I really think this kind of thing needs to be put in place for several topics. Someone running around saying "It is only meta-data" should be required to make all of their "meta-data" public, and anyone claiming they want a backdoor should be required to only use systems with a backdoor.
It is ironic because you yourself are making a big deal out of these things.
The other point I was making is that yes, it is only a big deal because culture makes it so. Knowing that still does not help the fact that this kid gets to live with the effects. The issue here is not really so much the what happened as it is about how society reacts.
"Jesus H. Christ, people. Can't you find something more important to get upset over?"
The irony of you asking that is just amazing to me.
Beyond that though, the question of why our current culture thinks this is a big deal is not important in this case. What is important is that it is a big deal to this kid. What is also important is that this news agency ignored the kids and his family's wishes and plastered his name and dick all over the news.
Another really important point is. Yes, it is a dick, they look a lot alike and it could belong to anyone, BUT this one how has his name linked to it by a news agency. You have to be really ignorant to think this will not haunt the kid at school.
This strikes me as one of those stupid laws that if they pass it they will quickly find out it makes everyone running a website a criminal. They then will quietly slip it into some dark corner while leaving it on the books, because they could never admit they were wrong, and they then can selectively enforce it to attack anyone they feel like.
While I certainly agree that this is a really stupid bill. I actually can understand where he is coming from and can see his logic. Instead of just making an analogy about restricting the press like they are trying to restrict gun he just made a bill to do it. It is obvious that it is unconstitutional and I think that is a big part of his point. Gun laws often seem to try and find a way around the constitution often with the "but it is for the children" excuse.
The point I was making is that while you personally might not notice or care there are indeed people out there who do care. Some people do enjoy watching their videos at a high resolution and the modern smart phone is more than able to handle it.
"At least this is made for mobile phones where the screen is too small to take advantage of the highest quality settings."
Hate to burst your bubble but 640×480 is a lot different than 1920x1080. Yes, my screen is only 5.5 inches but it is 2560x1440. So yeah, it can play a video at full 1080p and even if your eyesight sucks, I can still tell the difference in 480p and 1080p.
There is a difference between things like stability control, anti-lock brakes, and systems such as those and a full drive by wire car. Those systems fail and you still have control of the car.
I'm not saying that I don't see the benefit of a lot of these advancements. In fact I find ABS systems to be pretty awesome especially in the rain. I just don't like the direction things are going where their is no redundancy and the computer has far too much control.
Also, My dislike of these computer systems is far from the only reason I like older cars. One of the biggest reasons is because most modern cars look like shit.
You assume a lot just by my stated opinion about cars. Such as assuming I dislike technology. In fact, I work in IT and love technology. That still does not mean I like the idea of trusting a computer to handle things like acceleration, steering and braking.
I especially don't like the idea of trusting a computer when some moron insists on connecting that same computer up to the in dash entertainment system that has Bluetooth and WiFi enabled.
Even more so when the code is locked away and I'm not allowed to look at it. This is a big concern. Knowing what I know about computers I would rather not blindly trust some programmer without having the right to check his work.
As for your questions.
Yes I do financial stuff online, and by doing so I risk someone stealing my money, but no physical harm is done.
I don't fly if I can avoid it. I would also like to point out that those computer systems have been hacked before.
Do I trust traffic camera's? What does that have to do with anything? And no, I don't really trust them, I mean come on. Most of them are not secure and open for anyone to watch if they like. Then they are also wide open for abusive use in tracking people's movement.
I do not fear all technology. In fact I love technology and I am very excited about the advancements that I am seeing in technology. What I fear is the fact that time after time after time people have shown that technology will be abused. I do not fear the tech, I fear the people who are already drooling over the new ways they can abuse it.
I realize the point of the crumple zones. I also realize that most of the wrecks will be car vs car, not car vs solid object. Even more to the point is that very large part of the time I'm driving in town at 35mph or less.
Either way, I'm taking on certain risks by driving older vehicles. They are risks I'm willing to accept though. I do not base my decision to buy a car from the standpoint of planning to crash it. I do base it on things like my ability to control the car and avoid a crash. Things like not having a computer inserted between my controls and the car.
There is something nice about knowing that I have control and no computer glitch can crash the car for me.
I will take that solid steal frame and body vs your fiberglass crumple zones any day. Also, nothing stops me from adding a modern bucket seat, rollbars and a 5 point harness and I will have that extra $25k to do it with.
I have told many people that having looked at the price tags I would sooner by a restored classic car long before I would buy a new car. Every day I see new stories about modern cars that just reinforce that feeling. Why would I spend $55k on a new corvette when I can get a beautiful 1969 corvette for $30k? To me the older cars look much better than the new ones and I know I can fix that 69 corvette with a good set of wrenches. No worries about DRM on that thing.
Well if you really think about it. They threatened a biological attack against the publisher. They are just lucky their name doesn't sound Muslim or they would be charged as terrorist and locked away. Well, they might just skip the whole "charged" thing and skip straight to locking them up.
It kind of makes me feel sick, well actually, it makes me down right disgusted with this country to say, but I think a project like this really should start overseas. Sadly there is little chance of making it through FDA and other groups without a large amount of money. They could go somewhere without such groups though and start production of cheap insulin for those people who really need it.
"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?