the first Mission Impossible?

More like the Cone of Silence from Get Smart.

>We need to ask our legislators to get stronger exceptions for libraries added to the law.

Nah. We just need to revert to original copyright terms. 14 years, with one 14 year renewal. No one is creating content expecting it to take more than 28 years to make it worth their while. US copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times..." Extending those Times doesn't promote, instead it works against Progress.

I can point to a lot of copyrighted material which isn't "useful", except to make a profit.

>USB-C is very resource demanding. Lots of 4-pin USB 2.0 ports don't burn the resources.

You have no idea what you're talking about. First, there is no "USB-C". You can replace a USB 2.0 "A" receptacle with a Type-C one, no changes needed other than the connector. A "USB 2.0 Type-C receptacle for USB 2.0 platforms and devices." is what the spec calls it.

>More ports is what he's looking for.

Then they should say that, not "It's premature for brands to phase out USB-A [sic]." Because, the Type-C spec defines a "USB Type-C to USB 3.1 Standard-A Receptacle Adapter Assembly" (yes, it's backwards compatible earlier USB specs). So complaining about "A" ports being removed simply demonstrates ignorance. You can use any device you want which needs a "A" connection with a Type-C port, just get an adapter cable.

This is retarded.

1. It isn't for profit healthcare that is the problem, it's THIRD PARTY PAY.
2. I don't use third party pay, ever, for healthcare. I've been insured nonstop for over 30 years, and NEVER ONCE has my insurer paid my doctor.
3. Even when I've had emergencies, I still called around, negotiated a fair cash up front rate, paid cash up front, and billed it to my insurer. My cash up front rate was sometimes below any co-pay negotiated with my insurer, lol.

I just recently had some elective surgery that would have cost me about $2000 on my annual deductible, but I was able to cash pay a negotiated rate of $400 including a follow-up "free". I submitted the $400 to my insurer and they reimbursed me.

Third party insurance exists because YOU VOTERS demanded the HMO Act of the 1970s, which tied health care to employment, and then employers outsourced it to third parties.

Health care is remarkably cheap in the US (cash pay, negotiated) and I don't have to wait months to see a doctor when I call and say I am cash pay. They bump me up fast.

>Trump don take no steenkin notes.

No, he takes classified documents to store in his pool house.

No, I mean many, many paragraphs beyond the summary which claims to "show that climate change made 213 historical heatwaves ... more likely and more intense, to which each of the 180 carbon majors (fossil fuel and cement producers) substantially contributed." without stating that it includes the contributions of users. Why should Exxon be blamed for my choice to go to one of their stations instead of a Shell station?

>We, of course, all contribute to this. Some of us are just looking for a scapegoat.

Yep. Well hidden in the study is the statement "...we assign to each carbon major the emissions associated with the full value chain of their products...". That's an obfuscated way of saying that they're not counting the direct emissions of the producers, but also of the consumers (that's us) who use their products. But it's basically a zero sum game, if consumers don't buy from one producer, they'll buy from another. So attributing the "full value chain" to single producers is deliberately misleading.

In fact, it may be the opposite of what they're implying. Larger producers may have efficiencies of scale in production which contributes less per quantity of product produced.

>launched under President Trump in his first term,

Flattery may get you more appropriations.

Why not make Apple pay for advertising, instead of giving it away free?

Whatever happened to tags here?

Thinner? Why? I don't see anyone clamoring for thinner phones. In fact, I'd prefer a bit thicker, so they're less delicate and easier to handle and they can use the room for bigger batteries. They could even get rid of the camera bumps which put them out there just waiting to be damaged. Because you know, they're lying about the "5.6mm" [sic], which ignores the thickness of the camera.

>"you're pretty established in your career, you have skills that you know cannot yet be disrupted by AI,"

OTOH, if your inexperienced, incompetent, incomprehensible, and/or inconsistent, AI does all of that well and you can be replaced.

>The cost of buying the pouches â" roughly $25-30 per student â" has set off debates around how schools should be spending their limited budgets.

Just make the students pay for the pouches. If they can afford a phone, they can afford the pouch. They don't want to pay, fine, they can leave their phone at home or have it confiscated.