Consider this: particle physics shows us that entangled observation (not to be confused with human or intelligent observation) ties past and future events together into a causative vector of influence.
Extrapolating from this using entangled observation similar to Einstein-Rosen bridges between quantum events suggests (mathematically) that there is a correlation between frames of references in real-space once a chain of events is initiated.
This would have the effect of linking independent causative frames such that the 'arrow of time' would diverge, probabilistically, between relative frames.
Or, attempting to explain this analogically:
The light from a distant star contains a tremendous amount of observable information about a star, and a limited amount of information about exoplanets (Doppler shift, chronographic direct imaging, etc...). As technology advances, however, it should be possible to tease out (observe) direct evidence of extrasolar life from this meager data due changes over time to how life changes a planetary atmosphere (specific to biome, but similar divergence vectors).
Depending on how one interprets causative entangled observation, this could actually have a strong anthropic effect on life. Evidence that alien life, intelligent or not, exists on an exoplanet would strongly influence the actions of any intelligent species towards visiting and exploring the planet. This would be very close to a strong motivational influence towards any intelligent social network, yielding a high probability outcome of events.
Depending on distance between planets and assuming that technological development is generally rapid, there becomes a high probability chance that any technological species would, inadvertently, directly affect the development (probably adversely) of all emergent evolutionary biomes within observational range.
As a species matures, they would probably realize this at some point, and take one of two divergent vectors: Some level of apathy (no empathy, just settle habitable planets or destroy competition) or avoidance (let them develop, don't interfere). Extrapolating those two motivational vectors, it's likely that there are those that would visit for nefarious reasons, and likely that there are those that would seek to prevent that type of interference due to social morays based on the above principles.
the interpretations of QM-influenced infinite universe models. (modified QRE-based. One example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... )
My own personal interpretation of the model is that gravitational thinning between galactic clusters can encourage energetic decay (as-in particle decay) in thin regions between galaxies in order to create new galaxies. Once enough hydrogen has formed to create new stellar mega-nurseries stars form rapidly in proximity, drawing in more void-hydrogen and thus creating more stars. Of course this is purely mathematical since we would be unable to see these extra-galactic nurseries with any current technology.
Of course, I don't buy into Dark Energy or Dark Matter as invented by big-bang cosmologists. Let's face that simple reality right off, BBCs just invented the idea when required by their model breaking under observation by the Hubble telescope. A small modification of the QRE to account for ultra-low mass in neutrinos and photons allows for a higher probability of decay into a stable isotope of hydrogen when gravity and mass are worked in as order-of-magnitude vectors causative to quantum field interactions.
DISCLAIMER: Most of this stuff isn't anywhere near solid enough for publication. I'm no math genus, just barely smart enough to putz about with my own models.
Argument from ignorance. It's a pseudo-religious approach.
Could we be in a perfect simulation without knowing it? Yes. If we were, could we prove it? No way to know, depends on its complexity and our technical sophistication. There is no point to the premise.
The whole point to the philosophies of Mathematics and Science are to prove what we can prove through statements which can be verified and proven true or false in order to build a firm foundation of understanding.
More rich people need a minion (slaves are sooooo uncool these days) to follow them around and remind them they are only human. Memento mori.
Very few pilots would risk that in AK. I'm sure a few do it, but I asked him about IFR flying in AK and he said that there aren't really enough transponders for IFR flying and they don't do a lot for mountains. You can fly under or over the weather, but flying in clouds is just a good way of becoming intimately familiar with a bugs life on a freeway. Snowcaps in white clounds at 8k-15k tend to be hard to see, and the weather can change pretty quickly.
Fail to file a flight plan and get into trouble and you're in for a very interesting, and probably quite long, vacation.
Also, the FAA keeps pretty close tabs in AK. Planes taking off regularly without flight plans are bound to attract attention. It's bad business for the hunting/fishing/tourism pilots and the forestry, oil, power and cell contracts are religious about it. About the only pilots I could see having any interest in blowing it off would be the conspiracy theory anti-gubment types and they tend to stay off the grid, which means no Uber.
Private charter to a private mail depo, not a post office. It's covered under section b.) 1.) if I understand it correctly. The charter is a private charter for a private delivery by the town of McCarthy. He has to also be a US mail carrier to pick it up legally, but once it's picked up it's in a kind of legal limbo and not really the U.S. mail anymore. Not sure of all of the regulations though.
