indeed, many artists like him only seem to produce the goodies during bad, horrible and nasty times and then truly suck once they become happy... much oddness but it's how it is.
Yep. In fact IIRC, in an old interview Reznor once claimed he had to stop taking antidepressants precisely because it was adversely affecting his ability to compose.
I guess it's true what they say, you gotta suffer if you wanna play the blues. And industrial goth probably requires an even higher level of suffering than the blues.
Just because the cameras are in public places, that does NOT necessarily mean that the police are only surveilling public spaces. My city has many cameras at intersections etc.and I happen to know someone who's been in the control room for those cameras, he says they can zoom in on cars and see everything the driver and passengers are doing - the phrase he actually used was, "they can count the change in your pocket." I would submit that most people have a reasonable expectation that the little things they do and say in their private vehicles with the windows closed is not public activity. Similarly, a camera mounted on a power pole outside a residence might be aimed at the bedroom window, and when zoomed and filtered can certainly see what's going on in there. Obviously, what happens in bedrooms is private, or privacy means nothing. You can't just say that all cameras in public areas are non-intrusive because, well, it's public. Today's cameras have capabilities that render that argument invalid.
not quite.. He released it first on the downward spiral and it had a fucking awesome video too for teh single release..
Johhny Cash covered it ad changed the line "I wear my crown of shit" top "... crown of thorns), from what i gather it was a tribute to wife recently departed wife at the time.
back from 1989's pretty hate machine through to the fragile( where it all started to get a bit crap) He was very influential on the Goth/industrial scene. Seems like he has VERY much become the very guy he used to rant about in his music.
It was true when another poster mentioned he was better out his tits on drugs... he really was... now he's just a fucking total sellout.
yeah.. middle aged goth ehre.. Dj'd on the scene for years before not enough fucks were given really.
All true, but why should any of this surprise you? His music was always full of self-loathing, in fact it features prominently on "Hurt." So a guy who hates himself has finally managed to turn himself into something different - it's exactly what one would expect. It's just unfortunate for us all that the new Trent happens to be a music industry lapdog asshole, and doubly unfortunate that the new Trent can't seem to compose truly relevant music anymore, but hey, whatever works, right? The transition appears to be working for him on a personal level, so it's all good.
This is key to enabling low-power functionality in Intel CPUs - think quick boot and quality testing. It doesn't have any surveillance or other purposes.
None that you know of. The point of the article is that there has been no way to be sure about what's really in there and what isn't. The code appears to have been deliberately obfuscated by Intel at a hardware level. It's true that this subsystem is not new and has been known about for years, but I gather the point of the article is not to announce its existence, rather he wants to say that he has figured out some (but not all) of the subsystem's functionality that was previously hidden, and he wants to eventually replace the whole thing with open source equivalents so that people will know for certain that there are indeed no Three Letter Agency backdoors. I think. I really only skimmed the article.
Yeah, the hypocrisy, selective blindness, whatever you want to call it, displayed by some of these people is unbelievable. You can’t argue on the one hand that big corporations have full free-speech 1st amendment rights that allow them to be as politically active as they want to be (or can afford to be) and then on the other hand get all upset when you discover one of those corporations exercising those exact rights in a way you disapprove of.
For the record, I don’t necessarily believe that corporations should have the same rights as people, and I don’t believe Google is manipulating search results for political reasons. It’s just that the whining over this issue coming from right-wing erstwhile free-market crusaders is driving me nuts, it’s what drove me to post. And yeah, there are indeed many other instances of similar selective blindness displayed by those on the far right - and to be fair, occasionally by those on the far left as well. It’s like logic just goes out the window whenever politics are involved.
I’m confused... Why shouldn’t Google be able to rank their search results any way they want to? Google is a private company, not a utility or common carrier, they can and should be able to manipulate their search results any way they want to, with whatever innate biases they feel are necessary to keep their users happy. Are the people that are complaining about supposed bias seriously saying that they think some government bureaucrat should police search engines and shut down the ones they don‘t like? Really?? Come on people, get a grip! Chill out and let the invisible hand of the market do its thing. If you don’t like Google’s search results, the solution is obvious: use another search engine!
