cmdrfred

If that is true why was that message not popular under Obama as well?

There is value in spreading genes, but also in spreading memes. The biological patents give the former, the adoptive parents give the latter. As this is an agreement that all parties consent to and it has consideration for all involved and say its a valid system.

After seven years that data is removed from your credit report due to consumer protection laws. Its possible they had no idea, and even if they did its illegal for them to deny credit because of it if it was 7 years or more ago.

Why is someone who is 83 years old and likely has to call her grandson for help paying a bill online writing law about encryption?

Its made from the stuff that isn't useful for burning.

I think there a "tragedy of the commons" sort of moral responsibility here to only take out loans you have a good chance of paying off as you theoretically raise interest rates for everyone else.

Zuckerburg has political ambitions, a little help from the Facebook moderation team might earn him a few favors. He certainly wants that infrastructure in place once he runs.

Also mortgage payments can be made smaller (refinance) while rent continues to grow. I'm personally not going to attempt starting a company until I get my mortgage under a certain level.

I have about 2tb of speech (podcasts, audio books, and lectures) so it might include that.

I've listened to nearly all of it.

Would a psychologist have a more immediate effect?

>After all, somebody abusing someone else likely doesn't handle stress and anger appropriately: nobody's life gets easier and more manageable after being arrested.

So longer prison sentences for domestic abusers then? Put them away long enough so the other party is forced to start their own life and no longer be in a situation where they are dependent on the abuser and thus unable to leave.

In that case, police arrive on the scene where someone is or was being assaulted and arresting the attacker isn't a desirable outcome?

Then you have to subtract those whom are too elderly to drive or own a car in the first place, 5% would seem extremely generous.

Zuck: People just voted for me.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

>Why not just create the benefit directly instead of going the roundabout way of having people act in their own self-interest, fostering mean-spirited relationships between people, competition instead of cooperation and general wastage of resources?

Because people always act within their own self interest for the most part. One may take more than their fair share of the benefits of society while others will attempt to get out of paying theirs. Don't forget the officials whom will attempt to push those monies one direction or another in order to enrich themselves.

Capitalism is the only system that takes this into account as far as I can tell, everything else is either predicated on people willingly giving to help society on the large scale (counter to human nature) or forcing others to do so at the end of a gun (that tends to lead to dictatorships and suppression of freedom as it requires near total government)

I think is the difference between atheist and anti-theist. They are united by their disdain for religion.

At that point just get your last few dollars together, give it to an AI and let it manage everything from there.

>New business (and therefor new job) creation in the USA has tanked.

The unemployment rate is at a 9 year low and falling. What data do you base this assertion on?

I have the same view as you and my security system is a dog and a pump action shotgun.

It also interestingly works on all devices evidently. I think it's vaporware it says it hasn't been developed yet.

"It was the shortest civil defence in the history of law. No experts. No witnesses. He simply stood up and proclaimed 'Pot, kettle, black, the defense rests.' ""

Survivorship bias? Getting fired wouldn't upset me all that much but I'd be upset to lose my fiancé. Perhaps the sort of people who get fired are also prone to depression?

To: AllComcastCustomers

From: NetflixSupport@Netflix.com

Subject: Comcast is increasing the monthly cost of Nextflix

"Dear Valued Customer,

Here at Netflix we endeavor to offer the highest value for your entertainment dollar, it is with that in mind we regret to inform you that due to sweeping and punitive fee increases brought on at the sole discretion of Comcast we will be forced to raise our prices 425% next billing cycle. Customers of other ISP's will enjoy the same low price that we have always offered, in fact we are offering our service at our cost to Comcast customers at this new rate. Please contact Comcast customer service at 1-800-Comcast if you would like this issue resolved as it is out of our hands.

Have a great day"

So essentially throttle 99% of the internet? Comcast already doesn't throttle it's cable or phone service and doesn't include it in your bandwidth. Why would anyone buy a larger bandwidth package than the throttle rate? So they can pay their bill faster?

I'm arguing against the "sky is falling" hysteria that many seem to have about this. If you'll review the rest of the context of that quote you'll see why it's in Comcast's best interest to allow Netflix to do business with it's customers.

The customer isn't paying the "vig" it's the distributor, If Netflix isn't profitable on Comcast's network Netflix will simply stop offering service to Comcast customers. They will have no other option, thus might opt out entirely as they go from moderate or heavy streaming users to not streaming at all.

Also keep in mind they would still be subject to anti-trust regulation, they really can only take it so far before getting broken up again.

I understand they don't have unlimited data, but if they can't stream Netflix (insert your preferred service here) anyway what's the point of keeping the wireline internet service? Five gigs a month is a lot of Facebook/Snapchat and Instagram. Either way they won't have access to the content they want. Why not save a few dollars or move those dollars towards mobile data? Sure they can go to the ISP's media service but those are priced at the cable model for the most part and not really competitive, I don't know anyone under 40 that has cable service anymore. If you used to pay $15 for 4K high quality original content and now you are offered $60 a month for often low quality content with commercials would you take that deal? I'd pass.

A big cost for ISP's is customer acquisition, even if they change back their policies it will be years, maybe decades to recover. I think if an ISP did this on any large scale it would be suicide.

The thing is everyone has mobile phones for the most part. If a local ISP makes cost of doing business for Netflix so high that Netflix no longer offers that service at a reasonable price. Many consumers will either scale back their connection or cancel it entirely.

"What's the point of paying $100 a month for Facebook and Instagram? I get that on my phone anyway! I don't want Verizon's $100 a month TV plan, I want house of cards."

As the ISP mostly has sunk costs and slim margins if even 5% of its user base leaves in a certain market that will render them insolvent or force them to raise prices, causing more departures, and higher prices still...

The point is while they don't always have direct competition they do have a decent amount of elasticity of demand.

Something like obfsproxy[0] or a straight up http proxy wrapped in SSL and a VPN service that acquires and rotates new IP addresses regularly would prevent this. It would be an expensive game of wack a mole for the ISPs at least, personally I'd just set up a digital ocean droplet for my traffic. Less technical users can employ Streisand[1].

[0]https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/TrafficObfuscatio... [1]https://github.com/jlund/streisand

Then use a VPN? Or is the idea they will charge high rates for all traffic (already legal by the way) thus preventing access to the majority of the internet?