Considering they signed up as Cambridge Analytica.... at the very least it looks pretty bad for them.
Naw... It's surely kind of funny, but it's not illegal on FB's part. Again, Facebook has automated systems, where users sign up for their own accounts, and there's no requirement for Facebook to have systems that flag or require manual review or block or blacklist a new account based on name, even being the same or similar name as a company Facebook banned. Anything that slows down advertiser signup would also likely hurt FB, anyways.
and you allow people to run illegal campaign ads under the name "Vladamir Putin" then you will very likely end up in court answering questions
That's very far fetched unlikely. First of all, there are people by the name "Vladimir Putin" living in the US, and they have the same right to liberty placing an ad and not being jerked around about it, as anyone. There's nothing to say the Russian president "Vladimir Putin" cannot place an advertisement on a billboard - the advertising of a political message cannot be interfered with by the government - As the supreme court deems speech regarding politics as the most strongly protected of all free speech by the first amendment -- Free speech and all; if a person wants to accept a message from Putin and advertise that, then even if the message comes from Putin - their First Amendment free speech rights guarantee that they can do it, and that congress and the government cannot abridge their right or harass them about it.
There's not really such a thing as an ad that is illegal for the billboard owner themself to display on their part as the billboard owner, and second of all, If you make a campaign finance or other administrative violation: the billboard owner is not responsible to detect this or stop you from advertising --- they are constitutionally protected to post political messages: that's on you, And that would be a civil violation your campaign commits regarding its operation. That's also your fraud if you lie to the billboard owner, telling them you are Vladimir Putin, and they accept your posting, because they can --- At worst the billboard owner may be called as a witness against you.
If their business is representing people, should they be held to a higher standard?
What do you mean "held to a higher standard"? The only standard you are entitled to hold a provider to is what's in the contract. Or in Facebook's case the "user agreement" --- which, when you signed up for Facebook; you acknowledge and agree that -- Facebook themselves represents nothing about the accuracy of content or profiles you may find on their platform; If you rely on that information and it turns out to be incorrect, then you are solely responsible, not FB.
The suit is on behalf of class members. If there's a settlement; 99% of the proceeds ought to go to benefit the class members whose right to sue is being exhausted by the settlement. The lawyers can keep up to 1% for their expenses.
Without the kids really realizing that getting $1.00 add ins that offer 10 minutes of mediocre enjoyment, could had been used somewhere else.
And the parent is insane if they allow their kid to use a smartphone or tablet that has instant In-App purchases enabled without typing in a secret passcode which the child does not have access to until they are older.
The only complaint I have is Apple should have clearer UI standards surrounding how Ads are permitted to display themselves.
Being required to interact with an Ad in an app or being required to watch for a period of time before closing the Ad is allowed should never be permitted (Apps that do ought to be rejected from the app store), Mandatory video ads can play only if the user specifically picked a command to play optional Video or Audio, and the ad is contained within the video, and while the Ad is playing the user has a working option displayed on screen to stop playing the video/go back or rewind/fast-forward at any point in time.
On-screen ads should be clearly marked as "Sponsored Offer for Goods or Services," and Audio/Video ads should always be preceded by a message such as "The following is a Sponsored Offer or Advertisement to encourage the purchase of 3rd party goods or services."
When an Ad is displayed on screen, an "X" button for clearing/hiding the ad should be required to be shown at all times.
Do you want to find out that your "Aunt May" that you've been sharing baby photos with is actually some middle-aged guy you don't even know?
This is in theory very possible to happen. Facebook is on the internet, remember.... and they have no way of challenging your "Aunt May" to prove that she's really your real Aunt May --- besides that, multiple people have similar names. What Facebook DOES provide to enforce their real names policy is when you find the Aunt May is fake, you can use a Report link to report the known fake account / falsified interactions to Facebook, and they'll generally take action based on the reports from users: this is how fake accounts get found out --- Users figure out the account is fake (usually after some attempted scam) and report, Or Facebook's bot catches some outlandish names and automatically bans them.
If that was to ensure greater transparency, well, they are in the business of enforcing something, just not law.
This is not enforcement, but Transparency. Sharing the information Facebook received
The burden for actually enforcing could be very high, since Facebook could not say for sure a person signing up for an Ad is not an agent or 3rd party company working for the named person, politician, or entity. Also, there is the matter of free speech, and persons have every legal right to conduct business such as authorship using an obscure, anonymous, or pseudonymous name if they want.
