"Do you honestly think that CVS would prefer to sell you a bottle for $25, when they can instead sell one for 10 times that? Keeping in mind that their markup is probably 10X as well."
Yes, I honestly do think they would want to do this. I have never understood why someone would rather charge large amounts and make a few sales verses selling for cheaper and making lots of smaller sales. In the end it is often more profitable to sell at the lower price. Also, you seem to assume CVS is a monopoly. You think CVS would choose not to sell the lower price one and risk Walgreens stealing that market?
Wait, so I'm supposed to take her seriously about anything to do with balancing privacy, security, and allowing government access? This is the same Hillary Clinton that ran her own e-mail server to hide her shit right?
This is the kind of thing that has me seriously planning on recording any calls I make to ISP tech support lines. Sometimes the way to get the support you need is to light a fire under them with bad PR. I just wish I has some recordings of my past dealings with ISPs.
Re: Re: "There's a way to fix this mess and it's to stop mass surveillance" -- WHETHER BY GOVERNMENTS OR CORPORATIONS.
You can opt-out yes, but as has been shown with Windows 10 for example, they can opt not to listen to you.
This is why I'm really liking the idea that we push forward with making everything encrypted. The governments and the companies took advantage of the trusting nature of how the net was built. Now it is time that we slap their hand and make them at least have to work harder to vacuum up data.
Sometimes I wonder why Google doesn't just respond to these things in more fun ways.
Like hey, why not box up everything they own in France and ship it to another country. Then offer to move all their employees to their new sites in the other locations. They take the free move or they start job hunting.
I think that would be a nice wake up call to these governments. Loosing access to Google, loosing lot of jobs, AND loosing a lot of highly skilled workers.
Is it just me that is really puzzled by how stupid these companies are? It seems really simple to me, the entertainment system and the car control system should be air gaped. There is no excuse to have these two systems talking to each other.
Even if you want to display diagnostic info, that should be setup as a very strict one direction messaging system. This whole idea of lets connect the dvd player to the accelerator is just stupid in so many different ways.
As for the onstar, I have always thought that system seemed creepy and I have zero interest in owning a car with that system on it. I do not trust a company enough to be handing over that level of control of my vehicle. The idea that someone in an office can push a button to unlock and crank my car.... No thank you.
A directional antenna will increase the broadcast power even without an amplifier being built in. It is because the power is being directed instead of just going everywhere, as a result it is much stronger in that one direction.
Kind of like how you take a Mag light and remove the top, the light shines in all directions but pretty weak. You put the reflector on it and suddenly it seems much more powerful in the direction that you point it, but the power output at the light bulb is the same.
"In the meantime, any YouTuber who supports themselves with ads and just wanted to show off the level to their subscribers, or perhaps added some good commentary to the footage, will lose revenue (as well as gain an unnecessary headache.)"
Considering all the issues that keep happening around this, why have they now fixed this already? It is REALLY simple, when something gets flagged all money should start dumping into a holding account where it stays until the copyright questions are answered. Soon as proper party is identified the holding account dumps funds to that person. TADA, the ContentID trolling has been killed.
Sure, that solution is not perfect. The creator still might have to wait for their money, but that is hell of a lot better than getting told. "Yeah, sorry about that, our bad, all that money is just gone."
"They mean they want manufacturers to take steps to prevent firmware from making the devices send waves at a higher output than safety guidelines (as far as I can see) but this can be done by physically limiting the output to the desired power levels."
There are issues though with trying to physically limit that. There are cases where you can legally go above what is normally allowed. For example, if your using directional antennas and building a point to point wifi connection you are allowed to use more power than if your just blasting out in all directions.
Talking of antennas though, the antennas make it hard to physically limit the power of the broadcast because if you change the antenna you can change the broadcast power even though the internal chip thinks it is sending the same amount.
I'm sure there are some others that can explain this far better than me. Personally, I'm right around that area of knowledge where you could say, "I know just enough to be dangerous".
There are all kinds of examples throughout history of things people thought were safe and then later found out were actually bad. Mad hatters were the result of people using mercury as a water repellent on their hats, people used to use lead to make nipples for baby bottles. You could compile a pretty long list of examples such as those.
