The problem is the GDP is EU is so high that simply not doing business with them will be giving up a lot of money. It's a bigger sacrifice then just not doing business in Spain/Germany with their existing link taxes.
But of course, if EU makes it too expensive to do business there, then people will drop out of it anyway I imagine.
I've been tempted multiple times to buy The Sims 4 from EA, but whenever I consider it I read up on it online, and see enough negatives from people with the games to change my mind. The last time I checked they literally had 25 Sims 4 expansions, and divided them into multiple categories of expansions (that I had to google an explanation for).
Like seriously, talk about getting ridiculously greedy EA.
I hardly seem to be alone either in sticking with The Sims 3. Sims 3 communities seem just as active as Sims 4 communities despite the Sims 4 coming out 3 or 4 years ago.
Not metadata. But technically if someone did something like steal a joke you posted online, that's copyright infringement.
In practice though, unless you're a famous comedian, and the joke is stolen word for word, you probably stand no chance in hell at winning a lawsuit against someone for stealing your joke.
What would a reasonable person expect from the public after having shot and killed an unarmed person?
Did the officer expect to be greeted with a ticker tape parade?
Obviously not, everyone knows poor police officers are a severely discriminated against minority group! That's why brave politicians had to stand up for them in some states and pass blue hate crime protection laws for these poor officers!
Other minority groups have to deal with being arrested more frequently, and given harsher sentences for the same crimes as non-minorities. Some of them even have to deal with openly racist rhetoric by some of our politicians who demonize them and their communities on a regular basis, calling them a crime filled hell hole. Some of them were violently beaten for daring to protest for equal rights. Some of them were violently murdered. But poor cops like Shelby have to suffer an even greater injustice, being hated for shooting an unarmed civilian and getting away with it!
When will big anti-police meanies stop discriminating against these poor blues who only murdered some random unarmed person they pulled over?
I'd insert a clip to the SNL sketch where Dick Cheney said "where's there's smoke there's always fire, but I assure you that's not true in this administration!", but I can't find it. :( There were Firemen rushing to a put out a smoking fire in the background in the sketch, they eventually tell Cheney he has to evacuate the building, all while he still insists there's no fires among all the smoke in the Bush administration.
Racial profiling is worthless against so few terrorists
There's a certain paradox that law enforcement should be aware of, that explains why this racial profiling software is bound to fail miserably in practice.
Imagine if there's a deadly virus that has only infected a tiny percentage of the population (a fraction of a percent). If left untreated it could spread a ton of other people and cause massive harm. But lets say we have a test that's 99% accurate at diagnosing who has this deadly disease.
You might think with those numbers that we could safely find everyone with the disease if everyone is willing to get screened for it. But that's not true at all. Because such a tiny percentage of the population actually has the deadly disease, even a 99% accurate test for it would be worthless, it would flag far more people as having the disease then who actually have it. Even testing people a second time to verify the original test results wouldn't stop this problem, with such a tiny percentage of the population actually infected you'd still find far more people who don't have it then who do have it.
This is essentially the situation with stopping terrorists. Law enforcement loves to rely on the crux of racial profiling to find terrorists, but because there's so few of them, and so many non-terrorists (over 300 million in the US alone), their racial profiling to find them becomes worthless because it will virtually always find non-terrorists instead.
And some have argued that the case against Trump is significantly stronger than the one against Edwards (in which he was indicted, but after an acquittal on one charge and a hung jury on the rest, the DOJ decided to drop the case).
It should be noted that one of the reasons why the Edwards case was dropped (and why it struggled to convince a jury) is because Citizen's United happened after Edwards alleged crimes, but before the trial, which drastically changed the political campaign landscape.
With how common Super PACs were by Edward's trial, all the money getting thrown at him was no longer so unusual to the jury pool.
What also helped Edwards get off is that the money still kept flowing to cover up the affair, even after it was clear to even the most delusional person that Edwards stood zero chance at winning the party's nomination.
Part of the problem is also the size of the market makes it not economically feasible for real competition in large parts of the country.
There's a reason why broadband deployment is especially lagging in rural America (even more then the rest of the country). It's simply not profitable for the ISP's, not even if they're guaranteed a monopoly. It's too much land to build infrastructure and not enough people on that land to pay for it.
While many people (especially politicians) love to brag about how awesome the free market is, the ISP market is frankly an area where the free market doesn't work for this reason. This is why the utility classification, and a tax/subsidies system was created for water/electricity/landline phones. Prior to it many of these services (especially landline phones) simply weren't available in rural America because there was no money in it.
> First off, he's hoping to turn it into a class action lawsuit for "all politically conservative organizations, entities and/or individuals who... have experienced illegal suppression and/or censorship."
Someone should tell him that several SCOTUS rulings I'm sure he loved at the time that attacked class action lawsuits will make this nearly impossible.
That's the thing though, when was the last time the government actually broke up a monopoly or near monopoly?
The only business I can remember them ever going after in my lifetime for having too much of a monopoly is Microsoft in the OS market. And they didn't even break Microsoft up for it.
Not to mention conservative politicians often stick a big middle finger at the tech industry on social issues.