If someone signed up for an Ad, or someone signed up for even a Facebook account under someone else as false name, then Facebook may have received incorrect information ---- However, the person who commits this act willfully has violated legal agreements with Facebook, and if they used another person's identity falsely without permission to create political Ads, then they might even be guilty of crimes, And it's the relevant Law Enforcement authority's job to investigate and bring the perpetrator to justice, and Facebook doesn't have a duty to find a way of preventing that in the first place.
This is no different from most businesses... If you place a pickup order under your neighbor's name, then go to the restraurant to pick up your order and tell them it's your neighbor's name and pay for cash; there's nothing gonna detect that you used a fake name.
If you get caught doing this, then they may cancel your order or close your account, but that's about it.
So Apple is a 1 Trillion $$$ company and Qualcom is a 90 billion$ company. Why doesn't Apple just fork over the 90 Billion to Buy out Qualcomm and thus (1) Make their problem go away, and (2) Create a problem for competing phone makers by increasing IP license costs at every opportunity.
If the value of BTC grows then the reward in USD may not fall quite that much.
That's true and increase in the value of BTC could definitely be expected in the case of crypto transaction volumes reaching Credit card scales, since that implies much wider adoption: and it would mean also increase the $$$ amount spend on equipment and power before mining becomes unprofitable.
However.... there's no real basis for a strictly positive relationship b/w number of transactions and how much a BTC is worth.
Extrapolating an increase in BTC value far into the future to stay proportionate to number of transactions would be a huge crapshoot, not a reasonable projection ---- fiat currencies don't even behave that way.
Since when has the FCC EVER been concerned about the first amendment? It is patently absurd that they decry small community broadband projects as a risk to Free Speech while ignoring the inherent risk to free speech that National Broadband Providers pose --- providers who WON'T agree to become a common carrier -- providers they can't even impose a regular requirement on to maintain a Neutral (non-free-speech killing) network.
Providers that are massive and encompass most broadband access nationwide with very little competition, practically zero competition in MANY areas.
Meanwhile we have yet to ever see a SINGLE one small community broadband implementing even the most superficial sort of censorship without subscriber permission.... Give me an example of a community broadband provider that blocks HTTPS or Youtube or Facebook or a major website or protocol, then maybe i'll change my mind ----- I've seen plenty of LARGE providers blocking random ports or protocols or websites over the years; one of the most recent widespread examples was major ISPs blocking ThePirateBay at the behest of some large media companies.
If community broadband providers ever had committed censorship, then they could likely be circumvented very easily by people to get their message out --- such as by heading one town over ---- Also, in local communities the people are empowered to change the policies of their community ISP in a meaningful way - this is NOT the case for a large provider such as Verizon or ATT --- should they choose to block Netflix, for example, a very large percent of their users will have no recourse (Due to no local competition), and not even a local town council to complain to --- on the other hand a LOCAL small community provider or small business providing service can be influenced by concerned people in the local community much moreso than some national faceless corporation: since COMMUNITY broadband networks are separate and not joined into one national collective with standardized policies, large byzantine customer service systems that keep customers from complaining or reaching actual management, and far-reaching power over users nationwide.
Furthermore, community broadband is another option on top of others - if there were a free speech issue at home due to community broadband, then you could pull out your cellphone that uses ATT or Verizon.
We randomly sampled blocks mined in 2017 until their total number of transactions were equal to the projected number of transactions, then we added the CO2e emissions from computing such randomly selected blocks. The approach was repeated 1,000 times.
They are assuming that The number of blocks mined in 2017 is efficient for the number of transactions and the Number of blocks to be mined is proportional to the number of transactions --- More transactions won't result in larger blocks, and they ignore innovations that are being adopted like SegWit and Lightning.
Especially with the ongoing adoption of the Lightning Network; that is not the case --- 2017 of all years is a bad reference year for predicting future growth - expect more transactions with future blocks; If massive transaction volume increases occur again, expect those on the network to eventually agree that a larger block size and other scaling measures are appropriate --- which will result in greater efficiencies or economies of scale with higher transaction volumes.
The projection the researchers are making is really an uninteresting one: the question their study answers is more like..... What if no changes occurred to the Bitcoin network/protocol for improved scaling, and the predominant way transactions were batched and pooled since 2017 continues indefinitely AND Bitcoin adoption accelerates as projected by the model.
the ONLY reason this problem exists is because of lack of housing in places people want to live.