There was a film called “AI", which was originally something Kubrick was working on from his own idea and script, a project he tinkered with for many years, filming bits of it here and there, but which was still a majorly unfinished work when he died. By some dark Hollywood juju it was eventually transformed into a Steven Spielberg movie, but if you were unfortunate enough to have seen it (as I have, regrettably) you know that the finished product wasn’t exactly a film partaking of the best ideas from both directors - more like the worst excesses of each, awkwardly jammed together by faceless studio bureaucrats. I wonder, though, if we might now be finally reaching the stage where a computer could really study the oeuvre of a director like Kubrick and emulate his style well enough to do a true finished script, something that would feel more like a real Kubrick film, as opposed to the pale imitation/desecration the Spielberg-ized product proved to be. Now that would be cool, a movie called “AI” about AI with a script written by a real AI - or the closest we can get to a real AI, in any event something more intelligent than the mindless sentence completing phrase-bot that penned the script for Sunspring, the film in the article. Sunspring is basically just a gimmick, but real advances in AI have been made in the last few years, and I would that guess a truly watchable movie scripted by a computer is not so far-fetched.
Three data points, not one. This guy represents three data points. We are looking at the occurrence of false accusations among women. This man is giving us three instances of that, by three different women. He may be unlucky, and certainly has poor choice of women friends, but it's a valid sample. If we knew the total number of women friends he's made over the years, we could then make a real prediction about the overall incidence of false accusation. Granted, even three data points only represents the bare minimum necessary, and as of now we're still missing data, but if he supplies that data it's completely valid statistically to make a prediction, albeit a very crude one.
Obamacare hasn't helped anyone. The "millions of poor people" who supposedly benefited from it qualified for medicaid to begin with. The only thing this disastrous plan has done is drive up the cost for those of us who actually have to pay for it out of pocket and force people who decided that they can't afford it to pay out the nose anyway. Do you remember when Obama was running for President and we were all shouting how he didn't have the experience he would need to properly pass a bill through congress? This is exactly what we were talking about. Anyone with a modicum of foresight would have expanded the program that was already in place to help these people instead of managing to screw things up worse then they were.
Wrong! Despite my intense dislike of the ACA, I'm quite willing to go on record saying that Obamacare quite literally saved my life. I had no insurance before the ACA, it was totally out of reach, and I don't qualify for medicaid (I know for a fact because you are forced to be evaluated before being given ACA credits). Within 2 weeks of signing up for a quite good silver plan that was also quite affordable (this was in the 1st year of Obamacare, it's much less good and affordable now) I came down with a rare disease that would have crippled or killed me without a doubt. I literally got my insurance ID number while on the way to the ER for the 2nd time in a week. Funny thing, now I had some insurance they decided to do an MRI "just in case," and discovered the infection. Without that MRI and subsequent diagnoses I would have been paralyzed or dead within days, and I have little doubt there wouldn't have been an MRI if I was still uninsured. As it was, I was hospitalized for months with the final bill well over a quarter million, which my silver plan promptly payed all but $500 of. Don't get me wrong, health care in this country is fucked and the ACA can't and won't fix it, but there's no doubt it saved my ass big time. So your facts are wrong, but your premise may be correct. We need to go single payer, the longer we put it off the harder it will be, and more people will die.
Guess it depends on where you look. Although to be fair you may be right about the bollocks, the scenario in the article/study is probably unrealistic. The truth, as usual, probably lies somewhere in between.
Honestly I don't understand how ANYONE can make the case the Hillary is different than Trump other than what "team" she purports to be playing for.
The difference is this: under president Hillary nothing changes at all from what we have now, and under the Donald it's looking very likely to get worse but with a remote possibility that some small things might actually change.
Frankly, I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for either one of them, not even in protest of the other. It's fucking ridiculous, the Republicans are running a "Man of the People" who's a billionaire, and the Democrats are running the one single person in America so hated she could actually lose to him. The system is broken by definition if it's come to this.
