Brotkrumen

While you are right in that we tend to form opinions based on limited information, I'd say in this case it is likely to be warranted.

What I try to look out for are statements that are easily disproven by the other side if false. No highly paid PR person would release those, thus if they are there, they're likely to be true.

Now with those easily disproven claims in this press release as cornerstones of what is the truth, I can't come up with data points that would drastically alter my conclusion.

Now all that's left to do is hope that that isn't due to my limited imagination and wait for the opposition to make new claims or disprove the points made.

So people move to reduce their commute, effectively their use of roads, but that shorter commute will not reduce their use but increase it? Tough proposition.

You also posit that people hold parking at a premium and that new house will not try to capture that premium. Mhhhh

>who hasn't actually crossed a border

You mean like ever in their lifes? If not, some people might disagree with you:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-borde...

Or you can claim that border patrol tracked these people for 75 miles and then held them up at the road block.

Big difference between "not exactly at the border" and 100 miles away from it.

Also not very helpful that the search is illegal if you haven't crossed a border and have to get relief in court against a federal agency.

And by "border" you mean the actual border + 100 miles inland, right?

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-b...

>which deactivates them until 5am the next morning

How cynical can you get? Jeez...

>"Apple doesn’t gather your personal information to sell to advertisers or other organizations."

Facebook and Google can say the same without lying. Apple's iAd is the ad-network and Apple sells the categorization (male, 14-21, likes dogs) of you based on your personal information. As do G and F.

So it's basically PR double speak.

If you subsume Megachurches under religious charities, I can point you towards a few nice examples of abuse. Say pat Robertson funding an African diamond mine with donation money or pastors conning the poorest into sending their paycheck because "god will maybe repay them manifold in hard cash"

The key word here is "overlapping". I think the "old" L1 signal was long enough for the direct signal to arrive first, then have the reflected signal arrive while the direct signal was still being received. This would create the "signal blob".

So yes, the direct signal always arrives first, but gets messed up during receiving by the reflected signal. The L5 signal is so short, that the likelihood of reflections overlapping is reduced. Think: so short that the signal starts and finishes during the time it takes a radio wave to propagate 1 meter through air or so.

The poster "reductio ad absurdum"ed after he "non sequitur"ed. A valid reductio requires applying the principle of charity first though.

We do need a Latin phrase for the principle of charity!

In principle I agree that subsidies don't always benefit the worst off. In this case, they do however, since the downward price pressure is mainly on low priced, lower quality segment consumer goods.

You could make the argument that while the costs of the goods are now lower and consumer surplus goes to most americans, they're out-competing US made products, that would generate wages for the worst off. Then you'd be arguing for protectionism though.

Like every good entrepreneur McGrath wants globalization for (only his) company and isolationism for the consumer.

Economically, getting goods for as fraction of the former price to consumers for just 78million a year sounds like a fantastic deal.

Think of it this way: every one of the 350 million americans chip in 0.22$ a year to get their iPhone cable for 1.80$ instead of 40$.

Still sound bad?

>So tired of being dismissed as cookoo and then a few years later saying "I told you so".

Which theories are you thinking about here?

You can neither make 50 Million appear nor can you plant evidence in Bank data that the victims lawyers couldnt tear to shreds. Accounting isn't dropping a joint in someone's pocket

Something weird:

https://sds.sabre.com/XTRANET_Access/sabre.htm

The @ is 0x2E20 in sabre hex

Altea Amadeus.

And all the three big GDS need to be thrown into a fire. "Oh you want to add a person to the PNR? Well tough luck! Not a use case we handle!"

I guess it's become normalcy that the location where you are sued decides your fate, but it's so absurd.

If that's the argument, I'm not convinced. We as a society try to influence the saner parts of what parent mentioned, such as values and pox parties.

Passing on genes, well we generally don't want to prevent that, because, contrary to forbidding circumcision, the cure would be worse than the disease.

"Other bad things happen so we shouldnt try to improve this Bad thing!"

Thats for infection Rates of men during heterosexual intercourse. These are already low: https://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/resources/heterosexual-risk-...

So you'd be cutting the rate from 8 in 10000 acts to 3 in 10000. its something but theres probably more efficient ways.

By what relaxed definition? I didn't give a definition of "science" as that's kind of a hard problem smarter people than me tried to solve.

But hey, let's play a game: You tell me what's a necessary condition for something being a science and I'll tell you an instance where that condition as broken or a "non-science" that fulfills that condition.

Go!

It's not a natural science. If you restrict sciences to whatever you believe a natural science is, you'll kick out some useful, predictive and fruitful subsets of the natural sciences out too.

So maybe we should let that old meme "if it's not done in white lab coats, it's not a science" die.

If you'd want to argue for the effect, you could say the winner gets sponsors, better food, better trainers, better doctors, less time for fund raising, more time for training, etc.

"We are in full compliance. Everything is fine. The house is not on fire. The heat you are feeling is coincidential."

Man, do I dislike marketing speak. A "We knew we were non-compliant, but think the security benefits of quick bugfixes outweigh the disadvantages. We will work with apple to return to compliance." would've been honest, better and not bs.

A day after the Vault 7 leaks. Well well well

Incidentially, the articles argument alignes with what UBI proponents say: Most people won't stop working. They'll just go for more rewarding work while taking a pay-cut or demanding increased pay for shitty work.

Sorry, i misunderstood then.

I would agree that as long as the specific arm of the gov that spies isnt involved in the conference, its fine. The articles argument does not say otherwise either. It highlights that palantir has opposed interests to the attendees of the conference.

Id say the author would be fine with a state department sponsorship as they repeatedly have backed secure communication for dissidents et al, but would oppose sponsorship of the nsa.

Its not just "on principle" either, but the dangrr that i terested sponsors can influence what gets presented and how. Like how the nsa would push an encryption standard theyve already broken.

Don' exaggerate. His point is that you shouldn't allow sponsors that could lead to conflicts of interest, not all sponsors that do "bad".

In your example you can go to a symposium on quantum chemistry sponsored by the gov despite the gov eavesdropping. You shouldn't go to a converence on cancer research standards sponsored by the homeopathy league of gentlemen.

I hope you are right. FCC lauds BingeOn though and T-mobile might argue that it's a customers choice to degrade videos of non-zero rated partners.