1) For the vast majority of Californians, the nearest state border is 3-5 hours away. 2) those abortion bans have definitely reduced the number of abortions. Not zero, but that's a silly goal for any ban.
Obviously the law is stupid. But states passing their own regulations isn't on its face.
About half of Americans lack any access to intercity transport that isn't a private car.[1]
About 15% of rural Americans aren't within 25 miles of any intercity transit, much less interstate; low-income residents are disproportionally represented in that group. That figure jumps to 25% if you exclude suburbs, and in some states that figure is as high as 62%.[2]
Even as intercity bus demand has increased due to the declining quality of air travel in the US,[3] rural intercity bus access has declined. Greyhound served many rural routes until its slow collapse before being acquired by FlixBus, which is more focused on urban access than Greyhound was. The deregulation of intercity bus access in 1982, which led to the closure of many intercity routes (disproportionally in the rural Midwest) that required subsidization from more profitable routes, was a major factor.[4]
So "what percentage of Americans can't afford a bus ticket to the nearest city in an adjacent state" is a non-starter of a question, because most of the Americans who'd _need_ an interstate bus ticket can't even get to a bus stop without first owning a car... with which they could simply drive to another state.
A lot of rural areas don't have good transit. Even if they do, it's hours round trip. Here's an example. North Dakota has an abortion ban. Someone in Minot would need to travel almost 5 hours to Moorhead, MN or almost 7 hours to Billings, MT. Now that's not any different really than before the ban, because the only clinic in ND that provided abortions was across the river from Moorhead in Fargo. But what if that clinic in Moorhead closes? Or what if Montana bans abortion? It's banned in South Dakota, so people out in western ND, SD, or anywhere in Montana are going to have to travel even further. There are many small communities around here with no bus lines or trains coming through so they're stuck if they don't have a good car.
Kid: you are playing with forces of nature you cannot comprehend :-)
That being said: I would love someone from Marketing and Branding to explain me this “Copilot everywhere” because it is unintelligible (unless they want to dilute it through over exposure).
The fire station was located on the opposite side of runway 4 from the United plane. To avoid crossing the runway would mean having to travel a few extra miles around the thresholds (I assume).
I guess they could have found a route that wouldn't conflict with landing aircraft, but I doubt that's a practical option most of the time.
Of course, Facebook themselves acknowledge that 10% of their revenue is literal scams. Like, people pay them to forward their scams to the targets of said scams. They know this is happening.
Obviously criminality pays. I wouldn’t hold up a drug dealer’s returns as evidence of good leadership
The parent was talking about people choosing to wear these. Today there might be reluctance to wear them because they're creepy or uncool. But that mirrors the reluctance for cool kids to wear bluetooth earpieces back when they were those chunky Borg-looking things. Then they got shrunk down. They got "high quality, convenient, [and] light".
When these types of glasses are virtually indistinguishable from regular sunglasses, and a critical mass of cool people wear them all the time, the reluctance from the rest of us will melt away.
Yes. Copyright is intended to an encourage artistic works to be published, with the author of those works knowing that they can earn a living creating art. J. K. Rowling has earned quite the bundle from Harry Potter. She has been incentivized.
If they wrote a book 20 years ago and it didn't sell much it's not going to sell now either, no?
But I do like the idea of length determined by inverse correlation of size of the creator. 20 years might be too short where an author writes something popular and a movie company just waits 20 years to do something with it rather than pay the author.
> If they wrote a book 20 years ago and it didn't sell much it's not going to sell now either, no?
That's not a universal rule. Andrzej Sapkowski wrote a little short story called "The Witcher" in the 80's, that he expanded on into a novel series through the 90's. Then a game development studio made a series of wildly successfully videogames based on his work, which definitely made way more money than his books, to the point that Netflix made a tv series based on his books. I struggle to imagine how it could be just that the videogames and tv show, based on his work, owe him nothing.
You just nailed the difficult balance in copyright law. I agree that life+70 is wayyyyy too long. But you also want to incentivize creators to keep trying to make something of their existing IP. Sapkowski is one example. Another good one is the Dresden Files series, which is 26 books in and still going strong. Each book in the series repeats some of the basics that were covered in the original (often using the exact same phrasing). Then the author extends the story over the course of a few hundred pages. If the original book were already public domain, anybody could write a fairly convincing in-universe book and I have to imagine the author would have moved on to other series.
Personally, I think 50 years strikes the best balance. Everything from the '60s would be fair use, so Spiderman would be public domain but not a wizard named Harry.
He sold his rights to CDPro. Also the videogame made him famous- I for one read one of his books BECAUSE of the game and I'm sure that I am not the only one.
There's a reason why writers want their books to become videogames and or movies.
I would not be surprised if the Tolkien estate made more money after the Peter Jackson movie came out than in all the decades before...
And most importantly artists are not children. If they don't have business sense enough to read a contract they should hire an agent.
That only strengthens the parent point. Switch to an OS where this requirement doesn't come into play if you're worried about any governments having a backdoor into your own machine.
Considering Windows's history with user consent I would be worried about the keys eventually being uploaded without asking the user and without linking online accounts.
Probably not now but not something unimaginable in some future.
However, since Windows can still run on user-controlled hardware (non-secure boot or VMs), I guess this kind of behavior could be checked for by intercepting communications before TLS encryption.
People know the system well enough to write FOSS implementations of it; I think they would have noticed and sounded the alarm if there were a possible master key.
I don't think anybody is interested in reverse-engineering closed-source OS to check if it works as documented; it;s easier to just use Linux which has open-source code.
If you sync your Linux machines key in the cloud, police could subpoena it too. The solution is not to switch to Linux, but to stop storing it in plain text in the cloud.
Obviously the law is stupid. But states passing their own regulations isn't on its face.