The breach of contract would go to arbitration. That's the whole point. That's what an "arbitration clause" means. You can't class-action an arbitration, so Wells Fargo effectively only has to deal with the criminal proceedings, which are fairly minor compared to the potential fallout of a massive class-action lawsuit.
I hate to break it to you, but they were already being held liable for those sorts of things. The Common Carrier argument has always been selectively applied by the courts, and Google has been bent over a barrel several times because of it. The biggest example of this was a multi-billion dollar lawsuit brought by Viacom that Google almost lost because they weren't screening copyrighted material, even though they were complying with all DMCA take down notices as required by law.
The courts' position for internet companies has become "If it's technically possible for you to screen them, then you're responsible for what they do even if you don't screen anybody". A smaller company has a better argument for not being capable of this level of screening, but they don't buy it for a company like Google.
Google already doesn't get the protection they aught to get from CC status, so they screen to cover their asses as much as they can. They're kinda screwed either way.
Did you read the Popehat article they linked? He's a lawyer specializing in free speech cases. He's very, very good at this stuff.
In a nutshell, Brandenburg v. Ohio put severe limits on Schenck v. US - the famous case in which SCOTUS Justice Holmes enshrined the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy and the "clear and present danger" test for suppression of the First Amendment. In Schenck v. US, Schenck was convicted of obstructing the draft for just producing flyers encouraging people to talk to their legislators to rescind the draft. That's it. There was absolutely nothing, by modern standards, that would not be protected speech in his pamphlets.
So no, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and inciting a mass panic is not illegal unless a lot of other factors are in play. That bar was set way, way too low, and the SCOTUS started changing it only a few months after Schenck v. US, culminating in Brandeburg v. Ohio about 50 years later.
The Brandenburg v. Ohio decision specifically limits illegal speech to things that directly incite illegal actions. Perjury itself has been deemed an illegal action, so obviously that's not protected. Lying to federal officers is an example of a borderline case. It's currently illegal, and treated the same as perjury, but it's entirely possible that will change in the future (because if you think about it for 5 seconds, it's pretty ridiculous).
So, to relate this back to the discussion of hate speech, doing something like talking a person into attacking another person, no matter the reason, is not protected speech. Saying all Christians are murderers, however, is protected, because there is nothing there that is calling for someone to commit a crime.
Not disagreeing with your main point here, but I think calling the extremist interpretation a perversion of the religion a stretch, at least if you're referring to the original intent.
The peaceful versions of all of those religions require a varying levels of theological gymnastics and ignoring certain texts while emphasizing others to make them work in modern society. All Abrahamic religions share an inherently violent history, with their primary differences being what bits of violence are emphasized and how.
The real point though, is that 95%+ of the practitioners of those religions have done the theological gymnastics necessary to come up with a peaceful religion out of them, and there isn't a good excuse for the violent extremists to exist.
It still comes down to picking and choosing which parts of the texts to emphasize and which parts to ignore. The extremists have chosen to focus on text that allows them to fight and kill and commit all manner of atrocities, while everybody else has chosen to focus on more peaceful texts to varying degrees. This is by no means an either/or situation, either. It's a sliding scale.
While there may be only a small number of ultra violent believers of these religions, there are still a huge number of people who do incredibly terrible things in the name of their religion without crossing the line into extremism.
IMO that will be the case for a few years. We'll get a sort of "dark ages" for on-demand where you need six different subscriptions to hit all the good shows, and end up basically paying cable-like prices for a hodgepodge of big internet packages.
But someone will realize that model sucks (probably already does, and is working on a plan to fix it, if I'm talking about it now), and will come up with an aggregate plan. It'll end up being a lot like cable, but probably with a much broader range of grouping options (since internet delivery is always direct, unlike cable, which is multicast). When that happens (probably 10 years down the road, I'm guessing), you'll be able to get the dozen shows you actually watch for $20-$30 a month, instead of dealing with the tiered services cable provides now.
Basically I think Internet TV is going to end up as something like Spotify or Pandora, where you pay a small subscription fee (probably based on the amount you consume) and the back end service like Netflix or Amazon get paid on a per view basis for their shows.
If what you want is cable, get cable. Don't expect to be able to replace cable with "internet" cable and save money.
You cut the cable when you are no longer interested in very many TV shows, and cable no longer fits with your media consumption habits.
If you watch regular TV shows all the time, like ESPN, Bravo, FX, HBO, etc., then what you want is a cable package. That's what they excel at. Get a whole bunch of shows produced for the masses*, you're just not going to beat the mass market model that is cable TV.
However a lot of people no longer fit that mold. In my case for example, I have a ~$60 cable package for literally one show that my roommate likes to watch. He's moving out, so I'm dropping cable completely, because 99% of my media consumption has nothing at all to do with Hollywood. I'm only interested in a handful of shows, and I'm more likely to look up sports clips than I am to sit down and watch ESPN, so I can drop the $60 a month cable bill and just spend $100 a year on full seasons of shows I like instead. There just aren't that many of them.
