Well, in this case, it's a 96 kbps average, but all the encoders use VBR. So, they could get up to over 200kbps if they wanted, depending on the input.
Also, bitrate isn't everything. It's possible to encode at 320 kbps with a crappy encoder and get better results at a lower bitrate with a good encoder.
It doesn't seek to prove anything. But given enough people, it is possible to form on a statistical basis which encoding methods and encoders more people are likely to enjoy.
I would find the results interesting, especially if I was about to go re-rip a bunch of my CDs - not like I'm going to listen to each one as I rip it, multiple times for different codecs, to decide which I like best. But this way, I could get suggestions based on type of music, desired bitrate, etc.
I used to be in the "I want my phone to just be a phone" camp.
Now I have an Android smartphone. I generally get ~24 hours out of it between charges, though I plug it in every night. Playing music with it consumes almost no battery - optimized hardware decode paths and all that. I can play music for a couple hours and still be at 80-90% battery - which is enough to last me until the next morning, if need be.
I wouldn't call it a "sub par" player, either, I don't know why that is assumed. It has all the usual library setup, can organize by artist/album/song/etc., create playlists, full library search. It would be nice to have built-in equalizer settings, but I can get that through my ROM - not that I find it necessary to use it, the output sounds fine at stock.
Why is it not unreasonable to force users to buy previous versions of the OS, if they aren't dependencies for the current version?
You can apparently just get the physical media or do it from the store to get the current version, but otherwise you have to pay for a version you won't use just to pay for the version you will use (from what I surmise from GP's post).
My old laptop runs XP. Should I be forced to buy Vista to buy Windows 7? (Actually, the next step for it is probably Linux, but that's beside the point.) I don't see how this behavior is justifiable at all.
I've seen local cable companies with a bottom tier of 1 GB/month. More expensive service gets you to 50 GB/month, but that's still not a lot, especially for a multi-person residence.
http://help.cableone.net/HSD/Plans/Data%20Plans/FAQ.aspx and note that their "Elite" data tier requires you to bundle phone, cable TV, and internet. They do have periods where usage does not count towards the cap, but that's still a pain in the ass.
The (anecdotal) evidence seems to disagree with you and your snarky attitude, which was totally uncalled for, by the way.
To add even more anecdotal evidence, I've flown a few times recently (on 3 different airlines) and have had full cans of soda or whatever. Even got free beer in the Seattle area, though that was probably promotional money paid by Red Hook.
So yes, the original poster's concept of what is given on flights is, in general, wrong, and if we accept that his experience was characteristic of the time period in which he flew, then yes, apparently airlines are now in better shape to offer more free things to their customers (or customer service has just become more important).
So no, the other poster doesn't appear to have been naive in their assertion, rather it is you who seems to feel the need to be overbearingly callous in your dealings with insignificant trifles on the internet. Also, the evidence suggests you are wrong.
You have pretty low standards for adults. Also, false dichotomy: just because adults don't go run and tattle, doesn't mean that all appreciate it. Personally, I think if you need to resort to "bad words" to express yourself, particularly in a forum that could be used or viewed professionally, it says a lot about the type of person you are.
This doesn't even have anything to do with censorship. Anyone can write any package and name it anything they please. But they have no right nor should they have any expectation to have their package listed.
I don't know if people are just too self-centered to see anything from another person's point of view, or what. Your justifications for the naming of packages is entirely relative to you. You would happily use any package as long as it's useful no matter the name; a name you consider fun is better than a name you consider boring, because you would rather have a chuckle at some puerile joke.
There's a time and place for that, don't get me wrong. But broadcasting it to the world is just stupid and self-centered.
And that's fine. He can call his package anything he pleases. Doesn't mean that the community has to list it in their package management system. Furthermore, them not listing it is in no way a violation of his rights.
Yeah, you should have the freedom to be a dick. And others should have the freedom to respond accordingly. Having your package un listed in the official system is not a right.
You call others thin-skinned, but you're offended by "God Bless America"? Care to explain why?
I'm guessing you're just anti-religion, but it shouldn't offend you that others aren't. So what if some religious group wants to think their particular deity has blessed or should bless their country?
