It's not "big super computers" as you hyperventilate in your post. Rather, the well-informed representative was placidly referring to "big giant super computers." Try to get it straight next stop & end this dedication to pursuing your agenda from clouding your judgment.
What the cabbies want seems reasonable on the surface. Not sure why the Techdirt article takes such a negative to the cabbies call for deregulation. Yes, there are differences. But it's long been Uber's claim (and Techdirt, and others) that the cab industry is an over regulated, captured industry. Many of those regulations should go away, I would think this would be the one cabbie protest Techdirt could get behind. Looks to me like TD is being reflexively anti-cabbie, when the whole tone of this action is world's apart from the typical anti-Uber attack.
Does Techdirt think taxis have the right level of regulation now? That would be news!
Perhaps, but the court has no power over "the media" at large. At most, they could have sway over students acting as the media. Certainly the kangaroo court can't prohibit media from asking a questions about a court case. I mean, they can, but whatever punishment they mete out has no power outside of the ivory towers.
Publishers have the option of excluding their articles from Google News. But they do not want to exclude. Rather the publishers want Google to pay them to include the articles. Google does not want to pay, so includes only a link to the article instead of a snippet. Publishers that do not demand compensation have snippets in the news articles. All seems well.
But now, the publishers claim that Google is "discriminating" against the publishers demanding payment because the snippets are not shown. Yup, damn straight they are. They're only including snippets when they can do so without incurring additional cost. What sense of entitlement these publishers must have to demand that Google present its search results in ways the publishers prescribe and compensate the publishers for the privilege of doing so. The sad part is, the German government is so obsessed and blinded with anti-Google fury that the German leaders seem ready to force Google to present only state-approved search results while paying legacy, non-adapting corporations for collecting free traffic while failing to innovate.
It's beyond stupid. I read articles like this and can only conclude that German legacy publishers have essentially given up and now are enlisting the power of the state to support their failed, legacy business model at the expense of German's own citizens and their own freedom to search. Maddening. It is jolly to read so many articles produced by legacy publishers repeat the contradictions of their lobbyists whilst never pointing them out. That must be its own special kind of torture.
The put down of the current business model for baseball is way too pat. The Dodgers will reap something like $425 million/ year (!!!) for their current local TV deal. They are able to do so because they are collecting probably $3-4/month from nearly every cable subscriber in Greater Los Angeles (at least, that's the plan).
Compare that to $10/month from only the most ardent fans. Making the $10 package freely available would mitigate the incentive the strongest fans have to pay upwards of $100/month to cable companies just to watch the Dodgers. Without those hopeless fans getting cable just to watch the Dodgers, I reckon the amount cable companies would be willing to pay would drop more than 50%.
Exclusives have always come at a premium in entertainment, and baseball is no different. The policies suck for fans and may harm the sport in the long run as fans lose interest, but in the short-to-medium term there is no rational way the Dodgers would earn $425 million/ year for local TV rights if the new Dodgers cable channel did not have an exclusive. Back of the math reveals that pretty quick, with probably about 10 million households, the Dodgers/ MLB would need to collect $42 from each household. Since the package runs about $130/year, they would need fully 1/3 of all households to sign up for the MLB streaming package. That's simply not going to happen.
This article is the biggest piece of shit ever posted on Techdirt. It feels almost like a parody of the scare pieces Techdirt loves to mock with such hysterical lines as "I wonder if he's considered what might happen if his system were taken over as part of a botnet that took out a hospital's computer system, say, or were used to host and distribute child pornography: would he be happy about accepting responsibility for those too?"
Or how about hey, maybe the dude just doesn't care if his Techirt password is stolen. Or NYTimes password. Or the password for any of a million other sites that pose no risk to the user if stolen. Nope, making that logical inference would require more common sense than Mr. Moody could possibly muster.
Subtraction: 314 million people. Less 74 million children. That's 240 million adults.
Multiplication: 12 months a year. $2800/month. That's $33,600/year.
Multiplication: 240 million adults. $33,600/adult/year. That's a mere $8.064 trillion/ year.
Addition: $8.064 trillion in new benefits. $3.539 trillion in the 2012 budget. The new budget is now $11.603 trillion.
Division: $11.603 trillion divided by $3.539 trillion. The new budget is 3.28x the old budget.
Division: The US Gross Domestic Product is about $17 trillion. Glyn's simple plan to curb piracy would merely result in the US budget consuming just 68% of the US gross national product.
Final answer: this is one of the more absurd proposals ever to appear in Techdirt. Hopefully I'm simply missing the Swiftian subtlety & this is not actually a call for the US to more or less impose full-fledged socialism in order to solve what is, by most accounts on Techdirt & elsewhere, a mosquito of a problem. Tactical nukes seem a bit of overkill, don't they?
Re: Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
Maybe insightful, but wrong. You need to divide by 6, since the CDC stats are for the full year. So the death rate among the general population over 60 days is 0.7995%/365*60= 0.131%. Which is pretty damn close to the 0.1186%. Demonstrating pretty clearly that there is no obvious correlation between vaccination and near term mortality.
I reckon the difference could be chalked up to many people near death would not be vaccinated when otherwise they would be. Of course, there are many other convoluting factors-- the elderly are more likely to get the flu vaccine and have higher mortality. Ditto very young children. The least likely to be vaccinated are healthy folks in 20s, 30s, 40s. Who also have among the lowest mortality rates.
But we agree on on thing, the OP's assertion is laughable.
Re: Re: This may not be the popular opinion here...
Right. Which is why the NSA needs to stick strictly to its mission of being a foreign intelligence agency. The NSA should never spy on domestic communications, and they should never share that information with law enforcement unless it relates to a foreign/ terror threat.
It is unclear if the NSA, as an organization, is capable of sticking to their assigned mission.