But if my nightly habit were to sit down in front of a TV and watch a couple hours of TV, then cutting cable is almost certainly not going to be better in almost any way.
*I'm not disparaging shows produced for the masses. That's how they can afford to create large amounts of high quality content. It's just economics.
I pretty much agree with your statements, with the caveat that the kind of LOD the OP is talking about would be really, really cool. Hard to do though, you need to track the eye and switch detail basically before they eye can register the image. If you're running at 60fps that means you get about two frames to switch detail levels to an appropriate setting, and really you probably want to get it done in that first frame to make it less likely that the player will notice.
That takes more than just power, that takes some really clever software trickery to make that happen.
If you don't trust WhatsApp to faithfully regenerate encryption keys, why the hell did you trust them to generate the initial keys in the first place? They could have just given Facebook a key then and let them listen in to your messages at any time. ANY messaging app, no matter how secure, can do this.
This is not a backdoor, it's an inherent vulnerability in all encryption systems. If you don't trust one end of the encryption, it doesn't matter if the keys are only generated once or if they're generated over and over, or if you're notified when they're regenerated or if they just regenerate them on the fly. At any point, an untrustworthy server can simply make a valid key for a third party, and your encryption is compromised.
This is a non-story. You know what 99% of people do in Signal when they get a notification that their encryption key has changed? They hit OK and re-send the message, just like WhatsApp does by default.
It's just like EULA's, nobody pays attention to those damn thigns. WhatsApp just skips the step of asking you to verify the encryption change unless you go into the settings and explicitly tell it to notify you. For most people, that's exactly the appropriate behavior.
No, scientists had reasonable evidence to suggest that might be a function of the appendix.
Until there is a large scale review study of all the studies on the subject, just like the study in the article, no reasonable scientist would say the subject was closed.
The SlashDot summary was terrible, though, so there is that.
If you thought you knew this before a study like this came out, then you're as bad as all the other gullible sheep out there, because there was not a large body of good evidence to point to to support that opinion.
The study in the Qartz article is a review study, looking at hundreds of other studies. It's an extremely important kind of study for solidifying our understanding of how things work, and frankly in my opinion they often don't get enough attention because people think they know these things already. You did not know these things already. You had a couple of articles that you'd seen before that suggested maybe the appendix isn't as useless as doctors used to think, but you didn't have a body of evidence that you could point to to prove that fact. Now you do. That's the importance of the study.
Of course, in typical fashion the SlashDot summary woefully misrepresents it as a study saying "Hey guys! I found this brand new thing that other people have already found! Check it out!", which of course that isn't what the study was doing at all.
As long as Intel is top dog in the CPU market, the Desktop CPU is indeed dead.
However, only an idiot would think that means the Desktop PC is dead.
This is the perfect opportunity for another party to sweep in and innovate the CPU market. Whether it will be a traditional x86 style CPU manufacturer like AMD, or an ARM or RISC style conentder, who knows. But the longer Intel stagnates, the larger the opportunity will grow.
I'm not sure if AMD's got anything in the pipeline that can shake things up, but if they do, this is their chance (again).
Some of the official stuff released about Ryzen look pretty spectacular. It's still not clear whether it will be able to beat Intel in total performance, but it's looking damn close, which is really encouraging to me. Furthermore, they are actually introducing new technologies in the chip, rather than slightly polishing old ones.
I have my doubts that AMD will fully match Intel this cycle, let alone beat them, but it gives me hope for the future. It's pretty clear right now who is resting on their laurels and who is driving to be the future of CPUs.
That's probably because it's pretty clearly sarcasm.
I mean, saying "I like how yadda yadda yadda" and "yadda yadda yadda" is something the writer clearly doesn't like, that's pretty much textbook ironic sarcasm.
There are non-ironic forms of sarcasm, but they are pretty much impossible to convey in writing.
Steam accepted refunds for weeks after purchase for this particular game, simply because the backlash was so huge. The lack of the expected revenue loss was NOT because people couldn't refund it.
The truth of the matter is, while it didn't deserve the absurd fan generated hype by any means, it wasn't that bad. Not great, not bad, just meh. A small, though larger than normal, portion of the gaming population were extremely upset over this, but for most people it's not that different than any other game, and isn't enough to get a refund over..
This is pretty much the only legitimate complaint about the advertising of the game I've seen. Murray was pretty vague about a lot of things, and I think a lot of that had to do with people asking questions and the answer being technically true, but not really in the way they were expecting.
Multiplayer is a prime example. The game was always intended to have an aspect of multiplayer, so when people ask "does it have multiplayer?" you see Murray go "Well, yes, but..." and all people seem to hear is the "yes". Then when it doesn't ship with this very minor aspect of the game people are up in arms because "you said it would have multiplayer!". It was a similar response to if Call of Duty had shipped with just a campaign mode, and it was totally out of line with what Murray said would be in the game.
NMS even shipped with what I believe Murray wanted as the core element of the multiplayer, the ability to land on a planet someone else had discovered and see who had discovered it and when (and if they gave anything funny names). The ability to run into other players was always intended to be a very rare occurrence, but pretty cool when it happened. So not shipping that part of it should not be a big deal, but it was actually a huge deal. It seems to be people's number one complaint.