It's even more interesting, reading your other comments on this same article. Apparently you're some asshole who thinks he can say whatever he wants and express whatever inane opinion to whomever he wants using whatever language he wants. You know what? You sure can. But it makes you an insensitive asshole. Worse, judging by your other comments, you're a self-righteous arrogant asshole, the worst kind. You seem to think you're above everyone else, that you can try to offend people just for profiling purposes, and that that's okay.
Yeah. Lack of empathy or willingness to compromise in any manner, even just to make someone else's day not become unpleasant. That's pretty much textbook antisocial.
It's a shame, too. I don't like political correctness either, but you completely miss the point of why it's bad.
Does functionality matter more the image? What a red herring. The functionality has never been in question here.
Do corporations matter more or the community? Well, now you're injecting another strawman, that it's only the corporations that would care about this. Simply not true (well, true that they probably do, but others do too). Personally, I don't want to be googling for things that look like porn, either on my own machines (and tied to my personal search history) nor in a professional work environment. TFA discusses that; by googling the new name of this particular package and another by the same author, he has hit the Google child porn stop twice. Okay, so that's not entirely fair - he was searching for the illicit meaning behind the names - but a couple test queries show that the names themselves are so twisted to one meaning, particularly Misaka, that just searching Misaka comes up with all kinds of anime sites. If you couldn't be arsed to RTFA, Misaka is an anime character, usually depicted 11 years old, and frequently in up-skirt scenes. Even if you don't care about the names, packages like these can have real consequences for users and people searching for them, not knowing what they are getting in to.
How you manage to twist this into an open source vs. the corporations, I have no idea.
OT: How do I moderate? Pretty new user here, and I'm letting mod points go to waste because I don't know how to use them:/
I guess it depends on the field. When I was in school, I specifically looked for a school with a mandatory coop program. To count for school, it was required to be paid, and for us to do real work. Graduated with 1.5-2 years paid experience (and not paid peanuts, myself and most friends were making $17.5/hr and up).
Maybe you should place the value of your internship on the level that your employer does. If they don't want to pay, you're not going to be doing anything useful.
I get your point, hyperbolic as it is, but it's not like people don't realize that there are other websites outside of Facebook.
The things you mention? That's what social networks are for. Connecting with people, all in one place. How do games fit in to that picture? Surely you're not arguing that people enjoy automated and impersonal Farmville spam from friends.
Maybe people will realize they can get retarded flash games all over the internet, and that they don't really need a social network tying their identity to the games they play.
So, in that first paragraph, the awkward missing words were apparently interpreted as tags and eaten by slashdot. Something along the lines of $generic unit of currency$. Sorry, still new to this commenting system.
First things first: You, and the person you replied to, are what is wrong with the world today. Highly polarized, closed-minded, hating opposing viewpoints with generalities, getting nothing done. Congratulations.
To the meat of your post...
First, what are these things "we" take for granted? Why are you completely closed to a benefit-cost analysis? Why are you completely closed to the idea that others may not take it for granted and/or may not want it at all?
Second - state granted advantage? That's a bold claim. That implies that the state actively gave Amazon and their affiliates an advantage, and is now revoking it. That is not the case; in reality, CA is passing a law that few other states have tried on a subject there is still no general consensus about in the country at large. Yes, taxing online purchasing is something that needs to be addressed and figured out. But the cause and effect chain here is so obvious that it's laughable that CA would do it. You'd think a state struggling to keep its doors open would worry more about, well, keeping its doors open than jumping on some could-be injustice that's going to destroy jobs and tax income
To your last baiting question: why do you (and notice I am talking to you, not generalizing you into a group of people I disagree with but that you may or may not actually be a part of) - why do you think that the "developed lifestyle we enjoy" requires constant tax increases? Your entire post seems to be defending tax increases a priori, with no regard as to whether or not everyone who pays in to these things wants them. Apparently, to you, as soon as anything gets passed, it is untouchable, must have been the right decision or a good program, and it should receive copious funding?