There are real problems with employee drug tests as currently practiced, problems that go way beyond identifying drug-free employees. As things stand now, when someone applies for a job - just applies, mind you, this process occurs well before anyone is actually offered a position - the prospective employee is routinely told to go get a drug test, usually at a local testing lab. Now, regardless of whether or not that person has in fact used any illegal drugs, the report that goes to the employer lists ALL the medication found in that person's system at the time of the test, pretty much every medication taken during the last few weeks. That's right, they get a full report on every prescription drug you are taking. Including, for example, antidepressants, or birth control... And they get this info BEFORE they decide to hire you. It's the equivalent of giving them full access to your medical records. Few people realize this glaring hole in our right to privacy exists, that potential employers will see this information before deciding whether or not to hire you. Just one more example of a seemingly sacred privacy right, now blown to the four winds, gone forever while no one was paying attention.
Reading quickly through this thread, with all the comments about whiners wanting something for nothing, it seems to me that most are missing the real story here. The Binge-on plan is supposed to be about getting certain content without it counting against a data cap, that certain providers have worked out a deal with T-Mobile, allowing their streams to be “optimized” in exchange for users getting unlimited access. But it turns out that everyone‘s content is being treated the same: it’s all throttled. So what exactly is the point of having only some content providers participate? A select few companies have allowed their names to be used, and have theoretically signed on to the scheme, but those providers' data isn’t being treated any differently then anyone else’s, the data is ALL being throttled! Think about it, all video data on the internet is being treated the same, but only some companies are being given the opportunity to serve up unlimited amounts of video. Why? Why just them? I have read that other streaming providers can opt in for free, which if true just makes the unequal treatment worse. By default, T-Mobile is treating video data as if the provider has already agreed to the plan, but only a select few companies are reaping the benefits. From an engineering standpoint, participating companies are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING differently than non-participating companies. WTF? Bottom line: ALL VIDEO CONTENT IS BEING THROTTLED, SO ALL VIDEO CONTENT PROVIDERS SHOULD REAP THE BENEFITS! Anything else is a flat out violation of net neutrality. And that’s the real story here.
Reading quickly through this thread, with all the comments about whiners wanting something for nothing, it seems to me that most are missing the real story here. The Binge-on plan is supposed to be about getting certain content without it counting against a data cap, that certain providers have worked out a deal with T-Mobile allowing their streams to be “optimized” in exchange for users getting unlimited access. But it turns out that everyone‘s content is being treated the same: it’s all throttled. So what exactly is the point of having only some content providers participate? A select few companies have allowed their names to be used, and have theoretically signed on to the scheme, but those providers' data isn’t being treated any differently then anyone else’s, the data is ALL being throttled! Think about it, all video data on the internet is being treated the same, but only some companies are being given the opportunity to serve up unlimited amounts of video. Why? Why just them? I have read that other streaming providers can opt in for free, which if true just makes the unequal treatment worse. By default, T-Mobile is treating video data as if the provider has already agreed to the plan, but only a select few companies are reaping the benefits. From an engineering standpoint, participating companies are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING differently than non-participating companies. WTF? Bottom line: ALL VIDEO CONTENT IS BEING THROTTLED, SO ALL VIDEO CONTENT PROVIDERS SHOULD REAP THE BENEFITS! Anything else is a flat out violation of net neutrality. And that’s the real story here.
A "fiat" currency depends on someone that can be trusted, who has a lot of assets AND a major income stream giving a promise.
Well, it was my understanding that anyone could have used bitcoin to buy drugs on Silk Road, and supposedly you still can still do so on various successor sites. It seems to me a big reliable drug dealing organization meets all your qualifications.
OK, granted, this only works for certain values of "trust," but still... You'd essentially have a currency pegged to a known commodity, one with as much if not more intrinsic value than any precious metal.
So, if I read all this correctly, this would apply even if the photo was of the (then) happy couple, taken remotely. But why should HER right to privacy automatically trump HIS right to own a memento of the relationship? In the absence of any actual attempt by a guy to use a twosome pic in an underhanded way, it doesn't quite seem fair to force him to destroy such a photograph (or whatever).