The key problem, I think, was being way too vague. It's not so much that he didn't want to say no, it's that these things were technically true at the time, but he had very different ideas about what that meant than his audience, and he was far too vague in attempting to portray it.
To start out with, I'm not going to say there is nothing wrong with NMS. IMO, there is a lot wrong with it, and while I got most of what I expected out of it, it turned out to not be as shiny as I hoped.
That said, the complaints you list are absolutely idiotic, and show a clear lack of ability and listen and comprehend when other people speak.
Can you interprate a box with an ESRB rating sticker covering the original ESRB rating which was higher in part due to the online multiplayer component that the studio even announced to the ratings agency and left in place even as the boxes were being printed before launch?
Obviously multiplayer was planned, and just as obviously it didn't make the cut. Shit happens. From the very first interviews multiplayer was advertised as a minor feature, not a major part of the game, so this is at best a minor quibble. If you bought NMS for the multiplayer then you're an idiot and deserve every second of "pain and suffering" you feel you experienced because of it.
Yeah you do that about a day before your game launches when you realise all you have said was bullshit. Also he didn't downplay it he just said the game is so big you won't see other players, and then in week one two players found their exact locations on a map at the same time.
Did you watch any interviews with Murray? Every time it was brought up the mantra was essentially "don't expect to ever run into another player". How is that not downplaying it? He got real specific when he realized it wasn't going to make it into the final game, and that somehow morons on the internet thought the game was actually a multiplayer game in the sense of Battlefield or Call of Duty.
- Procedural generation with the same underlying script. Yay the aliens look slightly different but do the same thing.
They never said they would do different things. I don't know where you got that impression, it's not in any of the trailers or interviews. I will say the fact that the variety is pretty superficial is a bit disappointing, but it's not different than advertised.
- Upgrade and modification systems that have zero effect on the gameplay.
Er, what? Have you played the game? Upgrades and mods have a huge effect on gameplay. Without mods on your ship you get toasted pretty much immediately in space combat, with the right mods combat is a breeze. With mods mining is faster and safer, you can work in extreme environments with low risk, you can hold more cargo before you need to sell, etc. Mods are pretty essential to the whole thing.
- A completely omitted factional warfare system which was shown off in every preview.
The factional system is exactly as advertised. I watched an interview where Murray did the faction stuff and it was exactly the way it is in the game. I do not understand how people were mislead on this. They specifically stated you would not be able to join a faction permanently. What you can do is assist one side or the other in a space battle, and that will affect your faction standing with both races involved in the battle. And that's exactly what happens. If you jump in a battle you get a little mission tracker, where you have to blow up X number of ships for your chosen side. It's pretty much exactly as advertised.
- Finding someone elses base as shown in the preview.
It never showed a player owned base. It showed a player discovered base. Every single little base you find has a little waypoint marker you can access, and it puts your name on it. If you ever happen upon a planet someone else discovered first their name will be all over it, including the bases. You can go into your journal and rename them if you like, but I never really saw the point to name something nobody else is likely to ever see. The game was specifically designed NOT to have player bases, because they wanted people to keep
I'm pretty sure they can charge for their packaging and marketing of the stories, i.e. yes, they can charge for it.
What they can't do is create and sell their product, then look up instances of people also publishing those stories and charge them licensing fees.
That is what Getty did here, they just happened to do it to the original author, so she was absolutely certain they had no right to charge her. Her mistake was in thinking she still had any right to sue them for misrepresenting a copyright claim on her works. If she had CC'd them, she could still do that, but she released them to the public domain, so she had no basis to counter-sue.
Why would you make that assumption? People complain about policing on the iOS store, but it's still the most popular smartphone app store out there. The policing is clearly worth it. Why would you assume the policing would not be worth it on the Mac store? It seems to me they need something like that.
I have zero experience with the Mac store, so I'm basically just talking out my ass here, but it sounds like they chose to go the cheaper and easier route for the Mac store and just set strict requirements to develop an app for the app store, and then only check the apps when they are added to the store.
So if app makers are clever they can technically be within the rules, yet still be misleading to customers and scam them into buying the wrong product, and Apple doesn't care.
I honestly don't know if the iOS store does better, but judging by the tone of the article and a lot of comments here, it sounds like they do a lot better.
Probably because CAN and AUS are the two other "dollars" Americans are most familiar with. The Brits use pounds, the rest of Europe mostly uses euros, Mexico has the peso and China the yuan, so really Canada and Australia are pretty near the top of the list of countries that call their base currency 'dollars'.
Do you think he should have used the Bahamian dollar instead? Or perhaps the Namibian dollar?
Honestly, if you're only going to pick two (why two? I dunno), Australia and Canada are pretty solid choices.
Blockchains don't do anything you can't do already. However, the blockchain makes it easy to get very high granualrity of data with no extra cost, whereas with traditional tracking methods there is a not-insignificant cost to obtaining all that detailed information.
