So let's say that in the mass of leaked emails, the hackers insert a couple of made up emails that are horrifically bad for Sony. The press reports on the false emails. Without any way to verify the legitimacy of each and every leaked item how can you responsibly report on this issue?
Seeing as how when they're able to verify things they still don't, I don't think responsible reporting is of any concern to the press. Hasn't been for well over a decade.
You're an idiot. The first amendment ensures the freedom of the press.
Sony can't (successfully) sue them for breaking into their servers because they weren't the ones who did that (even then they'd have a hard time - look at what Murdoch gets away with). Sony can't (successfully) sue them for libel / slander / defamation / damages because all of the shit leaked is true and no member of the press was under contract to not release that information. Sony can't (successfully) sue for whatever else you can dream up, because that would be the government enforcing some law restricting the press from doing their job as the press, a clear violation of the first amendment.
The press hasn't done anything to Sony aside from reveal the truth. Until you find the press has been actively hacking Sony, or has been trespassing on their property, or has been torturing Sony employees for info, or has been engaged in other such crimes in pursuit of this story, the press is free and clear.
Finding and disseminating truth is the press's job. This is exactly what the first amendment is designed to protect.
Doesn't matter - Amazon listed a valid listing from the 3rd parties. The fact that the 3rd parties put up a price they didn't like doesn't change the contract that was made when people placed the orders.
Yup - this is what it boils down to. For "secret" things related to any sort of distribution to succeed, you have to connect people who want things to people who can distribute them. You need people on both end in order to facilitate distribution from one party to another. If someone shows up looking for some skub but finds no one distributing skub, they'll leave. The way to prevent this is to ensure there are plenty of people on both sides. To ensure there are plenty of people on both sides, people invite more people and lower the standards of trust.
Every tor site / private tracker / secret club house a random schlub like you can access is one the enemy can access.
The child, obviously. What, you weren't told the risks? No one checked out your child's medical history before injecting them with a dozen different things? You were forced to do this to your child? You want to sue? You have no rights, you can go to "arbitration" and lose because fuck you.
If people don't want to be vaccinated, for any reason or no reason, that's their choice. People don't trust the fucking government. It's not ignorance or religion leading people not to vaccinate, it's people watching what the government has been doing for the past decade and a half and realizing that the government is an active enemy of the people at every fucking level.
If YOU don't want the disease, get the vaccine for YOURSELF. If YOU are too enfeebled to withstand the vaccine, then isolate YOURSELF to avoid the disease. The line of "logic" people use to try to force others to get vaccinated would have us banning shrimp, peanuts, dogs, hay, and fucking sunshine from all public spaces.
This freedom is absolutely more important than the impact of any disease on the unvaccinated (by choice or not) population. We don't live in magical happy fairy land - people get sick and die, and those people are sometimes children. We cannot save everyone and we should not sacrifice freedoms in a ridiculous attempt to do so. Forcing or coercing people to get vaccines is not okay. If you want to encourage them to do so you have to earn their trust.
You're saying that as if it's purely a bad thing. Sure, it's a tragedy when a parent loses a child, but it's a boon to the herd when the weakest is culled, and their genes leave the gene pool before they get to procreate. If we allowed diseases to cull, say, 10% of children, future generations would be stronger.
As it is, vaccination is a means to allow more bad mutations to survive and cause pain and suffering in the future. I think everyone who do give their children vaccines are selfish bastards who wants to increase the odds of their own children surviving even if it means that their children or grandchildren might suffer. People are concerned about the here and now, and refuse to think generations ahead.
Think of future children, not just the present ones. Let predation happen, to ensure that the good mutations are rewarded and the bad ones are not.
It's funny how pro-evolution certain people are until you suggest that we let evolution continue.
TVs are very different to computer monitors in one important aspect: image processing. Computer monitors go for accuracy, but even basic TVs do a fair bit of processing to make the image look good. Some of it is to make up for limitations of the TV itself, like enhancing motion clarity, but a lot of it is to make up for limitations of the source material. Broadcast HD is actually fairly crap if you watch it on a normal computer monitor without any processing.
