Silly question maybe but why we need TVs smarter than "display good quality image and that's it" when there are much better devices that can do everything the smartness can do with added security, comfort and reliability?
I'd gladly skip $100 or more to get a stripped down TV...
Yeah, not a silly question all att, but unfortunately if you want a large screen, an equivalent "dumb" TV is not +$100, it's more likely twice-or-more the price.
This, though, is exactly my "smart" TV has been dumbed-down since purchase to being just a screen for rather smarter devices.
They might simply pass laws that forbid the use of cameras that encrypt images. By declaring them illegal, governments could seize them at the border or whenever they are found. However, that's a fairly mild response. If the material on a camera seized by the authorities turns out to be encrypted, many would demand the password. If the photographer is lucky, a refusal might mean being thrown out of the country, probably without the camera. In the worst case, government thugs and criminals may try to obtain the necessary passwords the old-fashioned way -- by beating it out of the photographer.
This is not, repeat NOT, a playbook for how to handle encrypted cameras.
and Son gets to fill Trump's head with the idea that if he supports his looming merger -- money, jobs and miracles will rain from the sky
Well, money will probably rain from the sky into Softbank's pockets... and maybe Trump's too. Jobs will almost certainly rain from the sky like anything else that falls when dropped.... and it'll be a miracle if the public don't end up feeling like they've been pissed on from a great right.
Does that count?
In short, the $50 billion investment and the 50,000 jobs are largely fairy tail numbers wholly unrelated to Donald Trump doing much of anything.
By the way, that would be "tale", as in; "Tale told by an idiot", which quote is singularly appropriate given the teller of said "aren't I wonderful" tale. 'Far as I know, fairies don't come with butt-ornamentation.
I'll skip right past the impossibility of the kind of split you seem to be suggesting considering how often that particular deceased equine has been soundly beaten and go straight to: Who gets to define "evil" and "non-evil"? The government? The media? People with a capital letter fetish? I'm guessing they'll all suck at it equally.
Law enforcement insists their cars aren't fast enough to catch criminals and insists that all car manufacturers fit devices to blow all four wheels off the vehicle when activated by secret road-side buttons.
Road safety advocates point out the obvious danger of wheels being able to come off cars so easily and the danger of having buttons that might be found to do it.
Law enforcement scoffs at the privacy advocates, calls them all terrorists and fits the buttons anyway.
Almost instantly, most criminals start driving foreign cars that haven't had the explosive wheels fitted. Law enforcement kills several motorists in error while catching a handful of criminals. Many other motorists killed in multi-car pile-ups as other criminals find the buttons by the road and start merrily pushing them.
Come to the table and talk ideas or keep suffering defeat
Who the hell would they talk to? Like the UK, modern US politics is based on selecting whichever faeces-throwing primate is left least odoriferous when the music stops. Any table in the middle of that is undoubtedly going to be covered in shit.
They have no standing and no case on which the courts can rule, only an injunction against what is a theoretical situation for the moment.
So it's possible to get an injunction against an abusive partner without them having been arrested for anything and on the basis of previous behaviour, but it's impossible to get an injunction against an abusive government agency until you're arrested? Gotta love the double standard...
One factor which may be used in determining whether a work is a work of artistic craftsmanship is assessing the extent to which the work’s artistic expression is unconstrained by functional considerations.
So a chair that's f***ing uncomfortable is artistic, and a comfortable one isn't... right? Damn, who knew my old school had the most artistic chairs ever?