Probably has something to do with the fact that the US Mail no longer owns or operates small craft, and there is literally no public highway to McCarthy (only a private bridge and road except for one federal walk bridge open to 4-wheelers).
He does the U.S. mail run to McCartney He regularly takes sight-seeing tourists with him on the run, since it is allowed under their contract. There are absolutely no regulation requirements for the travelers. Pilots like my father are, of course, subject to all FAA regulations including medical, regular license renewal, insurance requirements, etc... All of this information is available to anyone who asks, that would include Uber
In fact, there is far more oversight on a private pilot than on a cab driver. There is no way for Uber to know immediately if a driver with a suspended license gets into a car and picks up a fair.
In the case of nearly all private pilots, however, the moment they leave the runway they are on someone's radar. If they haven't filed a flight plan, the FAA will know within minutes.
There is absolutely no reason for this except airline influence. It's a convenience technology that should be covered by existing regulations, nothing more. Like Expedia for private pilots.
Infringe our right to personal defense. Require us to use the law. Price the law beyond our reach. Isolate and indenture the population with a monopolized economy.
'The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose.' - James A. Baldwin
This has been a common accusation of graduate students.
When I look at the real work and insight behind many published papers, it seems that there is a pretty heavy number of professors who build their reputations on the ingenuity and effort of their graduate students.
It's one of the reasons I have a deep dislike of Academic Social Authority. It's not that I don't see the need for accredited authority in education, far from it, but rather that there seems to be little or no oversight to prevent abuses in the system other than program validation at the university level.
I'm more interested in WHY he's lying than IF he's lying, mainly because I think the IS lying.
Everyone seems to think that lying shows him as a fraud, but this is may be assumptive.
What if he is backing out, but for a completely different reason than he's willing to say. What if that's the lie, not the claim of authorship.
Any monetary system, even a secure one like bitcoin, can be exploited through the distribution of wealth in the corrupt economy. What I find more interesting is the fact that bitcoin is outside of the normal channels of bank tracing and manipulation. The banks can't trace where the money is going without extensive outside help from governments or the involvement of their own accounts in transactions. People often forget that the banks share a great deal of information with both the government and between each other. The flow of wealth is far more important to them than the actual dollar amounts.
I tend to think that bitcoin is a huge threat to them because it represents a critical information hole.
I also tend to think that they are not above extortion to 'prove' fraud and corruption to destroy bitcoin. Personally I'd be far more afraid of providing proof of my identity (and presumedly my integrity) to the public than of being e-bullied by trolls if the result could be the ire of the true power in the world.
If they can stream video in visible wavelengths, why not a data stream that shows multiple wavelengths and allows people to break down and examine the data? We did fund this after all, and since it's an *international* space station none of the data should be capable of a national security classification for secrecy.
Then there's the problem of the reflection arguments themselves. These pseudo-technical explanations are pure speculation. Either provide the optical physics showing where the reflection comes from, or you're just uttering meaningless possible explanations.
Finally, since when does a reflection result in a feed being cut? This is the second time we've had a 'reflection' based unidentified visual artifact in a NASA feed, and the second time the feed was cut immediately after. I took a wait-and-see position on the first one, but this is becoming a pattern of behavior that is making me seriously start to question treasonous actions.
There is no law in the United States that allows for data to be classified as secret from the people of the united states when that same data is already in the hands of other powers. You can't have a situation in which the target of secrecy is ultimately the people in a democratic republic without violating the entire foundation of the system of government itself. How can a people make informed decisions for the purposes of election when they are denied the information part of the equation?
Bottom line, paired events like reflections and feed cuts are no longer the domain of conspiracy theorists. They are clearly deliberate and planned responses to circumstance. It's time to push for disclosure at this point.
If the government has write access to the computers without the suspects knowing then how can they prove chain-of-custody?
forensics requires that once storage is confiscated it is read-only copied and then the original is stored with a hash to prove it hasn't been altered while only the copy is researched.
In cases like this the government's word is the only proof that they aren't manufacturing evidence to take down groups that are making waves.
This is idiotic at best, blatantly bigoted at worst. Collective reviews are changing the dynamic of consumer reporting. The only time that reviews wind up being skewed and unreliable is when something hasn't really been sampled and reviewed by many people.
