As long as those in power see SLAPP lawsuits as a weapon to use against critics, there is no chance at all of getting a federal anti-SLAPPlaw passed.
How about we check some of your 'facts' To start with, the number of new cases reported is still in the hundreds per day. We don't know that the peak need is only 5000 units, because we certainly can't say we're past the peak. Second, at the time Cuomo asked for the ventilators, the number of cases was climbing rapidly. He asked for enough ventilators to meet the worst case projections that were being made at that time. Doing anything else would mean being prepared to let people die if the projection was off. Third, nobody was 'panicking'. They were prepared to waste money to be ready for a worst case situation, rather than preparing to waste lives by assuming an optimistic projection. Contrast that with the federal response that seems to be much more concerned about the amount of money the 1% is losing that the lives that the 99% are losing.
It's amazing how many people think that my failure to loan them my soapbox somehow infringes on their ability to step up on their own soapbox and speak.
Oh good. I've always wanted a Unicorn
There are just too many conflicting requirements for proper voting. Most of these cannot be verified electronically.
for internet voting you can add in:
Until someone comes up with a way to meet all of these requirements, and do so in a secure manner, electronic voting will remain a disaster waiting to happen.
Even if Microsoft is wrong about streaming games being the future, there is a lot of truth to seeing Netflix and Amazon especially as competitors. All of those companies are competing to capture as many entertainment dollars as they can.
It certainly appears that Comcast is trying the same thing again and expecting a different result.
Given how often the lists are shared and merged, the answers are 'all of them' and 'we can't tell you due to national security'
A warrant forces you to hand over evidence you already have in your possession. Apple does not have a unencrypted copy of the encrypted data on the phone, but they could possibly create a custom version of the operating system that could then be loaded onto the phone and extract the unencrypted data. Apples problem is that the DOJ wants to be able to use a warrant to force someone to actively assist the police even if it is against that person's interest. If the DOJ wins this, it would set a very, very dangerous precedent that goes far beyond the encryption battle.
Making pot legal may not be the best idea, but every other idea that has been tried is worse. The US government discovered in the 1920s that banning a drug merely funnels huge amounts of money to criminal organizations willing to supply the demand. Banning pot, and all of the other 'recreational drugs' has merely confirmed that finding. The "war on drugs" has been going on for 40 years now, and hasn't made the slightest dent in the supply. What it has done is cost a hell of a lot, both in money and in lives destroyed. Pretty much the only way to reduce drug use that has been shown to work is to legalize it, tax it, and treat the addiction problems as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. That's working with nicotine, and alcohol, so there's no reason it can't work with other drugs as well.
Refusing to reveal your passwords is an excuse to ban you from entering the country. On the other hand, sharing passwords is also a criminal offense, and as such is grounds for being denied entry to the country.
So when that nice customs agent sees someone he doesn't like,all he has to do is ask for the passwords. No matter how you answer, you get denied entry.
Facial scanning technology is nowhere near even 90% accurate. Even if they waved a magic wand and got it up to 99.9% accurate it's still not good enough.
The major airport near me handles about 4 million passengers each month. At 99.9% accuracy, that's still 130 false alarms each and every day.
What they want to do is use the system as an excuse to harass travelers. It might be that brown skinned individual the racist operator doesn't like, or it might be the pretty woman the pervert operator wants an excuse to grope. It might also be an excuse for the DHS to send more tax money to enrich some corporation.
Any way you look at it, the facial recognition machine would be better labeled as an excuse machine.
I did a search for "dark" on Amazon, and got 20 pages of books with 'dark' in the title. That's around 300 or so books, and that's just books currently in print and carried by Amazon.
Back in the 1980s, the US banned export of strong encryption. The result was that encryption software development moved offshore and continued merrily along. This meant the US completely lost the advantage it had in encryption development.
If the US bans strong encryption, the results will be almost the same. Except this time the US will not be able to import better software from abroad.
As a matter of fact, I do have a problem with a blanket ban of pictures of naked children.
You might want to take a look at this picture. I'll warn you, it has full frontal nudity of a pre-teen girl.
It also won a pulitzer prize and became the World Press photo of the year for 1973.
Looks to me like the Telecom industry has far more influence over the courts than we previously thought.
If copyright exists to encourage the creation of works like this, then I have to think that a little less copyright isn't entirely a bad thing.
Which pretty much sums up the FCC in a nutshell.
Newspapers still haven't figured out that they are not, and never have been in the business of 'selling news'. The newspaper business has always been about aggregating reader attention, and then selling that attention to advertisers.
For the better part of a century newspapers pretty much had a monopoly on advertising. Even Radio and Television didn't put much of a dent in that.
For most of that time, the big cash cow was the classified ad section of the newspaper. Page after page of ads at ten cents per word adds up to a lot of money, way more than the subscription fees.
That cash cow is now gone. It's not Google and Facebook that killed the newspaper business model, it's Kijiji, eBay, and Craiglist.
Just out of curiosity, the the US Copyright Office pay the licensing fee for that picture before tweeting it in the first place?