Many TVs have a "game mode" which disables processing to get the latency down. Try switching to it with an ordinary broadcast HD feed to see how awful it looks with minimal enhancement. Even game mode doesn't disable everything though.
Horse shit. The first thing I do on any TV is disable every single fucking enhancement. They make games, pc output, broadcast, cable, dvd, bluray, even fucking vhs look like absolute trash.
"8k" refers to resolution only. I could say whatever magical system you're thinking of doesn't support "true 8k video" because it doesn't support 240 Hz because that's what you need for 3D.
Fire them all and revoke their pensions, then make sure you don't sign any stupid contracts for any new ones you hire (directly or via a union). Make sure the new ones you hire are local. When they want to be above the laws the enforce, when they demand exorbitant pensions, when they try to put in bullshit overtime hours, etc., fire them. If the good cops try to pull the blue wall bullshit when you punish a bad cop, let them strike. Let crime run rampant in the city they and their families live in.
No I didn't. I specifically stated that I realized that the sites I visit may disappear, but that I wouldn't spend a single cent to prevent that because I don't deem the content worth any amount of money.
Your communication with the bank can be secured with public-key cryptography like usual, I would think. People can view the bits you pass back and forth with your bank already- anyone at your ISP and any interconnects between you and the bank. But, in theory, public-key crypto makes those bits meaningless to everyone else.
That's only true once you've established said keys outside of the public channel. So you have to use something other than this Bittorrent for HTTP bullshit to establish security, then hand the connection off to Bittorrent for HTTP. The question remains: Fucking why?
Immersion cooling has gotten a surprise boost from the rise of bitcoin, including a large bitcoin mine inside a Hong Kong high-rise
Nevermind the cost, the immersion liquid that the Hong Kong bitcoin mine is using is actually very ecologically unfriendly
Until someone can come up with immersion liquid that is not so ecologically unfriendly, and with much lower cost, I am afraid it will be a tall order to convince data center operator to cool all their heat generating electronic parts via the immersion method
How about water? Remove all the salts and it's perfectly okay to submerge your PC in water.
This has to be a milestone in warfare, right up there with the gun, or bow and arrow.
Uh, why? The practicality of early designs isn't the issue - just as early guns were inferior to bows yet rapidly improved, lasers suck now and will get better. The issue is the physics of the matter. Lasers may be very precise but they're very easy to counter (add some reflective bits) and they require a lot of energy per damage done. Ejecting mass at velocity requires much less energy per damage done and we've gotten very good at getting guns and other ballistic systems to be incredibly precise. And this makes sense when you consider the extremely energy-dense nature of mass.
In terms of payload, mass at velocity is very effective. Why waste energy and effort designing systems to bundle energy and deliver it to a target when we already have extremely-densely bundled energy in mass? Laser installations will have uses beyond targeting, but soldiers with super pew pew rifles compared to soldiers with M16s isn't anything like bows and arrows vs clubs or rifle vs bows & arrows.
A thousand times this. I would much rather have 99% of the web disappear than have it continue in its current state (ads everywhere, selling my info, letting advertisers control content, forcing me to watch an ad and type "I LOVE MCDONALDS" before showing me content, etc.).
The vast majority of content is worthless. Not just to me but to the vast majority of people. Costs are going DOWN, and have been for ages. If you want to run a blog without ads under your own hosting account, that will cost you less than nearly any other hobby you could think of, even if your blog features adorable corgis that have gone viral. If you want to post videos of yourself playing video games you'll have an upfront cost of capture equipment, a webcam, and maybe some editing software. The PC, consoles, games, and ISP bill were shit you would be paying for regardless. The majority of "content producers" on the web have little to no cost and produce little to no original content, let alone worthwhile content. Even for the subset of content I personally enjoy, I recognize that it is worthless - I would not pay a single cent to access it. If it were paywalled I would simply go without it. Serving ads alongside content makes me enjoy the content less, so I block those ads. If you fight against this, your content becomes less enjoyable.
TL;DR: The web would be better without ads, even if the majority of ad-supported content became paywalled or disappeared (as determined by what viewers feel is worthy of their $). The vast majority of content on the web is produced at little to no cost anyway. If you want your web content to be your job, then charge for it. If you want it to be your hobby, then pay for it as you would any other hobby.