The idea is simple and really quite brilliant. To create a blockchain of physical products, all you need is a barcode scanner/printer set up to generate new blocks for the block chain and a basic database that fits the number of items you sell, and you're basically done. The information needs to be uploaded, obviously, and your system needs to be robust enough to correctly handle everything that's going in, but the tedious data entry is gone.
So the farm produces some broccoli, and each shipment gets a block with a hash tag. When that shipment goes to the distributor, the distributor scans the existing block, and uses that to generate a new block for each shipment of broccoli they pack up. There is no need to hit the database to do this, btw. As long as you have the original hash available, you can generate a new block based on that hash with ease. When that shipment arrives at the store, the store generates a new block for each box they receive, and then a new block for each package they put on the shelf. Now, when they need to recall a product, they can see what box the package came out of, and all packages associated with that box. They can see what shipment that box came from, and all boxes associated with that shipment. They can see what distribution center that shipment came from, and all assicated shipments from that center. They can see what farm it came from, and all associated products from that farm, and depending on how detailed the farmer got, they may even be able to see the field and row the broccoli came from.
And all you need to do this is a database, and the ability to generate new hash tags from old hash tags. That's it.
To associate all the data they get from a blockchain automatically into a database without using blockchains, they'd have to essentially re-create the chain by hand at each step. I.e. farmer ships broccoli to distribution center. A person at the distribution center records shipment date, farm, product, ect, and probably gives it some kind of serial number specific to that shipment. Distribution center packages everything up, but they have to be diligent about what shipment gets associated with what packages, etc. It's a normal thing, but it requires effort. This continues all down the line.
The total effort to get this kind of information at every stage is so great that, in fact, most companies only track back to the distribution center level, and may not keep track of things like what specific box a product came out of. So if someone gets sick, they can tell you what company sold it, and ditch everything from that company for a given time period, but they don't have more information than that, so they wind up wasting a whole lot of product that is perfectly fine, because they simply don't know if it's fine or not.
You only need the latest block in the blockchain. From the latest block, you can find every previous block associated with that item. That's the point of blockchains.
For example, a package of broccoli might get a barcode or QR code of a new block as it gets put on the shelf. This is the only block directly associated with this particular package of broccoli.
However, the block on the package of broccoli references the block that was placed on the box that the package of broccoli came out of. That block references the crate that the box of broccoli came out of. That block references the shipment that the crate was sent to the store on. That block references the warehouse that the crate was stored at while it waited for shipment. That block references the packaging facility that the broccoli was packaged at. That block references the farm that the broccoli was picked and shipped from. Hell, depending on how anal the farmer was about tracking, they could probably tell you the row the broccoli was picked from.
All of these blocks have timestamps, so when they scan the receipt from the customer who got sick, they have enough information in that one little barcode to see exactly where and when the broccoli was picked, and every stop it made on the way to the store. In mere moments they can freeze shipments from the farm/distributor/whatever and alert other stores to the potential for issues. They can immediately investigate exactly what happened to the shipment, and who might be affected, rather than having to do a bunch of data mining first.
Right now, all the barcode tells you is "These are Green Giant broccoli florets", plus maybe the time they were put on the shelf. With blockchains, they could say the same thing, but they'd also say "see hash XYZ". Just that little change lets you store the entire history of that broccoli.
This is all doable without blockchains, of course, but it would require a much more intricate system, with diligence in every step to prevent screw ups. With blockchains the process is simple, and requires no extra infrastructure: You just scan the latest block in the series, and generate a new block as the package moves to the next step. I imagine there are barcode printers that could do it just fine right now, just need to reference the old hash while generating a new hash, then upload the info to a database when done (I'm sure they can do that automatically, too).
Maybe we should make the rich pay for it? You know, the people who can afford to? The people who have benefited the most from this land of opportunity our forefathers created?
Oh wait, no, we've decided to do the exact opposite of that and reduce taxes on those people, my bad. I guess the poor will just have to pick up the slack, eh?
Most of what you list has little to do with liberal or conservative.
The strongest anti-vax, anti-GMO person I know is a strong right-wing conservative preacher. I don't know if he's anti-space, but I don't think he much cares for it, nor do I know for sure if he's anti-nuclear but given his other positions, it wouldn't surprise me.
There is an anti-intellectual movement on both sides of the political aisle, separate and motivated by very different things, but that come to essentially the same result.
So saying "liberal anti-science culture" is only hitting half of the anti-science culture. I also, just anecdotally, think the liberal anti-science culture accepts a lot more actual science than the conservative anti-science culture, much of which believes patently absurd things like the earth is only 6500 years old.
There are only 85,000 total H1-B Visas given out every year, and that's for every industry, not just the Tech industry.
So, assuming every single H1-B went for a Tech job, it's still only 1.3% of the 6.5 million tech jobs, and 15% of the estimated 560,000 tech jobs that are currently sitting vacant for lack of qualified workers.
