the great question is HOW a $300 1960's TV ISNT $2400 NOW..
I have a theory on that. TVs are luxuries, no matter how much people want to have one, that remains true. So if people are short of money, the new TV does not get bought. That makes it tougher for luxuries to compete in the market, and so they tend to go/stay down relative to the rest of the market.
Is it okay if the SWAT team drops by your house at 3 a.m. tomorrow morning for a display of overwhelming force? Thirty officers with assault weapons, flashbangs, and a tank to batter down your door? They have some criminals to deter and, oops, a warrant for the house next door to yours.
If that doesn't sound like a good idea, you might consider the effects of the use of overwhelming force when it isn't needed. Perhaps it causes more damage than it deters?
So, let's see. Referring back to your first assertion again:
There is more lawlessness in black neighborhoods. There are more weapons. There are more drugs. There are more criminals.
And now consider this post:
Open carry laws supported nationwide would take care of a lot of problems.
Is it really likely, by your reasoning, that having more blacks have more weapons, carried openly, would improve things?
Obviously not, since the "specter of a Maxine Waters mob" is a major concern of yours, such that you can't even go down to the local barbecue without fear that one of those mobs will turn up. So, since you obviously won't want any blacks to be carrying those open-carry guns, the meaning of this becomes clear, too:
It would lower the incarceration rate too, and be a boon for the funeral business. Probably improve the gene pool too.
Because removing all those blacks from the gene pool would reduce the incarceration rate, gotcha.
See? I do understand where you're coming from...and so does everyone else.
Interesting that you started this thread by asserting that, "There is more lawlessness in black neighborhoods. There are more weapons. There are more drugs. There are more criminals," as a justification for SWAT...
...and then finished up by presenting a justification for SWAT based on the North Hollywood shootout...that was comitted by two white men.
It would make the service map much more useful than it is today. Today they can run a cable by the edge of a neighborhood, sell to no one--in fact, absolutely refuse to sell to anyone--and the neighborhood could be included in their service map.
At least with my suggestion they would have to run a working cable to at least 7 houses in the neighborhood, for it to count.
You forgot that the purpose of the warrant was to identify the people and get their data. That can be done without knowing the phone ID. The Google account not only identifies the person but also connects to everything that their phone uploads to the cloud.
They certainly know who is using my phone, even though I got my Samsung cell phone from T-Mobile. To use the Google services on my cell phone, I had to establish a Google account, and configure the account into the phone.
A company may not include an area in its service map unless it actually sells service to at least 3% of the residents of that area, or 7 service locations, whichever is greater. AKA, "If you cannot sell broadband service to residents, you don't serve broadband."
Censorship is undesirable regardless of who is doing it. Just ask Alex Jones. (Whether he is actually being censored or not, he certainly agrees it is undesirable.)
The company is within its rights. Does that mean we should not discuss, or deplore, what is doing within its rights as a public policy issue?
The argument is a bit simplistic, the privacy issue is about much more than just a simple trade-off.
Instead of a grocery store example, let's say I have erectile disfunction and I share that with my doctor so I can get some Viagra. If that information remains between me and the doctor, that is a trade-off.
But it's a very different issue if I go home and there's a post about my purchase on Facebook, "Coyne is using Viagra, you should, too."
A trade-off is when I make a deal I make for a specific benefit. The biggest problem nowadays is that I have no idea who I'm making a deal with, or the extent of the sharing involved in the deal.
This is probably not even about NSA back doors. It's probably about that idiotic encryption export restriction. Can't allow other countries to see/steal our super-super-secret encryption that any foreign national can just buy a book about.
Maybe instead we should be worrying about what is in some of the foreign products that we incautiously use here in the United States.
On the post: Vermont's Revenge Porn Law Ruled Constitutional... With An Incredibly Confused Ruling
On the post: Express Homebuyers Wins Again As Court Decides Its Allowed To Have Opinions
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: AT&T
I have a theory on that. TVs are luxuries, no matter how much people want to have one, that remains true. So if people are short of money, the new TV does not get bought. That makes it tougher for luxuries to compete in the market, and so they tend to go/stay down relative to the rest of the market.
On the post: Two-Person Police Department's Million Dollar Military Gear Grab Ends In Arrest Of Police Chief
Re: Re: 'You're wrong too, just not as much.'