But in the studies done, they had people getting the happy reaction even if they almost won. Missing one number on the lottery ticket or one fruit on a slot machine actually makes them feel as good as if they had won.
Casinos know all this and they definitely use it. I used to go to the casino with a friend of mine who really liked playing the video slots. Some of these machines were billed as quarter slots, but certain combinations would only pay out if the player has put 2 or even 3 quarters into the machine for that play. I could never get my friend to understand that when those special multi-coin only combinations came up, invariably when my friend had only put in a single quarter, it did not necessarily mean that he would have won big if only, oh if only, he had played the full 75 cents. The machine knows exactly how many coins you put in it, and if you play a single quarter it will frequently pump out those multi-coin-only winning combinations precisely to get you to think that you would have won big if you had played for more. The casinos know a million tricks like this to help part the innumerate from their money. These places know all about the psychology and neurophysiology of gambling, they never miss a trick.
You didn't "fix" anything. It doesn't require a SCOTUS ruling. All it requires is a ruling that is not appealed (or the higher courts refuse to hear an appeal).
The US government has continued to do many things that various lesser judges have ruled unconstitutional at one point or other, but a Supreme Court ruling puts the matter to rest for good (barring a constitutional amendment). And if SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, well, that's a ruling of a sort, too. You need SCOTUS to settle the matter, either way.
A SCOTUS ruling that this is unconstitutional means the government can't pass a law or use an executive order or issue a NSL to do this. It would require a constitutional amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
the shitbird douchenozzles who gave us Obamacare so they could collapse the healthcare system to give us single payer.
Oh, if only!
Sadly, that was not their intent at all.
indeed, many artists like him only seem to produce the goodies during bad, horrible and nasty times and then truly suck once they become happy... much oddness but it's how it is.
Yep. In fact IIRC, in an old interview Reznor once claimed he had to stop taking antidepressants precisely because it was adversely affecting his ability to compose.
I guess it's true what they say, you gotta suffer if you wanna play the blues. And industrial goth probably requires an even higher level of suffering than the blues.
Just because the cameras are in public places, that does NOT necessarily mean that the police are only surveilling public spaces. My city has many cameras at intersections etc.and I happen to know someone who's been in the control room for those cameras, he says they can zoom in on cars and see everything the driver and passengers are doing - the phrase he actually used was, "they can count the change in your pocket." I would submit that most people have a reasonable expectation that the little things they do and say in their private vehicles with the windows closed is not public activity. Similarly, a camera mounted on a power pole outside a residence might be aimed at the bedroom window, and when zoomed and filtered can certainly see what's going on in there. Obviously, what happens in bedrooms is private, or privacy means nothing. You can't just say that all cameras in public areas are non-intrusive because, well, it's public. Today's cameras have capabilities that render that argument invalid.
not quite.. He released it first on the downward spiral and it had a fucking awesome video too for teh single release.. Johhny Cash covered it ad changed the line "I wear my crown of shit" top "... crown of thorns), from what i gather it was a tribute to wife recently departed wife at the time. back from 1989's pretty hate machine through to the fragile( where it all started to get a bit crap) He was very influential on the Goth/industrial scene. Seems like he has VERY much become the very guy he used to rant about in his music. It was true when another poster mentioned he was better out his tits on drugs... he really was... now he's just a fucking total sellout. yeah.. middle aged goth ehre.. Dj'd on the scene for years before not enough fucks were given really.
All true, but why should any of this surprise you? His music was always full of self-loathing, in fact it features prominently on "Hurt." So a guy who hates himself has finally managed to turn himself into something different - it's exactly what one would expect. It's just unfortunate for us all that the new Trent happens to be a music industry lapdog asshole, and doubly unfortunate that the new Trent can't seem to compose truly relevant music anymore, but hey, whatever works, right? The transition appears to be working for him on a personal level, so it's all good.
This is key to enabling low-power functionality in Intel CPUs - think quick boot and quality testing. It doesn't have any surveillance or other purposes.