One was dismissed just because she didn't purchase them directly? Come on...
If your claim as a plaintiff is that you were damaged because your iPod cost more than it should have, you need to prove that you actually paid for the iPod. Again, that's the plaintiff's claim not Apple's claim.
The claim is that iPods that millions of people bought cost more than they should have because of Apple's illegal practices. The desire is for: A: The court to determine how much more those iPods cost than they should have and to award that amount to the victims. B: The criminal to be punished for the illegal practices. C: The criminal to be prevented from further engaging in said (or similar) illegal practices.
We'll be lucky if the A happens to the tune of anything more than a $1 credit on the criminal's own store. B will not happen. C will not happen.
If the court can rule on A based on a single principle plaintiff yet award the judgment to the entire affected, yet unquantified, class, then that tells you the court expect the lawyers to be able to: A: Determine the members of the affected class. B: Contact them. C: Solicit them for response ("How many iPods did you buy between X and Y?) and requisite proof ("Do you have any receipts from 8 fucking years ago even though even your fucking bank is only expected to keep records for 7 years?").
If the court can expect all that to be done based on the facts presented, then there is absolutely no need for a principle plaintiff at all. All members of the class are plaintiffs and if they are eligible for a piece of the judgment then they are equally eligible to: A: Stand as a plaintiff in court as part of the class action suit. B: Opt out of the class action suit and bring their own individual suit.
There is absolutely no logical need for any single member of the class to be named as a principle plaintiff in a class action suit.
Slashdot Mirror
So let's say that in the mass of leaked emails, the hackers insert a couple of made up emails that are horrifically bad for Sony. The press reports on the false emails. Without any way to verify the legitimacy of each and every leaked item how can you responsibly report on this issue?
Seeing as how when they're able to verify things they still don't, I don't think responsible reporting is of any concern to the press.
Hasn't been for well over a decade.
You're an idiot. The first amendment ensures the freedom of the press.
Sony can't (successfully) sue them for breaking into their servers because they weren't the ones who did that (even then they'd have a hard time - look at what Murdoch gets away with).
Sony can't (successfully) sue them for libel / slander / defamation / damages because all of the shit leaked is true and no member of the press was under contract to not release that information.
Sony can't (successfully) sue for whatever else you can dream up, because that would be the government enforcing some law restricting the press from doing their job as the press, a clear violation of the first amendment.
The press hasn't done anything to Sony aside from reveal the truth.
Until you find the press has been actively hacking Sony, or has been trespassing on their property, or has been torturing Sony employees for info, or has been engaged in other such crimes in pursuit of this story, the press is free and clear.
Finding and disseminating truth is the press's job. This is exactly what the first amendment is designed to protect.
Doesn't matter - Amazon listed a valid listing from the 3rd parties.
The fact that the 3rd parties put up a price they didn't like doesn't change the contract that was made when people placed the orders.
Not only does it taste awful, it's the drink of the poor and stupid.
STFU weaboo.
No, this is why we have things like guns.
Yup - this is what it boils down to.
For "secret" things related to any sort of distribution to succeed, you have to connect people who want things to people who can distribute them.
You need people on both end in order to facilitate distribution from one party to another.
If someone shows up looking for some skub but finds no one distributing skub, they'll leave. The way to prevent this is to ensure there are plenty of people on both sides. To ensure there are plenty of people on both sides, people invite more people and lower the standards of trust.
Every tor site / private tracker / secret club house a random schlub like you can access is one the enemy can access.
The child, obviously.
What, you weren't told the risks? No one checked out your child's medical history before injecting them with a dozen different things? You were forced to do this to your child? You want to sue? You have no rights, you can go to "arbitration" and lose because fuck you.
If people don't want to be vaccinated, for any reason or no reason, that's their choice. People don't trust the fucking government. It's not ignorance or religion leading people not to vaccinate, it's people watching what the government has been doing for the past decade and a half and realizing that the government is an active enemy of the people at every fucking level.
If YOU don't want the disease, get the vaccine for YOURSELF. If YOU are too enfeebled to withstand the vaccine, then isolate YOURSELF to avoid the disease.