Consider Google Maps reviews on restaurants. As a consumer I have found them highly valuable in avoiding restaurants that are poorly run and provide substandard food. The same is true for products that I should avoid on Amazon and other online retailers.
I do find that the higher the degree of intelligence and education required to understand and appreciate a product (examples: a book or technical item) the more it seems that the reviews are skewed by the individual competence of the reviewer,but that doesn't make the reviews worthless merely potentially misleading.
When I am reading consumer reviews of products, especially, movies, books and games/apps, I take this into consideration and look for telltale signs of ignorance in the review itself.
While it is true that government databases identifying the DNA of every citizen would reduce crime and increase convictions, it also means a great many other things. Here are two of them.
1.) Police would get very lazy very quickly. DNA would be used as the "de-facto" proof of guilt, in spite of the fact that DNA is shed by everyone all the time. An ex boyfriend gets accused of rape and since his DNA is there he's automatically guilty. A store gets robbed and the man who hasn't bathed in a week gets charged because his DNA is the "most prevalent" around the register. He probably should have used Dial.
2.) Just because our government is mostly benign now doesn't mean it will always be that way. When social and economic upheaval occurs a great many things can change. Imagine, if you will, a government run by neo Nazis. Suddenly they have DNA proof of, not only the Semitic groups, but all of their offshoot genetic cousins as well. Or perhaps someone develops a gene targeted disease and gets their hands on the government database. for my closing, one word: Gattica.
As to the man accused of rape in the Netherlands, I am curious if he was just trying to play innocent, trying to turn himself in, had forgotten about the rape, didn't think of the incident as rape at all, or if he is innocent and somehow got his DNA involved through some other means than direct collection from the victim. After all, it does seem a bit moronic to give one's DNA if one has committed rape (or any other crime) and hasn't been caught.
After reading a few dozen comments I am at least relieved to see that the number of people with no concept of how the patent system works are in the minority. In a perhaps vain act of charity I will offer up this tiny bit of essential knowledge to that minority in the hope that one or two will read it and gain some understanding of this (and other) patent issues plaguing innovators.
Patents are granted by people. People make mistakes. People can be bought. The granting of a patent does not in any way make the patent holder right, it merely grants them a legal basis on which to approach a court with a complaint.
Trials like the one being discussed here are most often the very first significant examination of the validity of a patent by others outside of the patent office. The rulings of the court are seldom challenged twice and they can have extensive and lasting repercussions on innovation around the world. Any hint of impartiality by the jury must be investigated since the entire industry can be affected by the decision. When making decisions that affect entire economies one cannot afford to simply assume anything.
This does not even touch on the issue that even a patent that has never had a win in court can be used to extort money from small companies. One can afford to run an entire law firm just on the income from businesses that have more to lose from paying for a legal defense than from paying off their accuser.
I never understood why Google Chrome chose to actually compile flash into their engine... until my Mac OSX 10.5 laptop was "depricated". Now it makes sense. There is a lot of money to be had forcing users to upgrade their OS because none of the software works any longer.
Firefox and Safari work fine and I'm able to download Flash updates, but Chrome no longer works without bugging me to death about Flash being too old. I literally have no choice but to manually enable each and every page every time one loads. As a Software Engineer I know there is no technical reason for this. As a business owner I know that there is almost no direct cost associated with allowing a user to use the external system flash instead of a compiled-in flash. In fact, the cost of ensuring successful build and delivery would be considerably higher when one must ship with a third-party product accounted for and shipped together with a binary distribution. Thus the only remaining reason is to help Apple convince users to upgrade.
I have a good bit more evidence that Google plays dirty against consumers, but I used to figure that it was just an inevitable symptom of becoming a big successful corporation and that at least their technology wouldn't suffer for it. I'm no longer convinced this is true.
There should be a criminal negligence investigation into this.
With at least eight full-lifecycle development projects under my belt as both a Software Engineer and a Development Team Lead I cannot even wrap my mind around the amount of irresponsible waste that would be required to throw away that much money.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider this: particle physics shows us that entangled observation (not to be confused with human or intelligent observation) ties past and future events together into a causative vector of influence.
Extrapolating from this using entangled observation similar to Einstein-Rosen bridges between quantum events suggests (mathematically) that there is a correlation between frames of references in real-space once a chain of events is initiated.
This would have the effect of linking independent causative frames such that the 'arrow of time' would diverge, probabilistically, between relative frames.
