I rather suspect that if most Americans actually read and understood the trade deals, they wouldn't be supportive of them. But they don't. At best, they read the name of the deal (which is always incredibly misleading or outright deceptive). At worst, they just hear what the news says about the deal, which is even worse than just going by the name.
"They spy on hundreds of thousands of people (admittedly people without the legal right to object), and store all the data in one place."
Also, although it's not related to this specific case, people forget about the stupid third party doctrine when they use this stuff. The third party doctrine means that any information a company is holding about you is not private. Storing sensitive information in third party services is asking for trouble.
"anyone with actual experience with motor vehicles can tell you that if you smell gas..."
I guess it depends on what threshold is meant by "smell gas". Every car that I have been near in my life smells like gas, but not every car smells so strongly of it that it makes me think there's a problem.
I think a better approach is to not buy meat that you don't understand. It doesn't have to be labelled if you can get the information from the butcher.
Even better is to trade quantity for quality. Buy your meat from local producers (to the extent that it's possible) who produce the meat in a manner that you agree with. It's more expensive, but the meat you get is much better quality and much tastier. Your overall meat expense doesn't have to go up -- just eat less meat. You probably won't mind because it will be so much yummier, and if you're an average American, you will be much healthier for it.
"We become a whole nation of vegans"
I think you meant vegetarians here. Vegans avoid all animal products (like butter, eggs, etc.), not just meat.
Since a number of commenters brought up that it's dangerous to store a propane tank in a hot car, I did a little research on the question. I was interested because there are numerous permanent propane tanks installed outdoors in areas that can reach crazy high temperatures during the summer... so what is the actual danger?
It turns out that there is a bit of risk, but not of the type that I imagined. Heating propane tanks cause the propane to expand, which increases internal pressure. If that pressure gets too high, then a relief valve opens allowing the propane to escape the vessel.
So the danger of storing a propane tank in a hot car is not catastrophic explosion. It's that the tank may fill your car with propane, which is clearly an extreme fire risk. Good to avoid, but (relatively) harmless to things outside the car.
"You can be held responsible for parking tickets, since your car *is* parked illegally regardless to who parked it"
This is true, but it's more a matter of practicality than legal philosophy. When a car is illegally parked, there's no way for the cops to know who did it (unlike with moving violations), so the ticket goes to the registered owner.
But really, the person who did the parking is ultimately responsible -- the difference is that the cops place the job of getting the right person to pay the fine onto the registered owner. The registered owner is expected to get reimbursed by whoever parked the car illegally. If they won't pay, then the owner can take them to small claims to recover the money.
It seems that often when someone points out wealthy people or companies that use their wealth to abuse other people, someone will come up with a "you're just jealous" retort. The accusation is almost never correct, but is just a way to dodge the actual points being made. As such, I tend to be extremely skeptical of such arguments. And I'm skeptical of it being used here.
And it really seems like the interest from EU regulators has more to do with the fact that these companies are (1) big and successful and (2) American rather than European.
It seems to me that the interest comes from a cultural disconnect. Things that seem right and proper in the US often don't look that way to the European eye, and vice versa. I suspect that this is the major reason for the interest from EU regulators.
They do make specific objections that have nothing to do with jealousy, but have a lot to do with cultural differences. I don't agree with their objections (I am, after all, under the effects of US culture), but that's beside the point. If those objections are dearly held, then the only realistic response the EU can make is to encourage services that operate in a manner more in line with their sensibilities.
I think this is the real reason for the push to develop native services, not jealousy or a NIH syndrome.
Re: Better digital vandalism than digital sabotage.
This isn't even remotely the first of this type. This sort of thing has been going on for as long as digital billboards have existed. And before that, it was (and still is) quite common with electronic reader boards -- even before the internet was used for them. In the pre-internet days, many such signs could be called up and programmed using a modem.
The only reason this is getting widespread mainstream news attention is because it involved goatse.
"Hopefully they'll take the high road and fix their stuff without involving poor Ms. Streisand in the mix."
Not going to happen. There's no money in taking the high road, and that's the only thing that matters to companies. The Streisand Effect can change that economic computation by steering potential customers away.
I actually think that she knows exactly what's going on. Her problem is that she agrees with it and supports it but is trying to find a way to do that without making the people she theoretically represents unmanageably angry. This entails a lot of lying and misrepresentation that can give the impression of cluelessness.
"A specification describes the API, it is not the API itself. An API absolutely is code. The difference is just the public members, which are the API, vs the private implementation details, which are not."