The line of "logic" people use to try to force others to get vaccinated would have us banning shrimp, peanuts, dogs, hay, and fucking sunshine from all public spaces.
This freedom is absolutely more important than the impact of any disease on the unvaccinated (by choice or not) population. We don't live in magical happy fairy land - people get sick and die, and those people are sometimes children. We cannot save everyone and we should not sacrifice freedoms in a ridiculous attempt to do so.
Forcing or coercing people to get vaccines is not okay. If you want to encourage them to do so you have to earn their trust.
Non-vaccinated kids kill and cripple other kids.
You're saying that as if it's purely a bad thing. Sure, it's a tragedy when a parent loses a child, but it's a boon to the herd when the weakest is culled, and their genes leave the gene pool before they get to procreate.
If we allowed diseases to cull, say, 10% of children, future generations would be stronger.
As it is, vaccination is a means to allow more bad mutations to survive and cause pain and suffering in the future. I think everyone who do give their children vaccines are selfish bastards who wants to increase the odds of their own children surviving even if it means that their children or grandchildren might suffer. People are concerned about the here and now, and refuse to think generations ahead.
Think of future children, not just the present ones. Let predation happen, to ensure that the good mutations are rewarded and the bad ones are not.
It's funny how pro-evolution certain people are until you suggest that we let evolution continue.
Unless that water was frozen, you didn't choke on it, you merely got some into your lungs.
TVs are very different to computer monitors in one important aspect: image processing. Computer monitors go for accuracy, but even basic TVs do a fair bit of processing to make the image look good. Some of it is to make up for limitations of the TV itself, like enhancing motion clarity, but a lot of it is to make up for limitations of the source material. Broadcast HD is actually fairly crap if you watch it on a normal computer monitor without any processing.
Many TVs have a "game mode" which disables processing to get the latency down. Try switching to it with an ordinary broadcast HD feed to see how awful it looks with minimal enhancement. Even game mode doesn't disable everything though.
Horse shit.
The first thing I do on any TV is disable every single fucking enhancement.
They make games, pc output, broadcast, cable, dvd, bluray, even fucking vhs look like absolute trash.
"8k" refers to resolution only. I could say whatever magical system you're thinking of doesn't support "true 8k video" because it doesn't support 240 Hz because that's what you need for 3D.
Fire them all and revoke their pensions, then make sure you don't sign any stupid contracts for any new ones you hire (directly or via a union). Make sure the new ones you hire are local. When they want to be above the laws the enforce, when they demand exorbitant pensions, when they try to put in bullshit overtime hours, etc., fire them. If the good cops try to pull the blue wall bullshit when you punish a bad cop, let them strike. Let crime run rampant in the city they and their families live in.
Sure, but they're not going to beat me with a wrench without a warrant.
They'll do that and much more. Haven you been living in a cave (like a terrorist)?
Plenty of captchas are video ads that require you type the slogan of the company as the answer to the captcha.
And look at this Sony patent http://www.google.com/patents/... [google.com] . Figure 9 (image 10 of 21) will horrify you.
I've already seen plenty of captchas that are video ads that require you type the slogan of the company as the answer to the captcha.
And look at this Sony patent http://www.google.com/patents/... . Figure 9 (image 10 of 21) will horrify you.
No I didn't.
I specifically stated that I realized that the sites I visit may disappear, but that I wouldn't spend a single cent to prevent that because I don't deem the content worth any amount of money.
And I'd tell you that no amount of hand waving changes the numbers and their summation.
But then what will the F-35 pilots fly in?
Coach?
Yup. The headline should read "A Man Whose Life Is Over Desires Attention From Schmucks On The Internet And Gets It.".
Your communication with the bank can be secured with public-key cryptography like usual, I would think. People can view the bits you pass back and forth with your bank already- anyone at your ISP and any interconnects between you and the bank. But, in theory, public-key crypto makes those bits meaningless to everyone else.
That's only true once you've established said keys outside of the public channel.
So you have to use something other than this Bittorrent for HTTP bullshit to establish security, then hand the connection off to Bittorrent for HTTP.
The question remains: Fucking why?