Or, attempting to explain this analogically:
The light from a distant star contains a tremendous amount of observable information about a star, and a limited amount of information about exoplanets (Doppler shift, chronographic direct imaging, etc...). As technology advances, however, it should be possible to tease out (observe) direct evidence of extrasolar life from this meager data due changes over time to how life changes a planetary atmosphere (specific to biome, but similar divergence vectors).
Depending on how one interprets causative entangled observation, this could actually have a strong anthropic effect on life. Evidence that alien life, intelligent or not, exists on an exoplanet would strongly influence the actions of any intelligent species towards visiting and exploring the planet. This would be very close to a strong motivational influence towards any intelligent social network, yielding a high probability outcome of events.
Depending on distance between planets and assuming that technological development is generally rapid, there becomes a high probability chance that any technological species would, inadvertently, directly affect the development (probably adversely) of all emergent evolutionary biomes within observational range.
As a species matures, they would probably realize this at some point, and take one of two divergent vectors: Some level of apathy (no empathy, just settle habitable planets or destroy competition) or avoidance (let them develop, don't interfere). Extrapolating those two motivational vectors, it's likely that there are those that would visit for nefarious reasons, and likely that there are those that would seek to prevent that type of interference due to social morays based on the above principles.
the interpretations of QM-influenced infinite universe models. (modified QRE-based. One example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... )
My own personal interpretation of the model is that gravitational thinning between galactic clusters can encourage energetic decay (as-in particle decay) in thin regions between galaxies in order to create new galaxies. Once enough hydrogen has formed to create new stellar mega-nurseries stars form rapidly in proximity, drawing in more void-hydrogen and thus creating more stars. Of course this is purely mathematical since we would be unable to see these extra-galactic nurseries with any current technology.
Of course, I don't buy into Dark Energy or Dark Matter as invented by big-bang cosmologists. Let's face that simple reality right off, BBCs just invented the idea when required by their model breaking under observation by the Hubble telescope. A small modification of the QRE to account for ultra-low mass in neutrinos and photons allows for a higher probability of decay into a stable isotope of hydrogen when gravity and mass are worked in as order-of-magnitude vectors causative to quantum field interactions.
DISCLAIMER: Most of this stuff isn't anywhere near solid enough for publication. I'm no math genus, just barely smart enough to putz about with my own models.
Argument from ignorance. It's a pseudo-religious approach.
Could we be in a perfect simulation without knowing it? Yes.
If we were, could we prove it? No way to know, depends on its complexity and our technical sophistication.
There is no point to the premise.
The whole point to the philosophies of Mathematics and Science are to prove what we can prove through statements which can be verified and proven true or false in order to build a firm foundation of understanding.
More rich people need a minion (slaves are sooooo uncool these days) to follow them around and remind them they are only human. Memento mori.
Not true. Charter and Instructor aircraft (of which my father is both) have to be inspected every 100 hours. All planes have to be inspected yearly.
Very few pilots would risk that in AK. I'm sure a few do it, but I asked him about IFR flying in AK and he said that there aren't really enough transponders for IFR flying and they don't do a lot for mountains. You can fly under or over the weather, but flying in clouds is just a good way of becoming intimately familiar with a bugs life on a freeway. Snowcaps in white clounds at 8k-15k tend to be hard to see, and the weather can change pretty quickly.
Fail to file a flight plan and get into trouble and you're in for a very interesting, and probably quite long, vacation.
Also, the FAA keeps pretty close tabs in AK. Planes taking off regularly without flight plans are bound to attract attention. It's bad business for the hunting/fishing/tourism pilots and the forestry, oil, power and cell contracts are religious about it. About the only pilots I could see having any interest in blowing it off would be the conspiracy theory anti-gubment types and they tend to stay off the grid, which means no Uber.
Private charter to a private mail depo, not a post office. It's covered under section b.) 1.) if I understand it correctly. The charter is a private charter for a private delivery by the town of McCarthy. He has to also be a US mail carrier to pick it up legally, but once it's picked up it's in a kind of legal limbo and not really the U.S. mail anymore. Not sure of all of the regulations though.
Probably has something to do with the fact that the US Mail no longer owns or operates small craft, and there is literally no public highway to McCarthy (only a private bridge and road except for one federal walk bridge open to 4-wheelers).