None that you know of. The point of the article is that there has been no way to be sure about what's really in there and what isn't. The code appears to have been deliberately obfuscated by Intel at a hardware level. It's true that this subsystem is not new and has been known about for years, but I gather the point of the article is not to announce its existence, rather he wants to say that he has figured out some (but not all) of the subsystem's functionality that was previously hidden, and he wants to eventually replace the whole thing with open source equivalents so that people will know for certain that there are indeed no Three Letter Agency backdoors. I think. I really only skimmed the article.
Yeah, the hypocrisy, selective blindness, whatever you want to call it, displayed by some of these people is unbelievable. You can’t argue on the one hand that big corporations have full free-speech 1st amendment rights that allow them to be as politically active as they want to be (or can afford to be) and then on the other hand get all upset when you discover one of those corporations exercising those exact rights in a way you disapprove of.
For the record, I don’t necessarily believe that corporations should have the same rights as people, and I don’t believe Google is manipulating search results for political reasons. It’s just that the whining over this issue coming from right-wing erstwhile free-market crusaders is driving me nuts, it’s what drove me to post. And yeah, there are indeed many other instances of similar selective blindness displayed by those on the far right - and to be fair, occasionally by those on the far left as well. It’s like logic just goes out the window whenever politics are involved.
I’m confused... Why shouldn’t Google be able to rank their search results any way they want to? Google is a private company, not a utility or common carrier, they can and should be able to manipulate their search results any way they want to, with whatever innate biases they feel are necessary to keep their users happy. Are the people that are complaining about supposed bias seriously saying that they think some government bureaucrat should police search engines and shut down the ones they don‘t like? Really?? Come on people, get a grip! Chill out and let the invisible hand of the market do its thing. If you don’t like Google’s search results, the solution is obvious: use another search engine!
There, problem solved.
There was a film called “AI", which was originally something Kubrick was working on from his own idea and script, a project he tinkered with for many years, filming bits of it here and there, but which was still a majorly unfinished work when he died. By some dark Hollywood juju it was eventually transformed into a Steven Spielberg movie, but if you were unfortunate enough to have seen it (as I have, regrettably) you know that the finished product wasn’t exactly a film partaking of the best ideas from both directors - more like the worst excesses of each, awkwardly jammed together by faceless studio bureaucrats. I wonder, though, if we might now be finally reaching the stage where a computer could really study the oeuvre of a director like Kubrick and emulate his style well enough to do a true finished script, something that would feel more like a real Kubrick film, as opposed to the pale imitation/desecration the Spielberg-ized product proved to be. Now that would be cool, a movie called “AI” about AI with a script written by a real AI - or the closest we can get to a real AI, in any event something more intelligent than the mindless sentence completing phrase-bot that penned the script for Sunspring, the film in the article. Sunspring is basically just a gimmick, but real advances in AI have been made in the last few years, and I would that guess a truly watchable movie scripted by a computer is not so far-fetched.
Three data points, not one. This guy represents three data points. We are looking at the occurrence of false accusations among women. This man is giving us three instances of that, by three different women. He may be unlucky, and certainly has poor choice of women friends, but it's a valid sample. If we knew the total number of women friends he's made over the years, we could then make a real prediction about the overall incidence of false accusation. Granted, even three data points only represents the bare minimum necessary, and as of now we're still missing data, but if he supplies that data it's completely valid statistically to make a prediction, albeit a very crude one.
Hmmm, that would explain Trump, and Hillary too! You may be onto something.
Obamacare hasn't helped anyone. The "millions of poor people" who supposedly benefited from it qualified for medicaid to begin with. The only thing this disastrous plan has done is drive up the cost for those of us who actually have to pay for it out of pocket and force people who decided that they can't afford it to pay out the nose anyway. Do you remember when Obama was running for President and we were all shouting how he didn't have the experience he would need to properly pass a bill through congress? This is exactly what we were talking about. Anyone with a modicum of foresight would have expanded the program that was already in place to help these people instead of managing to screw things up worse then they were.