To your first paragraph: the (faulty) assumption you're making is that moved around in private industry is the same as moved around by the government - that we shouldn't care what the is being spent on or to whom it goes to. This obviously isn't true; most people would rather it in a program like Amazon's than the defense contractors. Also, your analogy is terrible. Look at it this way: if the government taxes less, then they overspend by a larger percent, increasing the multiplier! Free money that no one will ever be accountable for! Genius!
To your second paragraph: with the exception of healthcare, all those things you list have been in place for about 100 years, and yet we've not had the states going bankrupt or the federal debt so ridiculously high. I don't think (most) people are going to argue against the use of these things, save healthcare, so this is just a red herring - especially because there are fees and taxes to these things based directly on use. There's obviously more going on here.
To your third paragraph: and now you've completely lost me. No, privatizing everything isn't good; but managed effectively, there are a lot of areas where it can do a lot of good. You (fail to) cite an example where it may have gone poorly, but you gloss over details and make it out to be the business's fault. Not saying it's not, but where's the accountability for the government, making such a poor decision? Who's to say the business didn't have friends in the government?
>>Well, if you can lump all the android devices together to claim dominance over iPhone marketshare, as is commonly done on here, that includes all the crappy Android handsets as well as the really good ones, then it seems fair to lump them all together when looking at bulk failure rate. You have to take the rough with the smooth.
If we're talking about the smartphone market, marketshare is marketshare. Others (e.g. Apple) may not compete for the low-end, but that doesn't matter - for marketshare. I think it should be blindingly obvious to everyone why the marketshare is as it is, and you can draw your own conclusion from that. However, Android does benefit from its larger installed userbase.
On the other hand, applying these statistics to all Android phones is misleading and an abuse of statistics and probability. You can't take an aggregate statistic of a heterogeneous sample and apply it to a single datapoint. Saying a given, specific Android phone is more likely to fail than an Apple phone is an unfounded conclusion, based on the numbers we have here. It's applying an aggregate statistic to a specific embodiment. It's like saying that because 70% of school children fail a specific test on average, if you select a single child at random, that child's chances of failing are 70%. That's not true; what is true, is that you have a 70% chance of selecting a child who will fail. Each child, however, based on their own merits, have there own probabilities of failing.
Applying it to the topic of interest - this principle just gives us back what we already knew. There's a large population of cheap Android phones which are more likely to fail. If pooled, and you selected one at random, odds are it would be a phone that is more likely to fail early than a competitor - because it's more likely to be a low-end phone. But we don't select phones at random. You get to *choose* your phone. And an informed buyer (or just a buyer who has the common sense that a sub-$100 smartphone probably isn't as high quality as a $300 phone) can easily have much better odds at failure.
What are those odds? We don't know, due to this absurd study. But we can make a reasonable assumption that the odds are better than what are stated here, because the low-end phones - which there are a lot of, skewing the results - have higher failure rates. Knowing that, it's not unreasonable to assume that failure rates of quality Android phones are comparable to other smartphone makers (making phones at similar price points/quality).
I'm sorry that you feel this is a personal fight, and that you get to make up silly rules to try to make things seem fair. You should try letting reason and logic guide you, not misplaced trust and personal identity in your consumer electronics.
Umm... why? Why is Android being available on a range of pricepoints and hardware a mitigating factor in its marketshare? It seems like you're trying to say that only phone of a certain price/quality should qualify for marketshare. Which is nonsense.
I think what you're trying to say is that marketshare isn't by itself a fair representation of the market - that other makes (Apple) don't try to compete for the low-end, so the low-end inflates Android numbers? It's fine to say that, but marketshare is marketshare. And even if competitors do fair well against that segment of Android phones they compete against, the Android marketshare is still an advantage to the whole Android ecosystem.
>>> So, in the event of a crime, we are not allowed to refer to it as "your" crime, merely "a" crime.
I don't see how what you're saying has anything to do with the GP's point.
All (s)he is saying is that there is no evidence of any connection to LulzSec, not even the authorities are claiming or hinting as such, and yet the article is claiming that some unnamed sources of unknown reliability are claiming it as so. This has nothing to do with presumption of innocence pre-trial. Basically all they're saying is that "Gee, this LulzSec group has been in the news for hacking, and then there's this kid being arrested for computer-related crimes, maybe they're related?"