He does the U.S. mail run to McCartney
He regularly takes sight-seeing tourists with him on the run, since it is allowed under their contract.
There are absolutely no regulation requirements for the travelers.
Pilots like my father are, of course, subject to all FAA regulations including medical, regular license renewal, insurance requirements, etc...
All of this information is available to anyone who asks, that would include Uber
In fact, there is far more oversight on a private pilot than on a cab driver. There is no way for Uber to know immediately if a driver with a suspended license gets into a car and picks up a fair.
In the case of nearly all private pilots, however, the moment they leave the runway they are on someone's radar. If they haven't filed a flight plan, the FAA will know within minutes.
There is absolutely no reason for this except airline influence. It's a convenience technology that should be covered by existing regulations, nothing more. Like Expedia for private pilots.
Infringe our right to personal defense.
Require us to use the law.
Price the law beyond our reach.
Isolate and indenture the population with a monopolized economy.
'The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose.' - James A. Baldwin
This has been a common accusation of graduate students.
When I look at the real work and insight behind many published papers, it seems that there is a pretty heavy number of professors who build their reputations on the ingenuity and effort of their graduate students.
It's one of the reasons I have a deep dislike of Academic Social Authority. It's not that I don't see the need for accredited authority in education, far from it, but rather that there seems to be little or no oversight to prevent abuses in the system other than program validation at the university level.
Is this about the internet, or is this about national identity and fiscal control?
This comment has been removed for anti-fascist hate content.
sincerely,
President Hillary Rodham Trump
I'm making a note here: Huge Success
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction
There is only one Internet
everything else is an intranet /discussion
the 8-year-old-girl Nike shoe-making model that operates for 18-cents a day will be released for purchase
at those rates I won't need money, I'll have minions
i thought that was snapchats entire business model?
again, only through legal wrangling (IP)
they are the only industry that has figured out how to earn money on stupid
Apple does a fine job of it too...
only by using law
they are the only industry that has figured out how to earn money on stupid
I'm more interested in WHY he's lying than IF he's lying, mainly because I think the IS lying.
Everyone seems to think that lying shows him as a fraud, but this is may be assumptive.
What if he is backing out, but for a completely different reason than he's willing to say. What if that's the lie, not the claim of authorship.
Any monetary system, even a secure one like bitcoin, can be exploited through the distribution of wealth in the corrupt economy. What I find more interesting is the fact that bitcoin is outside of the normal channels of bank tracing and manipulation. The banks can't trace where the money is going without extensive outside help from governments or the involvement of their own accounts in transactions. People often forget that the banks share a great deal of information with both the government and between each other. The flow of wealth is far more important to them than the actual dollar amounts.
I tend to think that bitcoin is a huge threat to them because it represents a critical information hole.
I also tend to think that they are not above extortion to 'prove' fraud and corruption to destroy bitcoin. Personally I'd be far more afraid of providing proof of my identity (and presumedly my integrity) to the public than of being e-bullied by trolls if the result could be the ire of the true power in the world.
If they can stream video in visible wavelengths, why not a data stream that shows multiple wavelengths and allows people to break down and examine the data? We did fund this after all, and since it's an *international* space station none of the data should be capable of a national security classification for secrecy.
Then there's the problem of the reflection arguments themselves. These pseudo-technical explanations are pure speculation. Either provide the optical physics showing where the reflection comes from, or you're just uttering meaningless possible explanations.
Finally, since when does a reflection result in a feed being cut? This is the second time we've had a 'reflection' based unidentified visual artifact in a NASA feed, and the second time the feed was cut immediately after. I took a wait-and-see position on the first one, but this is becoming a pattern of behavior that is making me seriously start to question treasonous actions.
There is no law in the United States that allows for data to be classified as secret from the people of the united states when that same data is already in the hands of other powers. You can't have a situation in which the target of secrecy is ultimately the people in a democratic republic without violating the entire foundation of the system of government itself. How can a people make informed decisions for the purposes of election when they are denied the information part of the equation?
Bottom line, paired events like reflections and feed cuts are no longer the domain of conspiracy theorists. They are clearly deliberate and planned responses to circumstance. It's time to push for disclosure at this point.
If the government has write access to the computers without the suspects knowing then how can they prove chain-of-custody?
forensics requires that once storage is confiscated it is read-only copied and then the original is stored with a hash to prove it hasn't been altered while only the copy is researched.