What "problem"? Prices are set by the market. They are what they are. If you don't like them, then find a competing option instead of buying in -- which is what some people are doing.
Naw.... Limited supply AND demand exists AND people are willing to pay up for it. When one talks about housing -- the level of density is a fundamental PART of the product, so fewer people would be interested in a denser offering, because people don't want to live in dense housing; if you build more denser housing, Your more dense units may sit unused, and that doesn't lower the price of less dense housing.
I for one am not going to buy or rent into housing that puts my nearest neighbor closer than 100 feet away. Obviously denser housing is afforded a lower premium.
We need to rezone R-1 areas for multiple unit housing. R-1 zonings are a massively inefficient use of space
Sorry, too late. Zonings are made for planned land use. Once the plan is in place and the property is sold --- it's too late to change zonings; they can only change pretty much with unanimous consent from the property owner's, their neighbors, and others that might be affected by land use changes.
We need to give the NIMBY types the finger and BUILD MORE HOUSING.
If your great idea is changing land-use out from under owners' or neighbors' interests, which is in violation of protected legal rights, then the NIMBY types will sue your arse off and block the ridiculous infringements to them.
a lawsuit is going to be difficult to win and cost the company more than they get.
Uhm... Apple/Amazon don't care about that. Their brand is everything to them, and if they have/had acase: I'm sure their lawyers would be all over it.
Bloomberg's story might not be 100% accurate, but there's probably some truth to it that these companies NEED to hide that would come out in the lawsuit which would could damage their bottom line ---- better to keep it quiet and cast as much doubt as possible.
Also; I'm sure they're aware of the Streisand effect. Best to retaliate and continue pressuring the offending party quietly.....
Well, the action doesn't prohibit upgrades, necessarily.
A major reason for arguing as right to "bring it back to original specifications" is to disarm an argument from manufacturers that DRM is essential to prevent independents from creating "counterfeits" or "converting and passing off generic hardware" as manufacturer's proprietary product.
The argument goes something like this.... If the repair shop runs a bypass wire for a broken resistor or replaces a capacitor or video card, that computer ceases to be a genuine Mac and is now a "PC" being falsely passed off as a Mac.
The argument is the purpose of repair is to bring an existing unit made by a manufacturer that fell out of working order back to working order with the same functional operation it had before, and if the functional behavior is the same as before; the unit is not a fake but a "repaired unit", and it's necessary consumers be allowed to do this without requiring manufacturer approval of the people or businesses that can perform the repair, the types of repairs made, or the techniques, tools, etc, allowed to be used, to avoid consumers being unreasonably gouged by manufacturers.
Also, preferably: manufacturers should be prohibited from designing elements of a product marketed to general consumers or controlling or "keeping proprietary and secret" information about the released product if the affect is deterring repair or preventing easily removing user data for recovery --- for example: permanently gluing or soldering consumable or commonly field-upgradeable PC components such as batteries, flash media, hard drives, RAM chips, smart cards/security modules, etc, should be illegal, restricting access to tools, service documentation/ schematics, information on codes, or other backdoor procedures useful to reset/diag a unit, and other necessary means of diagnosis to company, company-certified, or partner repair facilities and personnel, keeping them hidden, restricted from sale, or charging a high price for tools, info or documents.
The penalty for non-compliance should include automatic forfeiture from their owner of all copyrights and other proprietary rights regarding any materials about the electronics regarding the product, each electronic component contained within the product (Even those of 3rd parties, if for example, the board contains a chip made by or designed by a 3rd party), and any/all firmware or software ever contained within it that is involved with the unit and each component functioning according to its specifications.
It requires different strategies and skills, and often radically different gameplay.
Or for most games it might just be plain not possible.... example Zelda: A link to the Past. Plenty of unavoidable rooms that explicitly trap the player until all opponents in a room are slain, and key items necessary to progress that require the same to obtain.
Also, winning any Super Mario Bros. game without beating king bowser and every castle boss will be a tad problematic.
The Liberal Pac Man takes care not to eat the ghosts, and uses whatever points he get from eating pellets
Not very many, b/c the Liberal Pac Man deliberately allows the ghosts to defeat pac man. Once by Pinky, then Inky, and Clyde, in that order --- Blinky doesn't get a turn, b/c there are only 3 Pacman Lives, and Blinky has too much privilege.
(US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
People DO care. A small excessively-boisterous minority of people that respects no rules of civility, and some of whom are being paid to be part of creating the disruption are tyrannizing us as a country.