Slashdot Mirror
The breach of contract would go to arbitration. That's the whole point. That's what an "arbitration clause" means. You can't class-action an arbitration, so Wells Fargo effectively only has to deal with the criminal proceedings, which are fairly minor compared to the potential fallout of a massive class-action lawsuit.
I hate to break it to you, but they were already being held liable for those sorts of things. The Common Carrier argument has always been selectively applied by the courts, and Google has been bent over a barrel several times because of it. The biggest example of this was a multi-billion dollar lawsuit brought by Viacom that Google almost lost because they weren't screening copyrighted material, even though they were complying with all DMCA take down notices as required by law.
The courts' position for internet companies has become "If it's technically possible for you to screen them, then you're responsible for what they do even if you don't screen anybody". A smaller company has a better argument for not being capable of this level of screening, but they don't buy it for a company like Google.
Google already doesn't get the protection they aught to get from CC status, so they screen to cover their asses as much as they can. They're kinda screwed either way.
Did you read the Popehat article they linked? He's a lawyer specializing in free speech cases. He's very, very good at this stuff.
In a nutshell, Brandenburg v. Ohio put severe limits on Schenck v. US - the famous case in which SCOTUS Justice Holmes enshrined the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy and the "clear and present danger" test for suppression of the First Amendment. In Schenck v. US, Schenck was convicted of obstructing the draft for just producing flyers encouraging people to talk to their legislators to rescind the draft. That's it. There was absolutely nothing, by modern standards, that would not be protected speech in his pamphlets.
So no, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and inciting a mass panic is not illegal unless a lot of other factors are in play. That bar was set way, way too low, and the SCOTUS started changing it only a few months after Schenck v. US, culminating in Brandeburg v. Ohio about 50 years later.
The Brandenburg v. Ohio decision specifically limits illegal speech to things that directly incite illegal actions. Perjury itself has been deemed an illegal action, so obviously that's not protected. Lying to federal officers is an example of a borderline case. It's currently illegal, and treated the same as perjury, but it's entirely possible that will change in the future (because if you think about it for 5 seconds, it's pretty ridiculous).
So, to relate this back to the discussion of hate speech, doing something like talking a person into attacking another person, no matter the reason, is not protected speech. Saying all Christians are murderers, however, is protected, because there is nothing there that is calling for someone to commit a crime.
Not disagreeing with your main point here, but I think calling the extremist interpretation a perversion of the religion a stretch, at least if you're referring to the original intent.
The peaceful versions of all of those religions require a varying levels of theological gymnastics and ignoring certain texts while emphasizing others to make them work in modern society. All Abrahamic religions share an inherently violent history, with their primary differences being what bits of violence are emphasized and how.
The real point though, is that 95%+ of the practitioners of those religions have done the theological gymnastics necessary to come up with a peaceful religion out of them, and there isn't a good excuse for the violent extremists to exist.
It still comes down to picking and choosing which parts of the texts to emphasize and which parts to ignore. The extremists have chosen to focus on text that allows them to fight and kill and commit all manner of atrocities, while everybody else has chosen to focus on more peaceful texts to varying degrees. This is by no means an either/or situation, either. It's a sliding scale.
While there may be only a small number of ultra violent believers of these religions, there are still a huge number of people who do incredibly terrible things in the name of their religion without crossing the line into extremism.
IMO that will be the case for a few years. We'll get a sort of "dark ages" for on-demand where you need six different subscriptions to hit all the good shows, and end up basically paying cable-like prices for a hodgepodge of big internet packages.
But someone will realize that model sucks (probably already does, and is working on a plan to fix it, if I'm talking about it now), and will come up with an aggregate plan. It'll end up being a lot like cable, but probably with a much broader range of grouping options (since internet delivery is always direct, unlike cable, which is multicast). When that happens (probably 10 years down the road, I'm guessing), you'll be able to get the dozen shows you actually watch for $20-$30 a month, instead of dealing with the tiered services cable provides now.
Basically I think Internet TV is going to end up as something like Spotify or Pandora, where you pay a small subscription fee (probably based on the amount you consume) and the back end service like Netflix or Amazon get paid on a per view basis for their shows.
If what you want is cable, get cable. Don't expect to be able to replace cable with "internet" cable and save money.
You cut the cable when you are no longer interested in very many TV shows, and cable no longer fits with your media consumption habits.
If you watch regular TV shows all the time, like ESPN, Bravo, FX, HBO, etc., then what you want is a cable package. That's what they excel at. Get a whole bunch of shows produced for the masses*, you're just not going to beat the mass market model that is cable TV.
However a lot of people no longer fit that mold. In my case for example, I have a ~$60 cable package for literally one show that my roommate likes to watch. He's moving out, so I'm dropping cable completely, because 99% of my media consumption has nothing at all to do with Hollywood. I'm only interested in a handful of shows, and I'm more likely to look up sports clips than I am to sit down and watch ESPN, so I can drop the $60 a month cable bill and just spend $100 a year on full seasons of shows I like instead. There just aren't that many of them.
But if my nightly habit were to sit down in front of a TV and watch a couple hours of TV, then cutting cable is almost certainly not going to be better in almost any way.