Immersion cooling has gotten a surprise boost from the rise of bitcoin, including a large bitcoin mine inside a Hong Kong high-rise
Nevermind the cost, the immersion liquid that the Hong Kong bitcoin mine is using is actually very ecologically unfriendly
Until someone can come up with immersion liquid that is not so ecologically unfriendly, and with much lower cost, I am afraid it will be a tall order to convince data center operator to cool all their heat generating electronic parts via the immersion method
How about water? Remove all the salts and it's perfectly okay to submerge your PC in water.
This has to be a milestone in warfare, right up there with the gun, or bow and arrow.
Uh, why?
The practicality of early designs isn't the issue - just as early guns were inferior to bows yet rapidly improved, lasers suck now and will get better.
The issue is the physics of the matter. Lasers may be very precise but they're very easy to counter (add some reflective bits) and they require a lot of energy per damage done. Ejecting mass at velocity requires much less energy per damage done and we've gotten very good at getting guns and other ballistic systems to be incredibly precise. And this makes sense when you consider the extremely energy-dense nature of mass.
In terms of payload, mass at velocity is very effective. Why waste energy and effort designing systems to bundle energy and deliver it to a target when we already have extremely-densely bundled energy in mass? Laser installations will have uses beyond targeting, but soldiers with super pew pew rifles compared to soldiers with M16s isn't anything like bows and arrows vs clubs or rifle vs bows & arrows.
A thousand times this.
I would much rather have 99% of the web disappear than have it continue in its current state (ads everywhere, selling my info, letting advertisers control content, forcing me to watch an ad and type "I LOVE MCDONALDS" before showing me content, etc.).
The vast majority of content is worthless. Not just to me but to the vast majority of people.
Costs are going DOWN, and have been for ages. If you want to run a blog without ads under your own hosting account, that will cost you less than nearly any other hobby you could think of, even if your blog features adorable corgis that have gone viral. If you want to post videos of yourself playing video games you'll have an upfront cost of capture equipment, a webcam, and maybe some editing software. The PC, consoles, games, and ISP bill were shit you would be paying for regardless.
The majority of "content producers" on the web have little to no cost and produce little to no original content, let alone worthwhile content. Even for the subset of content I personally enjoy, I recognize that it is worthless - I would not pay a single cent to access it. If it were paywalled I would simply go without it. Serving ads alongside content makes me enjoy the content less, so I block those ads. If you fight against this, your content becomes less enjoyable.
TL;DR: The web would be better without ads, even if the majority of ad-supported content became paywalled or disappeared (as determined by what viewers feel is worthy of their $). The vast majority of content on the web is produced at little to no cost anyway. If you want your web content to be your job, then charge for it. If you want it to be your hobby, then pay for it as you would any other hobby.
One was dismissed just because she didn't purchase them directly? Come on...
If your claim as a plaintiff is that you were damaged because your iPod cost more than it should have, you need to prove that you actually paid for the iPod. Again, that's the plaintiff's claim not Apple's claim.
The claim is that iPods that millions of people bought cost more than they should have because of Apple's illegal practices.
The desire is for:
A: The court to determine how much more those iPods cost than they should have and to award that amount to the victims.
B: The criminal to be punished for the illegal practices.
C: The criminal to be prevented from further engaging in said (or similar) illegal practices.
We'll be lucky if the A happens to the tune of anything more than a $1 credit on the criminal's own store.
B will not happen.
C will not happen.
If the court can rule on A based on a single principle plaintiff yet award the judgment to the entire affected, yet unquantified, class, then that tells you the court expect the lawyers to be able to:
A: Determine the members of the affected class.
B: Contact them.
C: Solicit them for response ("How many iPods did you buy between X and Y?) and requisite proof ("Do you have any receipts from 8 fucking years ago even though even your fucking bank is only expected to keep records for 7 years?").
If the court can expect all that to be done based on the facts presented, then there is absolutely no need for a principle plaintiff at all. All members of the class are plaintiffs and if they are eligible for a piece of the judgment then they are equally eligible to:
A: Stand as a plaintiff in court as part of the class action suit.
B: Opt out of the class action suit and bring their own individual suit.
There is absolutely no logical need for any single member of the class to be named as a principle plaintiff in a class action suit.