These progressives are less than perhaps10% of the population, but they're well-organized and active, being activists is likely their full-time job, And your group doesn't have to have anything close to a majority to use guerilla tactics such as spamming a government hotline with fake calls.
Not as easy as it may sounds. Just leave your neighbor's number. Your move.
Prompt them to type in not just their phone number, but also their Driver's License number. Verify the DL number against the DL database before connecting the call.
Any "protestor" that goes past those two checkpoints and makes an obvious prank call --- criminally prosecute them under the full extent of the law, and make a public example of them (It's a felony to make false statements to a government official).
it may be translated to commit yourself to whatever cause and goal your organisation has.
Yeah, well.... this will be confusing for people just reading the code, and it may be offputting to people that they weren't explicit in saying "Excluding the references to God, christ, etc, in this code", as it doesn't really say to translate all that stuff.
When they were choosing to adopt the code, they COULD have also adopted such minor changes and had the changes written in, or at least chosen which rules from the monastic rules that they would remove from the CoC of their project, and cross those out in the document.
rather than someone come along when it's all done and point out that your UI is difficult for colourblind people or the fact that you can't change the font size is a major issue for them.
This is why you have Alphas and Betas. Anyways, in the OSS world UIs are usually made by one person who has sufficient knowledge to do so - and sometimes you get GUI nightmares with thousands of obscure checkboxes, kinda like This.
In an ideal world the UI designs would be made or reviewed by UX experts -- in the corporate world, there would be a committee of beancounters to approve the design - a luxury most projects don't have.
Already your accusing someone who made a rather benign statement of "violating the code."
Benign statement? What part of using legal licensing mechanisms to get people to be nice to each other? is (1)consistent with something RMS actually said and (2) not implying ridicule against RMS?... See also: *sigh*....
Stallman's problem is that he's trying to jam licensing into things that don't quite fit.
The GP is claiming both that Stallman has a "problem", and this simple set of guidelines is an example of the problem.
I would point out that RMS published a guideline, and neither in his e-mail message nor in the guideline itself is there a reference whatsoever to any kind of licensing mechanism other than copyrights asserted for the webpage itself.
On the contrary: the term SJW is not a pejorative, but the opposite; it actually casts the person in a positive light... as "Warriors" or "Heros" of Social Justice. These people CHOSE that term for themselves, and then they twist the concept of Justice to mean various things including "eliminating perceived statistical inequalities in society by any means" ----- It would be nice if we had a replacement term for SJWs which was less romanticized and expressed more of the TRUTH behind the renegade groups which actively twist anyone opposing any of their views into claims of privilege, misogynist, racist, etc.
Frankly: I was astounded when Twitter decided that the "NPC Meme" joking about the behavior of certain progressives when questioned about their views is now considered possibly Illegal Hate Speech, because it's "Dehumanizing" to Joke about the behavior observed of certain people, when the people are not behaving like humans, because when interviewed they act like they are programmatically spouting some canned tag phrase (Like a NPC), but then cannot provide a coherent answer to basic questions that a person who rationally and so passionately came to such conclusions should definitively have an answer to.
The "SJW" are essentially a small vocal minority that have already started shooting in a power grab / pre-meditated culture war that the targets' the SJWs are shooting at are barely starting to comprehend has even been planned or started yet.
If, on the other hand, their *real* goal is surreptitious power grabs via identity-politics-based using reverse discrimination and 'victimhood' to tear down whatever 'privilege' structure bothers them, then this will make them go absolutely *nuts*.
This is what I predict the result will be of efforts such as RMS' and the SQLite project to adopt more reasonable "Guidelines" that promote kindness rather than ID politics.
Open source projects are a target, because the openness of community projects makes them easy to infiltrate, and they can make a message that seems good enough on its surface that a naive target will adopt. Ultimately it's about controlling people on the projects, controlling speech, and trying to control the composition of projects' members though.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering they signed up as Cambridge Analytica.... at the very least it looks pretty bad for them.
Naw... It's surely kind of funny, but it's not illegal on FB's part. Again, Facebook has automated systems, where users sign up for their own accounts, and there's no requirement for Facebook to have systems that flag or require manual review or block or blacklist a new account based on name, even being the same or similar name as a company Facebook banned.