*I'm not disparaging shows produced for the masses. That's how they can afford to create large amounts of high quality content. It's just economics.
I pretty much agree with your statements, with the caveat that the kind of LOD the OP is talking about would be really, really cool. Hard to do though, you need to track the eye and switch detail basically before they eye can register the image. If you're running at 60fps that means you get about two frames to switch detail levels to an appropriate setting, and really you probably want to get it done in that first frame to make it less likely that the player will notice.
That takes more than just power, that takes some really clever software trickery to make that happen.
If you don't trust WhatsApp to faithfully regenerate encryption keys, why the hell did you trust them to generate the initial keys in the first place? They could have just given Facebook a key then and let them listen in to your messages at any time. ANY messaging app, no matter how secure, can do this.
This is not a backdoor, it's an inherent vulnerability in all encryption systems. If you don't trust one end of the encryption, it doesn't matter if the keys are only generated once or if they're generated over and over, or if you're notified when they're regenerated or if they just regenerate them on the fly. At any point, an untrustworthy server can simply make a valid key for a third party, and your encryption is compromised.
This is a non-story. You know what 99% of people do in Signal when they get a notification that their encryption key has changed? They hit OK and re-send the message, just like WhatsApp does by default.
It's just like EULA's, nobody pays attention to those damn thigns. WhatsApp just skips the step of asking you to verify the encryption change unless you go into the settings and explicitly tell it to notify you. For most people, that's exactly the appropriate behavior.
No, scientists had reasonable evidence to suggest that might be a function of the appendix.
Until there is a large scale review study of all the studies on the subject, just like the study in the article, no reasonable scientist would say the subject was closed.
The SlashDot summary was terrible, though, so there is that.
If you thought you knew this before a study like this came out, then you're as bad as all the other gullible sheep out there, because there was not a large body of good evidence to point to to support that opinion.
The study in the Qartz article is a review study, looking at hundreds of other studies. It's an extremely important kind of study for solidifying our understanding of how things work, and frankly in my opinion they often don't get enough attention because people think they know these things already. You did not know these things already. You had a couple of articles that you'd seen before that suggested maybe the appendix isn't as useless as doctors used to think, but you didn't have a body of evidence that you could point to to prove that fact. Now you do. That's the importance of the study.
Of course, in typical fashion the SlashDot summary woefully misrepresents it as a study saying "Hey guys! I found this brand new thing that other people have already found! Check it out!", which of course that isn't what the study was doing at all.
As long as Intel is top dog in the CPU market, the Desktop CPU is indeed dead.
However, only an idiot would think that means the Desktop PC is dead.
This is the perfect opportunity for another party to sweep in and innovate the CPU market. Whether it will be a traditional x86 style CPU manufacturer like AMD, or an ARM or RISC style conentder, who knows. But the longer Intel stagnates, the larger the opportunity will grow.
I'm not sure if AMD's got anything in the pipeline that can shake things up, but if they do, this is their chance (again).
Some of the official stuff released about Ryzen look pretty spectacular. It's still not clear whether it will be able to beat Intel in total performance, but it's looking damn close, which is really encouraging to me. Furthermore, they are actually introducing new technologies in the chip, rather than slightly polishing old ones.
I have my doubts that AMD will fully match Intel this cycle, let alone beat them, but it gives me hope for the future. It's pretty clear right now who is resting on their laurels and who is driving to be the future of CPUs.
That's probably because it's pretty clearly sarcasm.
I mean, saying "I like how yadda yadda yadda" and "yadda yadda yadda" is something the writer clearly doesn't like, that's pretty much textbook ironic sarcasm.
There are non-ironic forms of sarcasm, but they are pretty much impossible to convey in writing.
Steam accepted refunds for weeks after purchase for this particular game, simply because the backlash was so huge. The lack of the expected revenue loss was NOT because people couldn't refund it.
The truth of the matter is, while it didn't deserve the absurd fan generated hype by any means, it wasn't that bad. Not great, not bad, just meh. A small, though larger than normal, portion of the gaming population were extremely upset over this, but for most people it's not that different than any other game, and isn't enough to get a refund over..
Thanks Captain Obvious.
It's called a joke. A JOKE. You know, someone makes a mistake with potentially funny consequences, and you point it out to tease them a bit? A Joke.
Way to ruin the joke.
This is pretty much the only legitimate complaint about the advertising of the game I've seen. Murray was pretty vague about a lot of things, and I think a lot of that had to do with people asking questions and the answer being technically true, but not really in the way they were expecting.
Multiplayer is a prime example. The game was always intended to have an aspect of multiplayer, so when people ask "does it have multiplayer?" you see Murray go "Well, yes, but..." and all people seem to hear is the "yes". Then when it doesn't ship with this very minor aspect of the game people are up in arms because "you said it would have multiplayer!". It was a similar response to if Call of Duty had shipped with just a campaign mode, and it was totally out of line with what Murray said would be in the game.