Wrong! Despite my intense dislike of the ACA, I'm quite willing to go on record saying that Obamacare quite literally saved my life. I had no insurance before the ACA, it was totally out of reach, and I don't qualify for medicaid (I know for a fact because you are forced to be evaluated before being given ACA credits). Within 2 weeks of signing up for a quite good silver plan that was also quite affordable (this was in the 1st year of Obamacare, it's much less good and affordable now) I came down with a rare disease that would have crippled or killed me without a doubt. I literally got my insurance ID number while on the way to the ER for the 2nd time in a week. Funny thing, now I had some insurance they decided to do an MRI "just in case," and discovered the infection. Without that MRI and subsequent diagnoses I would have been paralyzed or dead within days, and I have little doubt there wouldn't have been an MRI if I was still uninsured. As it was, I was hospitalized for months with the final bill well over a quarter million, which my silver plan promptly payed all but $500 of. Don't get me wrong, health care in this country is fucked and the ACA can't and won't fix it, but there's no doubt it saved my ass big time. So your facts are wrong, but your premise may be correct. We need to go single payer, the longer we put it off the harder it will be, and more people will die.
I hear global consumption of fossil fuel continues to increase. Can you stop reporting wishful thinking as actual reality. It's incredibly tiresome.
Yes, it's absolutely surging. Oh, wait...
Guess it depends on where you look. Although to be fair you may be right about the bollocks, the scenario in the article/study is probably unrealistic. The truth, as usual, probably lies somewhere in between.
Honestly I don't understand how ANYONE can make the case the Hillary is different than Trump other than what "team" she purports to be playing for.
The difference is this: under president Hillary nothing changes at all from what we have now, and under the Donald it's looking very likely to get worse but with a remote possibility that some small things might actually change.
Frankly, I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for either one of them, not even in protest of the other. It's fucking ridiculous, the Republicans are running a "Man of the People" who's a billionaire, and the Democrats are running the one single person in America so hated she could actually lose to him. The system is broken by definition if it's come to this.
I didn't think anyone who knew the first thing about the law was allowed to post here.
And we are all thankful for it!
There are real problems with employee drug tests as currently practiced, problems that go way beyond identifying drug-free employees. As things stand now, when someone applies for a job - just applies, mind you, this process occurs well before anyone is actually offered a position - the prospective employee is routinely told to go get a drug test, usually at a local testing lab. Now, regardless of whether or not that person has in fact used any illegal drugs, the report that goes to the employer lists ALL the medication found in that person's system at the time of the test, pretty much every medication taken during the last few weeks. That's right, they get a full report on every prescription drug you are taking. Including, for example, antidepressants, or birth control... And they get this info BEFORE they decide to hire you. It's the equivalent of giving them full access to your medical records. Few people realize this glaring hole in our right to privacy exists, that potential employers will see this information before deciding whether or not to hire you. Just one more example of a seemingly sacred privacy right, now blown to the four winds, gone forever while no one was paying attention.
Reading quickly through this thread, with all the comments about whiners wanting something for nothing, it seems to me that most are missing the real story here. The Binge-on plan is supposed to be about getting certain content without it counting against a data cap, that certain providers have worked out a deal with T-Mobile, allowing their streams to be “optimized” in exchange for users getting unlimited access. But it turns out that everyone‘s content is being treated the same: it’s all throttled. So what exactly is the point of having only some content providers participate? A select few companies have allowed their names to be used, and have theoretically signed on to the scheme, but those providers' data isn’t being treated any differently then anyone else’s, the data is ALL being throttled! Think about it, all video data on the internet is being treated the same, but only some companies are being given the opportunity to serve up unlimited amounts of video. Why? Why just them? I have read that other streaming providers can opt in for free, which if true just makes the unequal treatment worse. By default, T-Mobile is treating video data as if the provider has already agreed to the plan, but only a select few companies are reaping the benefits. From an engineering standpoint, participating companies are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING differently than non-participating companies. WTF? Bottom line: ALL VIDEO CONTENT IS BEING THROTTLED, SO ALL VIDEO CONTENT PROVIDERS SHOULD REAP THE BENEFITS! Anything else is a flat out violation of net neutrality. And that’s the real story here.