Anything that slows down advertiser signup would also likely hurt FB, anyways.
and you allow people to run illegal campaign ads under the name "Vladamir Putin" then you will very likely end up in court answering questions
That's very far fetched unlikely. First of all, there are people by the name "Vladimir Putin" living in the US, and they have the same right to liberty placing an ad and not being jerked around about it, as anyone. There's nothing to say the Russian president "Vladimir Putin" cannot place an advertisement on a billboard - the advertising of a political message cannot be interfered with by the government - As the supreme court deems speech regarding politics as the most strongly protected of all free speech by the first amendment -- Free speech and all; if a person wants to accept a message from Putin and advertise that, then even if the message comes from Putin - their First Amendment free speech rights guarantee that they can do it, and that congress and the government cannot abridge their right or harass them about it.
There's not really such a thing as an ad that is illegal for the billboard owner themself to display on their part as the billboard owner, and second of all, If you make a campaign finance or other administrative violation: the billboard owner is not responsible to detect this or stop you from advertising --- they are constitutionally protected to post political messages: that's on you, And that would be a civil violation your campaign commits regarding its operation. That's also your fraud if you lie to the billboard owner, telling them you are Vladimir Putin, and they accept your posting, because they can --- At worst the billboard owner may be called as a witness against you.
If their business is representing people, should they be held to a higher standard?
What do you mean "held to a higher standard"? The only standard you are entitled to hold a provider to is what's in the contract.
Or in Facebook's case the "user agreement" --- which, when you signed up for Facebook; you acknowledge and agree that --
Facebook themselves represents nothing about the accuracy of content or profiles you may find on their platform; If you
rely on that information and it turns out to be incorrect, then you are solely responsible, not FB.
The suit is on behalf of class members. If there's a settlement; 99% of the proceeds ought to go to benefit the class members whose right to sue is being exhausted by the settlement. The lawyers can keep up to 1% for their expenses.
Without the kids really realizing that getting $1.00 add ins that offer 10 minutes of mediocre enjoyment, could had been used somewhere else.
And the parent is insane if they allow their kid to use a smartphone or tablet that has instant In-App purchases enabled without typing in a secret passcode which the child does not have access to until they are older.
The only complaint I have is Apple should have clearer UI standards surrounding how Ads are permitted to display themselves.
Being required to interact with an Ad in an app or being required to watch for a period of time before closing the Ad is allowed should never be permitted
(Apps that do ought to be rejected from the app store), Mandatory video ads can play only if the user specifically
picked a command to play optional Video or Audio, and the ad is contained within the video, and while the Ad is playing the user has a working option displayed on screen to stop playing the video/go back or rewind/fast-forward at any point in time.
On-screen ads should be clearly marked as "Sponsored Offer for Goods or Services,"
and Audio/Video ads should always be preceded by a message such as "The following is a Sponsored Offer or Advertisement to encourage the purchase of 3rd party goods or services."
When an Ad is displayed on screen, an "X" button for clearing/hiding the ad should be required to be shown at all times.
Do you want to find out that your "Aunt May" that you've been sharing baby photos with is actually some middle-aged guy you don't even know?
This is in theory very possible to happen. Facebook is on the internet, remember.... and they have no way of challenging your "Aunt May" to prove that she's really your real Aunt May --- besides that, multiple people have similar names.
What Facebook DOES provide to enforce their real names policy is when you find the Aunt May is fake, you can use a Report link to report the known fake account / falsified interactions to Facebook, and they'll generally take action based on the reports from users: this is how fake accounts get found out --- Users figure out the account is fake (usually after some attempted scam) and report, Or Facebook's bot catches some outlandish names and automatically bans them.
If that was to ensure greater transparency, well, they are in the business of enforcing something, just not law.
This is not enforcement, but Transparency. Sharing the information Facebook received
The burden for actually enforcing could be very high, since Facebook could not say for sure a person
signing up for an Ad is not an agent or 3rd party company working for the named person, politician,
or entity. Also, there is the matter of free speech, and persons have every legal right to conduct business
such as authorship using an obscure, anonymous, or pseudonymous name if they want.
If someone signed up for an Ad, or someone signed up for even a Facebook account under someone else as false name,
then Facebook may have received incorrect information ---- However, the person who commits this act
willfully has violated legal agreements with Facebook, and if they used another person's identity falsely without permission to create political Ads, then they might even be guilty of crimes, And it's the relevant Law Enforcement authority's job to investigate and bring the perpetrator to justice, and Facebook doesn't have a duty to find a way of preventing that in the first place.