NMS even shipped with what I believe Murray wanted as the core element of the multiplayer, the ability to land on a planet someone else had discovered and see who had discovered it and when (and if they gave anything funny names). The ability to run into other players was always intended to be a very rare occurrence, but pretty cool when it happened. So not shipping that part of it should not be a big deal, but it was actually a huge deal. It seems to be people's number one complaint.
The key problem, I think, was being way too vague. It's not so much that he didn't want to say no, it's that these things were technically true at the time, but he had very different ideas about what that meant than his audience, and he was far too vague in attempting to portray it.
To start out with, I'm not going to say there is nothing wrong with NMS. IMO, there is a lot wrong with it, and while I got most of what I expected out of it, it turned out to not be as shiny as I hoped.
That said, the complaints you list are absolutely idiotic, and show a clear lack of ability and listen and comprehend when other people speak.
Can you interprate a box with an ESRB rating sticker covering the original ESRB rating which was higher in part due to the online multiplayer component that the studio even announced to the ratings agency and left in place even as the boxes were being printed before launch?
Obviously multiplayer was planned, and just as obviously it didn't make the cut. Shit happens. From the very first interviews multiplayer was advertised as a minor feature, not a major part of the game, so this is at best a minor quibble. If you bought NMS for the multiplayer then you're an idiot and deserve every second of "pain and suffering" you feel you experienced because of it.
Yeah you do that about a day before your game launches when you realise all you have said was bullshit. Also he didn't downplay it he just said the game is so big you won't see other players, and then in week one two players found their exact locations on a map at the same time.
Did you watch any interviews with Murray? Every time it was brought up the mantra was essentially "don't expect to ever run into another player". How is that not downplaying it? He got real specific when he realized it wasn't going to make it into the final game, and that somehow morons on the internet thought the game was actually a multiplayer game in the sense of Battlefield or Call of Duty.
- Procedural generation with the same underlying script. Yay the aliens look slightly different but do the same thing.
They never said they would do different things. I don't know where you got that impression, it's not in any of the trailers or interviews. I will say the fact that the variety is pretty superficial is a bit disappointing, but it's not different than advertised.
- Upgrade and modification systems that have zero effect on the gameplay.
Er, what? Have you played the game? Upgrades and mods have a huge effect on gameplay. Without mods on your ship you get toasted pretty much immediately in space combat, with the right mods combat is a breeze. With mods mining is faster and safer, you can work in extreme environments with low risk, you can hold more cargo before you need to sell, etc. Mods are pretty essential to the whole thing.
- A completely omitted factional warfare system which was shown off in every preview.
The factional system is exactly as advertised. I watched an interview where Murray did the faction stuff and it was exactly the way it is in the game. I do not understand how people were mislead on this. They specifically stated you would not be able to join a faction permanently. What you can do is assist one side or the other in a space battle, and that will affect your faction standing with both races involved in the battle. And that's exactly what happens. If you jump in a battle you get a little mission tracker, where you have to blow up X number of ships for your chosen side. It's pretty much exactly as advertised.
- Finding someone elses base as shown in the preview.
It never showed a player owned base. It showed a player discovered base. Every single little base you find has a little waypoint marker you can access, and it puts your name on it. If you ever happen upon a planet someone else discovered first their name will be all over it, including the bases. You can go into your journal and rename them if you like, but I never really saw the point to name something nobody else is likely to ever see. The game was specifically designed NOT to have player bases, because they wanted people to keep
I'm pretty sure they can charge for their packaging and marketing of the stories, i.e. yes, they can charge for it.
What they can't do is create and sell their product, then look up instances of people also publishing those stories and charge them licensing fees.
That is what Getty did here, they just happened to do it to the original author, so she was absolutely certain they had no right to charge her. Her mistake was in thinking she still had any right to sue them for misrepresenting a copyright claim on her works. If she had CC'd them, she could still do that, but she released them to the public domain, so she had no basis to counter-sue.
Why would you make that assumption? People complain about policing on the iOS store, but it's still the most popular smartphone app store out there. The policing is clearly worth it. Why would you assume the policing would not be worth it on the Mac store? It seems to me they need something like that.
I have zero experience with the Mac store, so I'm basically just talking out my ass here, but it sounds like they chose to go the cheaper and easier route for the Mac store and just set strict requirements to develop an app for the app store, and then only check the apps when they are added to the store.
So if app makers are clever they can technically be within the rules, yet still be misleading to customers and scam them into buying the wrong product, and Apple doesn't care.
I honestly don't know if the iOS store does better, but judging by the tone of the article and a lot of comments here, it sounds like they do a lot better.
Probably because CAN and AUS are the two other "dollars" Americans are most familiar with. The Brits use pounds, the rest of Europe mostly uses euros, Mexico has the peso and China the yuan, so really Canada and Australia are pretty near the top of the list of countries that call their base currency 'dollars'.
Do you think he should have used the Bahamian dollar instead? Or perhaps the Namibian dollar?
Honestly, if you're only going to pick two (why two? I dunno), Australia and Canada are pretty solid choices.
Blockchains don't do anything you can't do already. However, the blockchain makes it easy to get very high granualrity of data with no extra cost, whereas with traditional tracking methods there is a not-insignificant cost to obtaining all that detailed information.