cancel above, wrong thread /sigh
Reading quickly through this thread, with all the comments about whiners wanting something for nothing, it seems to me that most are missing the real story here. The Binge-on plan is supposed to be about getting certain content without it counting against a data cap, that certain providers have worked out a deal with T-Mobile allowing their streams to be “optimized” in exchange for users getting unlimited access. But it turns out that everyone‘s content is being treated the same: it’s all throttled. So what exactly is the point of having only some content providers participate? A select few companies have allowed their names to be used, and have theoretically signed on to the scheme, but those providers' data isn’t being treated any differently then anyone else’s, the data is ALL being throttled! Think about it, all video data on the internet is being treated the same, but only some companies are being given the opportunity to serve up unlimited amounts of video. Why? Why just them? I have read that other streaming providers can opt in for free, which if true just makes the unequal treatment worse. By default, T-Mobile is treating video data as if the provider has already agreed to the plan, but only a select few companies are reaping the benefits. From an engineering standpoint, participating companies are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING differently than non-participating companies. WTF? Bottom line: ALL VIDEO CONTENT IS BEING THROTTLED, SO ALL VIDEO CONTENT PROVIDERS SHOULD REAP THE BENEFITS! Anything else is a flat out violation of net neutrality. And that’s the real story here.
A "fiat" currency depends on someone that can be trusted, who has a lot of assets AND a major income stream giving a promise.
Well, it was my understanding that anyone could have used bitcoin to buy drugs on Silk Road, and supposedly you still can still do so on various successor sites. It seems to me a big reliable drug dealing organization meets all your qualifications.
OK, granted, this only works for certain values of "trust," but still... You'd essentially have a currency pegged to a known commodity, one with as much if not more intrinsic value than any precious metal.
They made a metric fuckload of money.
Just out of curiosity, how does the metric fuckload differ from the good old canonical American fuckload?
So, if I read all this correctly, this would apply even if the photo was of the (then) happy couple, taken remotely. But why should HER right to privacy automatically trump HIS right to own a memento of the relationship? In the absence of any actual attempt by a guy to use a twosome pic in an underhanded way, it doesn't quite seem fair to force him to destroy such a photograph (or whatever).
But in the studies done, they had people getting the happy reaction even if they almost won. Missing one number on the lottery ticket or one fruit on a slot machine actually makes them feel as good as if they had won.
Casinos know all this and they definitely use it. I used to go to the casino with a friend of mine who really liked playing the video slots. Some of these machines were billed as quarter slots, but certain combinations would only pay out if the player has put 2 or even 3 quarters into the machine for that play. I could never get my friend to understand that when those special multi-coin only combinations came up, invariably when my friend had only put in a single quarter, it did not necessarily mean that he would have won big if only, oh if only, he had played the full 75 cents. The machine knows exactly how many coins you put in it, and if you play a single quarter it will frequently pump out those multi-coin-only winning combinations precisely to get you to think that you would have won big if you had played for more. The casinos know a million tricks like this to help part the innumerate from their money. These places know all about the psychology and neurophysiology of gambling, they never miss a trick.
You didn't "fix" anything. It doesn't require a SCOTUS ruling. All it requires is a ruling that is not appealed (or the higher courts refuse to hear an appeal).
The US government has continued to do many things that various lesser judges have ruled unconstitutional at one point or other, but a Supreme Court ruling puts the matter to rest for good (barring a constitutional amendment). And if SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, well, that's a ruling of a sort, too. You need SCOTUS to settle the matter, either way.
Because the only thing worse than a postvert is a prevert!
Maybe preverts commit pre-crime, which is what this is all about? Or maybe they just think about it... Aw, hell, now I'm getting confused.
A SCOTUS ruling that this is unconstitutional means the government can't pass a law or use an executive order or issue a NSL to do this. It would require a constitutional amendment.
FTFY