Facebook is not law enforcement.
This is no different from most businesses... If you place a pickup order under your neighbor's name, then go to the restraurant to pick up your order and tell them it's your neighbor's name and pay for cash; there's nothing gonna detect that you used a fake name.
If you get caught doing this, then they may cancel your order or close your account, but that's about it.
they're lucky it didn't displace too much oxygen and freaking kill people.
Helium doesn't really displace air -- helium is lighter than air. And the concentration must have been very low, otherwise people would have noticed.
This is clearly an engineering defect in Apple's product that a slightly elevated helium level will cause malfunctioning.
So Apple is a 1 Trillion $$$ company and Qualcom is a 90 billion$ company.
Why doesn't Apple just fork over the 90 Billion to Buy out Qualcomm and thus (1) Make their problem go away, and
(2) Create a problem for competing phone makers by increasing IP license costs at every opportunity.
If the value of BTC grows then the reward in USD may not fall quite that much.
That's true and increase in the value of BTC could definitely be expected in the case of crypto
transaction volumes reaching Credit card scales, since that implies much wider adoption:
and it would mean also increase the $$$ amount spend on equipment
and power before mining becomes unprofitable.
However.... there's no real basis for a strictly positive relationship b/w number of transactions and how much a BTC is worth.
Extrapolating an increase in BTC value far into the future to stay proportionate to number of transactions would be a huge
crapshoot, not a reasonable projection ---- fiat currencies don't even behave that way.
Since when has the FCC EVER been concerned about the first amendment?
It is patently absurd that they decry small community broadband projects as a risk to Free Speech while
ignoring the inherent risk to free speech that National Broadband Providers pose --- providers who WON'T agree to become
a common carrier -- providers they can't even impose a regular requirement on to maintain a Neutral (non-free-speech killing) network.
Providers that are massive and encompass most broadband access nationwide with very little competition, practically zero competition in MANY areas.
Meanwhile we have yet to ever see a SINGLE one small community broadband implementing even the most superficial sort of censorship without subscriber permission.... Give me an example of a community broadband provider that blocks HTTPS or Youtube or Facebook or a major website or protocol, then maybe i'll change my mind ----- I've seen plenty of LARGE providers blocking random ports or protocols or websites over the years; one of the most recent widespread examples was major ISPs blocking ThePirateBay at the behest of some large media companies.
If community broadband providers ever had committed censorship, then they could likely be circumvented very easily by people to get their message out --- such as by heading one town over ---- Also, in local communities the people are empowered to change the policies of their community ISP in a meaningful way - this is NOT the case for a large provider such as Verizon or ATT --- should they choose to block Netflix, for example, a very large percent of their users will have no recourse (Due to no local competition), and not even a local town council to complain to --- on the other hand a LOCAL small community provider or small business providing service can be influenced by concerned people in the local community much moreso than some national faceless corporation:
since COMMUNITY broadband networks are separate and not joined into one national collective with standardized policies, large byzantine customer service systems that keep customers from complaining or reaching actual management, and far-reaching power over users nationwide.
Furthermore, community broadband is another option on top of others - if there were a free speech issue at home due to community broadband, then you could pull out your cellphone that uses ATT or Verizon.
We randomly sampled blocks mined in 2017 until their total number of transactions were equal to the projected number of transactions, then we added the CO2e emissions from computing such randomly selected blocks. The approach was repeated 1,000 times.
They are assuming that The number of blocks mined in 2017 is efficient for the number of transactions and the
Number of blocks to be mined is proportional to the number of transactions --- More transactions won't result in larger blocks,
and they ignore innovations that are being adopted like SegWit and Lightning.
Especially with the ongoing adoption of the Lightning Network; that is not the case --- 2017 of all years is a bad reference year for predicting future growth - expect more transactions with future blocks; If massive transaction volume increases occur again, expect those on the network to eventually agree that a larger block size and other scaling measures are appropriate --- which will result in greater efficiencies or economies of scale with higher transaction volumes.
The projection the researchers are making is really an uninteresting one: the question their study answers is more like..... What if no changes occurred to the Bitcoin network/protocol for improved scaling, and the predominant way transactions were batched and pooled since 2017 continues indefinitely AND Bitcoin adoption accelerates as projected by the model.
the ONLY reason this problem exists is because of lack of housing in places people want to live.
What "problem"? Prices are set by the market. They are what they are. If you don't like them, then find a competing option instead of buying in -- which is what some people are doing.