Not only that what would justify obtaining more stuff. After all we can't risk being outgunned by the crooks!
On the post: Research Paper Shows Militarized SWAT Teams Don't Make Cops -- Or The Public -- Any Safer
Re: Displays of power make conflict less likely
If that doesn't sound like a good idea, you might consider the effects of the use of overwhelming force when it isn't needed. Perhaps it causes more damage than it deters?
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
So, let's see. Referring back to your first assertion again:
And now consider this post:
Is it really likely, by your reasoning, that having more blacks have more weapons, carried openly, would improve things?
Obviously not, since the "specter of a Maxine Waters mob" is a major concern of yours, such that you can't even go down to the local barbecue without fear that one of those mobs will turn up. So, since you obviously won't want any blacks to be carrying those open-carry guns, the meaning of this becomes clear, too:
Because removing all those blacks from the gene pool would reduce the incarceration rate, gotcha.
See? I do understand where you're coming from...and so does everyone else.
On the post: Research Paper Shows Militarized SWAT Teams Don't Make Cops -- Or The Public -- Any Safer
Re: Re: Re: meanwhile, back at the ranch
Interesting that you started this thread by asserting that, "There is more lawlessness in black neighborhoods. There are more weapons. There are more drugs. There are more criminals," as a justification for SWAT...
...and then finished up by presenting a justification for SWAT based on the North Hollywood shootout...that was comitted by two white men.
On the post: Movie Company Sues Post-Production Studio For $5 Million For Leaking 'Kickboxer' Film That Grossed $5k Domestically
On the post: A Senator Says U.S. Broadband Maps 'Stink.' Here's Why Nobody Wants To Fix Them.
Re: Re: Re:
It would make the service map much more useful than it is today. Today they can run a cable by the edge of a neighborhood, sell to no one--in fact, absolutely refuse to sell to anyone--and the neighborhood could be included in their service map.
At least with my suggestion they would have to run a working cable to at least 7 houses in the neighborhood, for it to count.
On the post: FBI Tried To Get Google To Turn Over Identifying Info On Hundreds Of Phone Owners
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummm..
On the post: FBI Tried To Get Google To Turn Over Identifying Info On Hundreds Of Phone Owners
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ummm..
On the post: FBI Tried To Get Google To Turn Over Identifying Info On Hundreds Of Phone Owners
Re: Re: Re: from the sensationalism dept.
On the post: FBI Tried To Get Google To Turn Over Identifying Info On Hundreds Of Phone Owners
Re: from the sensationalism dept.
BTW, I saw what you did with the units there. In the future I suggest you give it as 0.025 Leagues. It sounds even smaller that way.
On the post: FBI Tried To Get Google To Turn Over Identifying Info On Hundreds Of Phone Owners
Re: Re: Re: Ummm..
Phone => Google Account => Google => Me.
On the post: A Senator Says U.S. Broadband Maps 'Stink.' Here's Why Nobody Wants To Fix Them.
Re:
On the post: FBI Tried To Get Google To Turn Over Identifying Info On Hundreds Of Phone Owners
Re: from the sensationalism dept.
On the post: Nintendo Using Copyright To Erase Video Game History
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The company is within its rights. Does that mean we should not discuss, or deplore, what is doing within its rights as a public policy issue?
On the post: We're Bad At Regulating Privacy, Because We Don't Understand Privacy
Trade-off?
Instead of a grocery store example, let's say I have erectile disfunction and I share that with my doctor so I can get some Viagra. If that information remains between me and the doctor, that is a trade-off.
But it's a very different issue if I go home and there's a post about my purchase on Facebook, "Coyne is using Viagra, you should, too."
A trade-off is when I make a deal I make for a specific benefit. The biggest problem nowadays is that I have no idea who I'm making a deal with, or the extent of the sharing involved in the deal.
On the post: Ajit Pai Does Something Right, Will Reform Stupid Utility Pole Rules To Speed Up Fiber Deployment
I'm going to keep betting on stupid. My leading guess is that the new rules will protect incumbents and exclude newcomers.
On the post: Bill Says US Tech Companies Must Let The Feds Know When Foreign Companies Poke Around In Their Source Code
Maybe not the first priority?
Maybe instead we should be worrying about what is in some of the foreign products that we incautiously use here in the United States.
Next >>