I'm referring specifically to LGBTQ and Immigration issues.
The tech industry has long been very friendly to the LGBTQ community even when support for same sex marriage/etc. was much lower in the general public. Tech communities and LGBTQ communities tend to overlap very heavily geographically for a reason.
On immigration as well Silicon Valley is very in favor of it. Many tech employees are immigrants or children of immigrants themselves (especially Asian Americans who are heavily over-represented in the tech industry compared to other races).
Not to mention they've been responsible for pushing a bunch of complete BS lie stories that have caused real harm (fake videos on ACORN and the 'racist' Obama staffer being 2 such prominent examples).
That looks like a pretty good reason to me for any legitimate search engine to not rank their content too highly as 'news'.
There's a reason why the utility regulations were invented. They're a natural monopoly on a vital resource in many parts of the country.
Hence it's literally not possible in a true free market for the government to ensure competition in the ISP market even if they try breaking up the monopolies. In less population dense parts of the country it's simply not economically possible for 2 or more competitions to be in an area, especially in rural areas with lots of land and few people.
This is why the government to this day still subsidizes landlines in many rural parts of the country, and why there's a tax for it on your phone bill.
Wow, I've never seen such a blatantly racist person before.
You should do a bit of research on the effect of income on people turning to a life of crime. Here's a hint, people in poor areas with few economic opportunities are more likely to do it. Because of past racism African Americans are much more likely to live in those kinds of communities then people of other races, they simply can't afford to live in a better neighborhood.
Also the whole 'black on black' crime thing you talk about is a myth. You're more likely to fall victim to a violent crime by someone you know. So guess what, white people are most likely to be murdered by other white people! Hispanics by other hispanics, Asians by other Asians! So the statistic racists like you like to cite that blacks are more likely to be murdered by other black people is not in fact shocking or different from other races at all.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Re: Question
The problem is the GDP is EU is so high that simply not doing business with them will be giving up a lot of money. It's a bigger sacrifice then just not doing business in Spain/Germany with their existing link taxes.
But of course, if EU makes it too expensive to do business there, then people will drop out of it anyway I imagine.
On the post: EU Gives Up On The Open Web Experiment, Decides It Will Be The Licensed Web Going Forward
Re: Re: The scariest thing
On the post: Valve Clears Up Nothing With Its Latest Explanation Of What Games It Will Ban As 'Troll Games'
Re: Pissed about Origin
Yeah, I know what you mean.
I've been tempted multiple times to buy The Sims 4 from EA, but whenever I consider it I read up on it online, and see enough negatives from people with the games to change my mind. The last time I checked they literally had 25 Sims 4 expansions, and divided them into multiple categories of expansions (that I had to google an explanation for).
Like seriously, talk about getting ridiculously greedy EA.
I hardly seem to be alone either in sticking with The Sims 3. Sims 3 communities seem just as active as Sims 4 communities despite the Sims 4 coming out 3 or 4 years ago.
On the post: The Intellectual Dishonesty Of Those Supporting The Existing Text Of The EU Copyright Directive
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In practice though, unless you're a famous comedian, and the joke is stolen word for word, you probably stand no chance in hell at winning a lawsuit against someone for stealing your joke.
On the post: Congress Adds A Bunch Of Non-Violent Crimes To The Violent Crimes List
... WTF is 'coercion through fraud'?
Seriously, the definition of coerce according to dictionary.com is:
So in other words... coercing already involves violence or at least the threat of it according to dictionary.com.
On the post: Officer Who Killed Unarmed Man Now Teaching Officers How To Go About The Difficult Business Of Being Alive
Re:
Obviously not, everyone knows poor police officers are a severely discriminated against minority group! That's why brave politicians had to stand up for them in some states and pass blue hate crime protection laws for these poor officers!
Other minority groups have to deal with being arrested more frequently, and given harsher sentences for the same crimes as non-minorities. Some of them even have to deal with openly racist rhetoric by some of our politicians who demonize them and their communities on a regular basis, calling them a crime filled hell hole. Some of them were violently beaten for daring to protest for equal rights. Some of them were violently murdered. But poor cops like Shelby have to suffer an even greater injustice, being hated for shooting an unarmed civilian and getting away with it!
When will big anti-police meanies stop discriminating against these poor blues who only murdered some random unarmed person they pulled over?
On the post: DOJ And State Attorneys General Threatening Social Media Companies Over Moderation Practices Is A First Amendment Issue
Re: Re: net neutrality?
On the post: DOJ And State Attorneys General Threatening Social Media Companies Over Moderation Practices Is A First Amendment Issue
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Verizon's Pivot From Stodgy Old Telco To Sexy Millennial Ad Brand Isn't Going So Well
Re:
If I was born 10 years later I know I wouldn't have a clue what either of these sites are if I heard their name.
On the post: Documents Show IBM Pitched The NYPD Facial Recognition Software With Built-In Racial Profiling Options
Racial profiling is worthless against so few terrorists
There's a certain paradox that law enforcement should be aware of, that explains why this racial profiling software is bound to fail miserably in practice.
