Given how low their birth rate is, well below replacement level, it's a pointless law that will have zero effect. With a birth rate of 1.29, their population would be dropping nearly 50% per generation without immigration.

No effect at all. Just more virtue signaling.

Won't be relevant if the birth rate in Switzerland stays at 1.3, just over half the replacement rate.

In other words, if the cap is a fixed total population of 10 million, they can still allow immigration to the tune of tens of thousands a yearindefinitely to keep their population from declining rapdily, and will eventually end up being a majority immigrant population.

Not sure the right-wing nutballs behind this really understand that, since their proposal actually enforces it.

It's easy to get a copy of a Kindle book with the desktop app. Currently, there's no way I know of to strip out the DRM, though, so it's of limited use.

The general consensus among people who aren't obsessed with The Orange Dragon is that serifed fonts are easier to read on written documents, sans serifed easier on screen. Since the State Department has to have printed copies of many, many things, the change back to a serifed font makes sense.

And isn't a big deal.

In the end, though, it's just another example of how Trump is THE MASTER TROLL of all time, playing his usual game of "go chase the stick, good doggie, isn't that a nice stick, go chase the stick" with irrelevant shit that TDS sufferers will obsess over, and not notice what he's actually up to (that they could actually generate support over if they noticed), like the half million deportations (plus 2-3 times as many "self deportations").

It's hilarious, the way he plays the news media like a fucking Stradivarius, with their enthusiastic cooperation.

"This move may actually incentivize authors to apply DRM to their ebooks."

Those who actually advocate that should go first, yes, in a show of true leadership and commitment to their cause.

Not my cause, however, no matter how stupid you are when the truth bites you in the ass.

You ignore the possibility that 3) Calibri is actively bad, and therefore is worth the time and money to change back (both of which are minimal).

I wonder why you ignore that.

I'm sure someone already committed multiple felonies would be deterred by that possibility.

Yes.". It is increasingly apparent that is exactly the goal.

Soldiers who take their oaths seriously, and remember their (mandatory, annual) training on disobeying illegal orders.

Given the boom and bust cycle of fads like this, you also might not want to best they will, since they would then be stuck with some very expensive printing capacity they have no use for, but have to pay for anyway.

It's a delicate business, and their obligation is shareholder value.

This is the sound of the other shoe dropping.

And the trailers before the movie starts will be replaced by ads, and not (only) ads for other movies.

You know, like what's been happening in theaters for years.

It's long past time we had a real debate about the law, too. Just because something has been the law for a long time, that doesn't necessarily mean it should remain the law as times change. Clearly there is a difference between the implications of casually observing someone as you pass them in a public street, when you probably forget them again a moment later, and the implications of recording someone with a device that will upload the footage to a system run by a global corporation where it can be permanently stored, shared with other parties, analysed including through image and voice recognition that can potentially identify anyone in the footage, where they were, what they were doing, who they were doing it with, and maybe what they were saying and what they had with them, and then combined with other data sources using any or all of those criteria as search keys in order to build a database at the scale of the entire global population over their entire lifetimes to be used by parties unknown for purposes unknown, all without the consent or maybe even the knowledge of the observed people who might be affected as a result.

I don't claim to know a good answer to the question of what we should allow. Privacy is a serious and deep moral issue with far-reaching implications and it needs more than some random guy on Slashdot posting a comment to explore it properly. But I don't think the answer is to say anything goes anywhere in public either just because it's what the law currently says (laws should evolve to follow moral standards, not the other way around) or because someone likes being able to do that to other people and claims their freedoms would be infringed if they couldn't record whatever they wanted and then do whatever they wanted with the footage. With freedom comes responsibility, including the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others, which some might feel should include more of a right to privacy than the law in some places currently protects.

That all said, people who think it's cool to film other human beings in clear distress or possibly even at the end of their lives just for kicks deserve to spend a long time in a special circle of hell. Losing a friend or family member who was, for example, killed in a car crash is bad enough. Having to relive their final moments over and over because people keep "helpfully" posting the footage they recorded as they drove past is worse. If you're not going to help, just be on your way and let those who are trying to protect a victim or treat a patient get on with it.

The question was literally, "What happens when all car manufacturers are displaying ads?"