The idea is simple and really quite brilliant. To create a blockchain of physical products, all you need is a barcode scanner/printer set up to generate new blocks for the block chain and a basic database that fits the number of items you sell, and you're basically done. The information needs to be uploaded, obviously, and your system needs to be robust enough to correctly handle everything that's going in, but the tedious data entry is gone.
So the farm produces some broccoli, and each shipment gets a block with a hash tag. When that shipment goes to the distributor, the distributor scans the existing block, and uses that to generate a new block for each shipment of broccoli they pack up. There is no need to hit the database to do this, btw. As long as you have the original hash available, you can generate a new block based on that hash with ease. When that shipment arrives at the store, the store generates a new block for each box they receive, and then a new block for each package they put on the shelf. Now, when they need to recall a product, they can see what box the package came out of, and all packages associated with that box. They can see what shipment that box came from, and all boxes associated with that shipment. They can see what distribution center that shipment came from, and all assicated shipments from that center. They can see what farm it came from, and all associated products from that farm, and depending on how detailed the farmer got, they may even be able to see the field and row the broccoli came from.
And all you need to do this is a database, and the ability to generate new hash tags from old hash tags. That's it.
To associate all the data they get from a blockchain automatically into a database without using blockchains, they'd have to essentially re-create the chain by hand at each step. I.e. farmer ships broccoli to distribution center. A person at the distribution center records shipment date, farm, product, ect, and probably gives it some kind of serial number specific to that shipment. Distribution center packages everything up, but they have to be diligent about what shipment gets associated with what packages, etc. It's a normal thing, but it requires effort. This continues all down the line.
The total effort to get this kind of information at every stage is so great that, in fact, most companies only track back to the distribution center level, and may not keep track of things like what specific box a product came out of. So if someone gets sick, they can tell you what company sold it, and ditch everything from that company for a given time period, but they don't have more information than that, so they wind up wasting a whole lot of product that is perfectly fine, because they simply don't know if it's fine or not.
With block chains, it's easy to track that info.
You only need the latest block in the blockchain. From the latest block, you can find every previous block associated with that item. That's the point of blockchains.
For example, a package of broccoli might get a barcode or QR code of a new block as it gets put on the shelf. This is the only block directly associated with this particular package of broccoli.
However, the block on the package of broccoli references the block that was placed on the box that the package of broccoli came out of. That block references the crate that the box of broccoli came out of. That block references the shipment that the crate was sent to the store on. That block references the warehouse that the crate was stored at while it waited for shipment. That block references the packaging facility that the broccoli was packaged at. That block references the farm that the broccoli was picked and shipped from. Hell, depending on how anal the farmer was about tracking, they could probably tell you the row the broccoli was picked from.
All of these blocks have timestamps, so when they scan the receipt from the customer who got sick, they have enough information in that one little barcode to see exactly where and when the broccoli was picked, and every stop it made on the way to the store. In mere moments they can freeze shipments from the farm/distributor/whatever and alert other stores to the potential for issues. They can immediately investigate exactly what happened to the shipment, and who might be affected, rather than having to do a bunch of data mining first.
Right now, all the barcode tells you is "These are Green Giant broccoli florets", plus maybe the time they were put on the shelf. With blockchains, they could say the same thing, but they'd also say "see hash XYZ". Just that little change lets you store the entire history of that broccoli.
This is all doable without blockchains, of course, but it would require a much more intricate system, with diligence in every step to prevent screw ups. With blockchains the process is simple, and requires no extra infrastructure: You just scan the latest block in the series, and generate a new block as the package moves to the next step. I imagine there are barcode printers that could do it just fine right now, just need to reference the old hash while generating a new hash, then upload the info to a database when done (I'm sure they can do that automatically, too).
Maybe we should make the rich pay for it? You know, the people who can afford to? The people who have benefited the most from this land of opportunity our forefathers created?
Oh wait, no, we've decided to do the exact opposite of that and reduce taxes on those people, my bad. I guess the poor will just have to pick up the slack, eh?
Most of what you list has little to do with liberal or conservative.
The strongest anti-vax, anti-GMO person I know is a strong right-wing conservative preacher. I don't know if he's anti-space, but I don't think he much cares for it, nor do I know for sure if he's anti-nuclear but given his other positions, it wouldn't surprise me.
There is an anti-intellectual movement on both sides of the political aisle, separate and motivated by very different things, but that come to essentially the same result.
So saying "liberal anti-science culture" is only hitting half of the anti-science culture. I also, just anecdotally, think the liberal anti-science culture accepts a lot more actual science than the conservative anti-science culture, much of which believes patently absurd things like the earth is only 6500 years old.
There are only 85,000 total H1-B Visas given out every year, and that's for every industry, not just the Tech industry.
So, assuming every single H1-B went for a Tech job, it's still only 1.3% of the 6.5 million tech jobs, and 15% of the estimated 560,000 tech jobs that are currently sitting vacant for lack of qualified workers.