Imagine if there's a deadly virus that has only infected a tiny percentage of the population (a fraction of a percent). If left untreated it could spread a ton of other people and cause massive harm. But lets say we have a test that's 99% accurate at diagnosing who has this deadly disease.
You might think with those numbers that we could safely find everyone with the disease if everyone is willing to get screened for it. But that's not true at all. Because such a tiny percentage of the population actually has the deadly disease, even a 99% accurate test for it would be worthless, it would flag far more people as having the disease then who actually have it. Even testing people a second time to verify the original test results wouldn't stop this problem, with such a tiny percentage of the population actually infected you'd still find far more people who don't have it then who do have it.
This is essentially the situation with stopping terrorists. Law enforcement loves to rely on the crux of racial profiling to find terrorists, but because there's so few of them, and so many non-terrorists (over 300 million in the US alone), their racial profiling to find them becomes worthless because it will virtually always find non-terrorists instead.
On the post: Microsoft Wants Confirmation That Helping Politicians Not Get Hacked Isn't An Illegal Campaign Contribution
It should be noted that one of the reasons why the Edwards case was dropped (and why it struggled to convince a jury) is because Citizen's United happened after Edwards alleged crimes, but before the trial, which drastically changed the political campaign landscape.
With how common Super PACs were by Edward's trial, all the money getting thrown at him was no longer so unusual to the jury pool.
What also helped Edwards get off is that the money still kept flowing to cover up the affair, even after it was clear to even the most delusional person that Edwards stood zero chance at winning the party's nomination.
On the post: California Shakes Off ISP Lobbyists, Embraces Real Net Neutrality
Re: TheyDidItToThemSelves
There's a reason why broadband deployment is especially lagging in rural America (even more then the rest of the country). It's simply not profitable for the ISP's, not even if they're guaranteed a monopoly. It's too much land to build infrastructure and not enough people on that land to pay for it.
While many people (especially politicians) love to brag about how awesome the free market is, the ISP market is frankly an area where the free market doesn't work for this reason. This is why the utility classification, and a tax/subsidies system was created for water/electricity/landline phones. Prior to it many of these services (especially landline phones) simply weren't available in rural America because there was no money in it.
On the post: And Here Come The Completely Ridiculous Lawsuits Over Internet Company 'Bias'
Someone should tell him that several SCOTUS rulings I'm sure he loved at the time that attacked class action lawsuits will make this nearly impossible.
On the post: Court Rules It's Fine If FCC Wants To Deem Just One Available ISP As 'Competition'
Re: Re: Re:
The only business I can remember them ever going after in my lifetime for having too much of a monopoly is Microsoft in the OS market. And they didn't even break Microsoft up for it.
On the post: Disney Fixes Its Sketchy DVD Rental License, Wins Injunction Against Redbox Over Digital Downloads
The fact that Disney can't just directly sell the same thing online and render these lawsuits moot is really stupid.
On the post: Conservatives: Stop Crying Wolf On Tech Bias Or No One Will Ever Take You Seriously
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm referring specifically to LGBTQ and Immigration issues.
The tech industry has long been very friendly to the LGBTQ community even when support for same sex marriage/etc. was much lower in the general public. Tech communities and LGBTQ communities tend to overlap very heavily geographically for a reason.
On immigration as well Silicon Valley is very in favor of it. Many tech employees are immigrants or children of immigrants themselves (especially Asian Americans who are heavily over-represented in the tech industry compared to other races).
On the post: Conservatives: Stop Crying Wolf On Tech Bias Or No One Will Ever Take You Seriously
Re: Serious News
That looks like a pretty good reason to me for any legitimate search engine to not rank their content too highly as 'news'.
They're really just a right wing blog.
On the post: A Link Tax Won't Bring Back Journalists; It Will Do Even More Harm To Them
Re:
On the post: Big Telecom Resorts To Lying To Senior Citizens To Scuttle Net Neutrality In California
Re: I am having fun
There's a reason why the utility regulations were invented. They're a natural monopoly on a vital resource in many parts of the country.
Hence it's literally not possible in a true free market for the government to ensure competition in the ISP market even if they try breaking up the monopolies. In less population dense parts of the country it's simply not economically possible for 2 or more competitions to be in an area, especially in rural areas with lots of land and few people.
This is why the government to this day still subsidizes landlines in many rural parts of the country, and why there's a tax for it on your phone bill.
On the post: Research Paper Shows Militarized SWAT Teams Don't Make Cops -- Or The Public -- Any Safer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: meanwhile, back at the ranch
You should do a bit of research on the effect of income on people turning to a life of crime. Here's a hint, people in poor areas with few economic opportunities are more likely to do it. Because of past racism African Americans are much more likely to live in those kinds of communities then people of other races, they simply can't afford to live in a better neighborhood.
Also the whole 'black on black' crime thing you talk about is a myth. You're more likely to fall victim to a violent crime by someone you know. So guess what, white people are most likely to be murdered by other white people! Hispanics by other hispanics, Asians by other Asians! So the statistic racists like you like to cite that blacks are more likely to be murdered by other black people is not in fact shocking or different from other races at all.
Next >>