Are all our wireless communications slowly killing all of us? I personally don't think so and have yet to see a study that makes me think there is a significant risk. Most people seem to have much more important factors in their lives. Things like eating too much McDonald's is killing far more people than cell phone radiation.
Not only cell phones, but think about this, the study looks to be 2008 and was on people using cell phones for at least 10 years. Ok, so now think back and remember what did cell phones look like in 1998? Unless I am greatly mistaken, the radiation output by our cell phones has dropped drastically sense then.
When that person is demanding major changes to existing infrastructure plus asking for $250,000.... Um.... Hell yes I would want them to prove it.
On second thought though, sense your cool with that....
I have this terrible pain being caused by your having posted here. It is greatly effecting my ability to function. I am pretty sure though that the pain will clear up with a discounted rate of only $100,000. If you would please send that to me via Western Union.
Ok, so is it just me that finds multiple serious issues with their whole logic? If wifi radiation is really causing this issue then what about all modern cell phones? You know, the wifi enabled devices that constantly send out probe requests to look for 'preferred' networks? You really going to tell me that you don't have any students with wifi turned on?
I also don't get the obsession with looking at wifi access points. They should never be broadcasting with more power than your average device simply because it is pointless to do so. Wifi is a two way thing, having a base point blasting out a signal so you can pick it up from half mile away does you no good unless your device can send a signal strong enough to get back. Knowing that, what should worry you more, the access point your rarely getting very close too, or the laptop that is sitting over your family jewels?
"If a few "customers" come along and take more than they're alloted"
More than they are alloted? Please explain how it is clear that "Unlimited" comes with an allotment. When I see unlimited I think of well.... unlimited as in, without limit.
Also, while they are complaining about those evil people tethering, I can tell you that it is quite easy to use these massive quantities of data on a device. I for example currently have a phone with a screen that exceeds 1080p. So I can jump on a video stream in full HD. Oh, and I have a 64 gig card in my phone, so I can easily download any files direct to my phone and then transfer them to the computer. Of course there is also the fun things you can do like hosting a TOR node on your phone....
Re: Re: What? What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
Maybe you should go back to school. If after reading this twice, the second time "reading it slowly", you still don't understand it then you have some serious reading comprehension issues.
Let me see if maybe I can explain things a bit simpler for your lower reading level. Dan Bull is not trying to control how copies of his music are used. He is complaining about people claiming copyright on his music. Claiming you have copyright on a song is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from making copies of a song. So the issue here is someone else trying to control copies of his song.
You most certainly could have that policy against abusers. If you are infringing on others copyrights (as in you really are just infringing) then it is reasonable to loose your account after a few strikes.
The very same is true of abusing the system. If you are making copyright claims against content that is not yours, then it is perfectly reasonable to loose that power after a few strikes. It does not matter that your 4th complaint is valid, just as it doesn't matter that the guys 4th video was an original creation.
Re: What? "HIS" Music? "HIS" Money? Don't you believe in "sharing"? He doesn't own the ideas OR the content! It's fair use for anyone in the world to "monetize" it.
Not that I really expect you to bother reading this but, you must be really stupid, or you have no trouble twisting things to fit your agenda.
After years of reading the articles here on this site, not once have I found them supporting the idea of "uploading a 100 million dollar movie". The closest they come to that is simply pointing out how stupid it is to waste money fighting a fight you can never win.
The really stupid argument you make though of comparing this with someone sharing a movie just shows how little you understand of what is happening. This is not a case of Dan Bull complaining about someone "stealing" his work. This is about someone claiming ownership and stealing ad revenue, and stealing that money from some kid.
So this is not like me uploading a movie and sharing it. This is like me claiming that I made the movie and demanding all the profits from that movie.
I think the point being made was, Why would you want to wear a representation of a device used to brutally execute thousands of people? One of those people having been your God?
When you stop and think about it, using the cross really is a very weird symbol. After all, someone being executed on a cross was a very common thing for the time. What makes Christ special was that he did not stay dead.
The cross is like the Roman electric chair or gallows. I can't imagine anyone choosing those to honor someone who died from them....