Naw.... Limited supply AND demand exists AND people are willing to pay up for it. When one talks about housing -- the level of density is a fundamental PART of the product, so fewer people would be interested in a denser offering, because people don't want to live in dense housing; if you build more denser housing, Your more dense units may sit unused, and that doesn't lower the price of less dense housing.
I for one am not going to buy or rent into housing that puts my nearest neighbor closer than 100 feet away. Obviously denser housing is afforded a lower premium.
We need to rezone R-1 areas for multiple unit housing. R-1 zonings are a massively inefficient use of space
Sorry, too late. Zonings are made for planned land use. Once the plan is in place and the property is sold --- it's too late to change zonings; they can only change pretty much with unanimous consent from the property owner's, their neighbors, and others that might be affected by land use changes.
We need to give the NIMBY types the finger and BUILD MORE HOUSING.
If your great idea is changing land-use out from under owners' or neighbors' interests, which is in violation of protected legal rights, then the NIMBY types will sue your arse off and block the ridiculous infringements to them.
a lawsuit is going to be difficult to win and cost the company more than they get.
Uhm... Apple/Amazon don't care about that. Their brand is everything to them, and if they have/had acase: I'm sure their lawyers would be all over it.
Bloomberg's story might not be 100% accurate, but there's probably some truth to it that these companies NEED to hide that would come out in the lawsuit which would could damage their bottom line ---- better to keep it quiet and cast as much doubt as possible.
Also; I'm sure they're aware of the Streisand effect. Best to retaliate and continue pressuring the offending party quietly.....
Well, the action doesn't prohibit upgrades, necessarily.
A major reason for arguing as right to "bring it back to original specifications" is to disarm
an argument from manufacturers that DRM is essential to prevent independents from
creating "counterfeits" or "converting and passing off generic hardware" as manufacturer's proprietary product.
The argument goes something like this.... If the repair shop runs a bypass wire for a broken resistor or replaces
a capacitor or video card, that computer ceases to be a genuine Mac and is now a "PC" being falsely passed off as a Mac.
The argument is the purpose of repair is to bring an existing unit made by a manufacturer that fell out of working order
back to working order with the same functional operation it had before, and if the functional behavior is the same as before;
the unit is not a fake but a "repaired unit", and it's necessary consumers be allowed to do this without requiring manufacturer approval of
the people or businesses that can perform the repair, the types of repairs made, or the
techniques, tools, etc, allowed to be used, to avoid consumers being unreasonably gouged by manufacturers.
Also, preferably: manufacturers should be prohibited from designing elements of a product marketed to general consumers or controlling or "keeping proprietary and secret" information about the released product if the affect is deterring repair or preventing easily removing user data for recovery --- for example: permanently gluing or soldering consumable or commonly field-upgradeable PC components such as batteries, flash media, hard drives, RAM chips, smart cards/security modules, etc, should be illegal, restricting access to tools, service documentation/ schematics, information on codes, or other backdoor procedures useful to reset/diag a unit, and other necessary means of diagnosis to company, company-certified, or partner repair facilities and personnel, keeping them hidden, restricted from sale, or charging a high price for tools, info or documents.
The penalty for non-compliance should include automatic forfeiture from their owner of all copyrights and other proprietary rights regarding any materials about the electronics regarding the product, each electronic component contained within the product (Even those of 3rd parties, if for example, the board contains a chip made by or designed by a 3rd party), and any/all firmware or software ever contained within it that is involved with the unit and each component functioning according to its specifications.
It requires different strategies and skills, and often radically different gameplay.
Or for most games it might just be plain not possible.... example Zelda: A link to the Past.
Plenty of unavoidable rooms that explicitly trap the player until all opponents in a room are slain, and key items
necessary to progress that require the same to obtain.
Also, winning any Super Mario Bros. game without beating king bowser and every castle boss will be a tad problematic.
There is no Liberal Pac Man, only Liberal Pac Gender Neutral Personhood Entity
Well... there's the other game Misses Pacwoman, I think it's called. They could also introduce a new version:
Mr(s) Pac gender-fluid character
The Liberal Pac Man takes care not to eat the ghosts, and uses whatever points he get from eating pellets
Not very many, b/c the Liberal Pac Man deliberately allows the ghosts to defeat pac man.
Once by Pinky, then Inky, and Clyde, in that order --- Blinky doesn't get a turn, b/c there are only 3 Pacman Lives, and Blinky has too much privilege.
