451–460 of 768 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> per-child usage If the First Amendement is to prevent a government from letting you speak, shouldn’t that also concert a government from letting you hear that speech? If so, then this seems to go against the Forst Amendment. Sorry, Australian here so just speculating
[deleted]
Reaction 1: how would this even work with embedded systems that have no UI to input this data? Reaction 2: it's open source, make the lawmakers do submit the changes. Reaction 3: how would this ever be enforced? Would they outlaw downloading distributions, or even older versions of distributions? When there's no exchange of money, a law like this is seems like it would be suppression of free speech. Reaction 4: Someo…
It would just be unenforced for all platforms except windows, apple and android. I doubt the california legislature knows what a Linux even is.
All Congress critters have staff to help write the bills and fill out the policy. You can bet your sweet bippy that there are people on staff in the California legislature who know what a Linux even is.
It's funny that more and more Chinese style laws are being passed in the West. What's next? Chinese style social credit? You’ll need 800 points to run a sudo command? Free society? Mass surveillance. The West is becoming more of a nanny state like China every year.
California is becoming more like a nanny state. I don’t think a law like this would pass in North Dakota or Texas in a thousand years.
In all seriousness, though, this is the only way where politicians get to pretend they did something and the rest of us get to avoid getting royally screwed. If parents were given dumbed-down versions of the tools that already exist to manage corporate-owned cell phones and laptops then there'd be a lot less for people to complain about (not that it would stop perpetually incompetent parents from pointing the finger at everyone but themselves for their own failings, of course, but at least the vast majority who AREN'T those people would be satisfied).
Reaction 1: how would this even work with embedded systems that have no UI to input this data? Reaction 2: it's open source, make the lawmakers do submit the changes. Reaction 3: how would this ever be enforced? Would they outlaw downloading distributions, or even older versions of distributions? When there's no exchange of money, a law like this is seems like it would be suppression of free speech. Reaction 4: Someo…
While there are some enforcement questions here, especially around non commercial OSes, most of your reactions are clearly based on the headline alone. It defines operating system in the law. This wouldn’t apply to embedded systems and WiFi routers and traffic lights and all those things. It applies to operating systems that work with associated app stores on general purpose computers or mobile phones or game console…
So, all of us-west-1?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is a repository on a linux machine an app store? Are custom repositories app stores? Does this mean that now most automated deployments are now not automated? If they can be automated, does that mean that having the automation by default makes sense?
The law defines a user as a child running software on a general purpose computer. > “User” means a child that is the primary user of the device. It’s definitely more vague that necessary, but I’d imagine courts would readily find automated software deployment by an adult or corporation does not constitute a child using the device. Especially if done for servers or a fleet. Because then it’s pretty obvious that a chil…
What’s going to happen when there’s no UI, just a shell, and they pacman -S ? This law is unconstitutional based on criteria of vagueness. If they want it to stick, they need to call out the commercial app stores of Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc where a credit card is attached. Otherwise it’s too vague a term unless they define “store”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While there are some enforcement questions here, especially around non commercial OSes, most of your reactions are clearly based on the headline alone. It defines operating system in the law. This wouldn’t apply to embedded systems and WiFi routers and traffic lights and all those things. It applies to operating systems that work with associated app stores on general purpose computers or mobile phones or game console…
Servers still kinda fit. So, all of us-west-1?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And yet, term limits are something many people want in the hopes that it will solve some of the problems in Washington DC. Plenty of shitty ideas are popular based on a hope and a prayer. That’s why you don’t give in to populism. If we’re to impose any kind of limits on Congress, it has to be more intelligent than term limits.
How about, if your taxable income exceeds some multiple of the median income of your district, you are no longer eligible to represent them. It’s pretty amazing how much a representative’s income grows once they take public service positions.
I think its more :
if your taxable income during OR post-office exceeds (some 1,3,5 yr average) prior high watermark income, or the officeholder's salary (whichever is higher), every penny over high watermark is taxed at 99% tax rate.
That should take care of those pesky "speaking fees" and other nonsense that makes politicians rich.