Now that he's sold everything to Disney there's actually a much better chance of this happening. The Mouse is going to be driven by profit motive rather than whatever weird artistic integrity motive the George tries to use; and they know releasing the original versions will bring in a metric ass ton of money. The only minor hold-back is that Fox has the distribution rights to "A New Hope" so they will need to come to some sort of agreement there, but with the potential money involved that shouldn't be a major issue. Many people are speculating we may even get them right before the new movie comes out next year, but that may be to quick a turnaround to get them done in time.
I've said this before, but there is absolutely no reason any of these cities should be paying a portion of their ticket revenue to the companies behind these cameras. You can pay them for the camera system, you can pay them to install the camera system, you can pay them to maintain the camera system. Those area all standard charges for hardware/software systems. To actually pay for how much it is uses is purely a money grab by the camera companies. My company like many has a security system with back-end software to utilize it. We don't get charge per video or picture taken by those cameras. We paid them for the installation and purchase of the cameras and software and then a yearly maintenance fee for support and software updates. Not that I think camera's are a great thing to begin with, but if more cities pushed back on this requirement, maybe we would see more sanity with how these things are being used since half the revenue won't be going back the manufacturer.
Despite their greater R&D budgets, I think what you see with monopolies is a much greater focus on incremental innovation. How can we tweak this product or this service so that our customers keep coming to the well. They know they aren't going out of business anytime soon and want to keep their growth steadily going up so that every quarter they can show growth to the stockholders. They don't want to introduce something that will cause a spike in growth followed by flatness, they'd much rather have a steady climb up. Non-monopolies are focused on radical innovation. They're throwing everything they can think of on the wall and are seeing what sticks. They don't hold back anything because there is no guaranty that they will be around tomorrow. So despite a smaller R&D budget than a monopoly player, they are getting more and bigger stuff done.
So I think there is innovation at both, it's just that the pace and motivation behind that innovation is completely different
You mean like Bush's copyright office, or Clinton's or Bush Sr's before him? Quite trying to make this into a Democrat vs. Republican thing. They both like to make Swiss cheese out of the Constitution. The only difference is where they make the holes.
I actually don't think self driving vehicles will affect the UPS/Fedex guys. Someone still needs to grab the appropriate box(es) and deliver it up to the house/office. But other industries like the taxi and trucking industries and others will be greatly impacted by driverless vehicles. Safety will be improved as the vehicles will always observe traffic laws and will be aware of traffic conditions (The Tracy Morgan accident likely wouldn't have happened with a driverless vehicle). For taxi's there's no driver to be robbed, no need for lunch or bathroom breaks so cars can run 24/7 only stopping for gas/maintenance. There'd be no racism, i.e. I'm not going to that neighborhood at that hour, or I'm not picking up that person as the car just goes where the fare is. Personally I can't wait, as my wife is disabled and doesn't drive, so having a driverless car for her would greatly improve her freedom as she could go where she wants when she wants. Right now, no matter how short the trip we have to pile everyone (2 kids) in the car so I can take her where she needs to go.
It would make no sense for the government to subsidize the book stores, otherwise all sorts of other businesses would demand the same protection. It's not the governments job to keep businesses afloat, that's the job of the business owner. While no site agrees on the numbers the general consensus is that a majority of businesses go under withing the first couple years. Sometimes that's due to incompetence, sometimes bad luck or a combination of the two, but at no point is it the governments job to swoop in and save the day.
I mean I understand why they would want a system like this. Drive by shooting...just roll back the tape and see where the car came from and where it went.
What I don't understand is why they don't bring in privacy experts to advise them on these systems. They know the blow back once its found out is going to be huge and possibly get the whole thing shut down. Why not bring in the ACLU, Larry Lessig, etc and say "This is what we're planning to do, these are the benefits we see to this. What kind of safeguards can we put in place to protect privacy, make this acceptable to the public, and still achieve our goals?"
Maybe there are none and they just continue as they were, but maybe, just maybe there would be a way to keep the system in place, catch bad guys, and still protect the rights of everyone else. Problem is, until they do this we'll never know.
I don't have a smart tv either, but it may be that blocking the site may break some functionality. Even if it were possible, this isn't something that you're average person is going to be able to do. Since we're reading a blog with "tech" in the title most of us here are technically savvy or at least technically aware of things, but do you think your average senior citizen is going to know how to configure their router and setup a white/black list?
What we need is a day when every kid at a school with these stupid zero tolerance policies pulls out a piece of paper and draws a picture of a gun. Let's see how their policies fare in the face of massive disobedience.
Worse case, if they end up expelling all the kids, they'll no longer need to be employed.
The over collection of US user data really isn't the NSA's fault. They had all the proper checks in place to make sure they were only getting those people who were within the contact circle of a target. The problem started when a "foreign target" miss-dialed one of his contacts and got Kevin Bacon instead. Once they got 6 layers out from Kevin, they had inadvertently collected the data of the entire country.