In cases like this the government's word is the only proof that they aren't manufacturing evidence to take down groups that are making waves.
This is idiotic at best, blatantly bigoted at worst. Collective reviews are changing the dynamic of consumer reporting. The only time that reviews wind up being skewed and unreliable is when something hasn't really been sampled and reviewed by many people.
Consider Google Maps reviews on restaurants. As a consumer I have found them highly valuable in avoiding restaurants that are poorly run and provide substandard food. The same is true for products that I should avoid on Amazon and other online retailers.
I do find that the higher the degree of intelligence and education required to understand and appreciate a product (examples: a book or technical item) the more it seems that the reviews are skewed by the individual competence of the reviewer,but that doesn't make the reviews worthless merely potentially misleading.
When I am reading consumer reviews of products, especially, movies, books and games/apps, I take this into consideration and look for telltale signs of ignorance in the review itself.
While it is true that government databases identifying the DNA of every citizen would reduce crime and increase convictions, it also means a great many other things. Here are two of them.
1.) Police would get very lazy very quickly. DNA would be used as the "de-facto" proof of guilt, in spite of the fact that DNA is shed by everyone all the time. An ex boyfriend gets accused of rape and since his DNA is there he's automatically guilty. A store gets robbed and the man who hasn't bathed in a week gets charged because his DNA is the "most prevalent" around the register. He probably should have used Dial.
2.) Just because our government is mostly benign now doesn't mean it will always be that way. When social and economic upheaval occurs a great many things can change. Imagine, if you will, a government run by neo Nazis. Suddenly they have DNA proof of, not only the Semitic groups, but all of their offshoot genetic cousins as well. Or perhaps someone develops a gene targeted disease and gets their hands on the government database. for my closing, one word: Gattica.
As to the man accused of rape in the Netherlands, I am curious if he was just trying to play innocent, trying to turn himself in, had forgotten about the rape, didn't think of the incident as rape at all, or if he is innocent and somehow got his DNA involved through some other means than direct collection from the victim. After all, it does seem a bit moronic to give one's DNA if one has committed rape (or any other crime) and hasn't been caught.
After reading a few dozen comments I am at least relieved to see that the number of people with no concept of how the patent system works are in the minority. In a perhaps vain act of charity I will offer up this tiny bit of essential knowledge to that minority in the hope that one or two will read it and gain some understanding of this (and other) patent issues plaguing innovators.
Patents are granted by people. People make mistakes. People can be bought. The granting of a patent does not in any way make the patent holder right, it merely grants them a legal basis on which to approach a court with a complaint.
Trials like the one being discussed here are most often the very first significant examination of the validity of a patent by others outside of the patent office. The rulings of the court are seldom challenged twice and they can have extensive and lasting repercussions on innovation around the world. Any hint of impartiality by the jury must be investigated since the entire industry can be affected by the decision. When making decisions that affect entire economies one cannot afford to simply assume anything.
This does not even touch on the issue that even a patent that has never had a win in court can be used to extort money from small companies. One can afford to run an entire law firm just on the income from businesses that have more to lose from paying for a legal defense than from paying off their accuser.
I never understood why Google Chrome chose to actually compile flash into their engine... until my Mac OSX 10.5 laptop was "depricated". Now it makes sense. There is a lot of money to be had forcing users to upgrade their OS because none of the software works any longer.
Firefox and Safari work fine and I'm able to download Flash updates, but Chrome no longer works without bugging me to death about Flash being too old. I literally have no choice but to manually enable each and every page every time one loads. As a Software Engineer I know there is no technical reason for this. As a business owner I know that there is almost no direct cost associated with allowing a user to use the external system flash instead of a compiled-in flash. In fact, the cost of ensuring successful build and delivery would be considerably higher when one must ship with a third-party product accounted for and shipped together with a binary distribution. Thus the only remaining reason is to help Apple convince users to upgrade.
I have a good bit more evidence that Google plays dirty against consumers, but I used to figure that it was just an inevitable symptom of becoming a big successful corporation and that at least their technology wouldn't suffer for it. I'm no longer convinced this is true.
There should be a criminal negligence investigation into this.
With at least eight full-lifecycle development projects under my belt as both a Software Engineer and a Development Team Lead I cannot even wrap my mind around the amount of irresponsible waste that would be required to throw away that much money.