Roche: Oh crap... something with effects similar to our product that isn't a controlled substance....
* Has lobbyists call up buddies in the DEA and congress *
Ban it! Ban It! Ban it! This is a threat
..... 3 months later ....
Cultivating lavender, possessing any lavender or lavender products.... Now illegal.
(US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
People DO care. A small excessively-boisterous minority of people that respects no rules of civility, and some of whom are being paid to be part of creating the disruption are tyrannizing us as a country.
These progressives are less than perhaps10% of the population, but they're well-organized and active, being activists is likely their full-time job, And your group doesn't have to have anything close to a majority to use guerilla tactics such as spamming a government hotline with fake calls.
Not as easy as it may sounds.
Just leave your neighbor's number. Your move.
Prompt them to type in not just their phone number, but also their Driver's License number. Verify the DL number against the DL database before connecting the call.
Any "protestor" that goes past those two checkpoints and makes an obvious prank call --- criminally prosecute them under the full extent of the law, and make a public example of them (It's a felony to make false statements to a government official).
it may be translated to commit yourself to whatever cause and goal your organisation has.
Yeah, well.... this will be confusing for people just reading the code, and it may be offputting to people that they weren't explicit in saying "Excluding the references to God, christ, etc, in this code", as it doesn't really say to translate all that stuff.
When they were choosing to adopt the code, they COULD have also adopted such minor changes and had the changes written in, or at least chosen which rules from the monastic rules that they would remove from the CoC of their project, and cross those out in the document.
rather than someone come along when it's all done and point out that your UI is difficult for colourblind people or the fact that you can't change the font size is a major issue for them.
This is why you have Alphas and Betas. Anyways, in the OSS world UIs are usually made by one person who has sufficient knowledge to do so -
and sometimes you get GUI nightmares with thousands of obscure checkboxes, kinda like This.
In an ideal world the UI designs would be made or reviewed by UX experts -- in the corporate world, there would be a committee of beancounters to approve the design - a luxury most projects don't have.
Already your accusing someone who made a rather benign statement of "violating the code."
Benign statement? What part of using legal licensing mechanisms to get people to be nice to each other?
is (1)consistent with something RMS actually said and (2) not implying ridicule against RMS?...
See also: *sigh*....
Stallman's problem is that he's trying to jam licensing into things that don't quite fit.
The GP is claiming both that Stallman has a "problem", and this simple set of guidelines is an example of the problem.
I would point out that RMS published a guideline, and neither in his e-mail message nor in the guideline itself is there a reference
whatsoever to any kind of licensing mechanism other than copyrights asserted for the webpage itself.
by those some pejoratively call 'SJWs'
On the contrary: the term SJW is not a pejorative, but the opposite; it actually casts the person in a positive light... as "Warriors" or "Heros" of Social Justice. These people CHOSE that term for themselves, and then they twist the concept of Justice to mean various things including "eliminating perceived statistical inequalities in society by any means" ----- It would be nice if we had a replacement term for SJWs which was less romanticized and expressed more of the TRUTH behind the renegade groups which actively twist anyone opposing any of their views into claims of privilege, misogynist, racist, etc.
Frankly: I was astounded when Twitter decided that the "NPC Meme" joking about the behavior of certain progressives when questioned about their views is now considered possibly Illegal Hate Speech, because it's "Dehumanizing" to Joke about the behavior observed of certain people, when the people are not behaving like humans, because when interviewed they act like they are programmatically spouting some canned tag phrase (Like a NPC), but then cannot provide a coherent answer to basic questions that a person who rationally and so passionately came to such conclusions should definitively have an answer to.
The "SJW" are essentially a small vocal minority that have already started shooting in a power grab / pre-meditated culture war that the
targets' the SJWs are shooting at are barely starting to comprehend has even been planned or started yet.
If, on the other hand, their *real* goal is surreptitious power grabs via identity-politics-based using reverse discrimination and 'victimhood' to tear down whatever 'privilege' structure bothers them, then this will make them go absolutely *nuts*.
This is what I predict the result will be of efforts such as RMS' and the SQLite project to adopt more reasonable "Guidelines" that
promote kindness rather than ID politics.
Open source projects are a target, because the openness of community projects makes them easy to infiltrate, and they can make a message that seems good enough on its surface that a naive target will adopt.
Ultimately it's about controlling people on the projects, controlling speech, and trying to control the composition of projects' members though.