There are two ways to take that. On one hand, it seems a totally reasonable connection to make and wonder about. On the other hand, there's no evidence for making the connection, and the article is the one drawing that link (presumably because it will get them attention). Far from avoiding the angst of lawyers - this is approaching slander.
I'm not claiming it is slander, but that's how you run a professional smear-job. Associate the person with all manner of things nefarious in the public eye, but in a purely speculative manner - and after all, it was "unnamed observers" suggesting it, not your esteemed journal.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in this case, it's a 96 kbps average, but all the encoders use VBR. So, they could get up to over 200kbps if they wanted, depending on the input.
Also, bitrate isn't everything. It's possible to encode at 320 kbps with a crappy encoder and get better results at a lower bitrate with a good encoder.
Then again, it would be nice to know how it's doing.
Just prefacing the results with a disclaimer should be enough for those who would care.
It doesn't seek to prove anything. But given enough people, it is possible to form on a statistical basis which encoding methods and encoders more people are likely to enjoy.
I would find the results interesting, especially if I was about to go re-rip a bunch of my CDs - not like I'm going to listen to each one as I rip it, multiple times for different codecs, to decide which I like best. But this way, I could get suggestions based on type of music, desired bitrate, etc.
I used to be in the "I want my phone to just be a phone" camp.
Now I have an Android smartphone. I generally get ~24 hours out of it between charges, though I plug it in every night. Playing music with it consumes almost no battery - optimized hardware decode paths and all that. I can play music for a couple hours and still be at 80-90% battery - which is enough to last me until the next morning, if need be.
I wouldn't call it a "sub par" player, either, I don't know why that is assumed. It has all the usual library setup, can organize by artist/album/song/etc., create playlists, full library search. It would be nice to have built-in equalizer settings, but I can get that through my ROM - not that I find it necessary to use it, the output sounds fine at stock.
Why is it not unreasonable to force users to buy previous versions of the OS, if they aren't dependencies for the current version?
You can apparently just get the physical media or do it from the store to get the current version, but otherwise you have to pay for a version you won't use just to pay for the version you will use (from what I surmise from GP's post).
My old laptop runs XP. Should I be forced to buy Vista to buy Windows 7? (Actually, the next step for it is probably Linux, but that's beside the point.) I don't see how this behavior is justifiable at all.
That seems rather arbitrary. Why would they do this?
I've seen local cable companies with a bottom tier of 1 GB/month. More expensive service gets you to 50 GB/month, but that's still not a lot, especially for a multi-person residence.
http://help.cableone.net/HSD/Plans/Data%20Plans/FAQ.aspx and note that their "Elite" data tier requires you to bundle phone, cable TV, and internet. They do have periods where usage does not count towards the cap, but that's still a pain in the ass.
Likely you'd have to burn it to physical media in order to install it, no?
I guess strictly speaking there are ways around that, but that is the normal practice.
The (anecdotal) evidence seems to disagree with you and your snarky attitude, which was totally uncalled for, by the way.
To add even more anecdotal evidence, I've flown a few times recently (on 3 different airlines) and have had full cans of soda or whatever. Even got free beer in the Seattle area, though that was probably promotional money paid by Red Hook.
So yes, the original poster's concept of what is given on flights is, in general, wrong, and if we accept that his experience was characteristic of the time period in which he flew, then yes, apparently airlines are now in better shape to offer more free things to their customers (or customer service has just become more important).
So no, the other poster doesn't appear to have been naive in their assertion, rather it is you who seems to feel the need to be overbearingly callous in your dealings with insignificant trifles on the internet. Also, the evidence suggests you are wrong.
You have pretty low standards for adults. Also, false dichotomy: just because adults don't go run and tattle, doesn't mean that all appreciate it. Personally, I think if you need to resort to "bad words" to express yourself, particularly in a forum that could be used or viewed professionally, it says a lot about the type of person you are.
This doesn't even have anything to do with censorship. Anyone can write any package and name it anything they please. But they have no right nor should they have any expectation to have their package listed.
I don't know if people are just too self-centered to see anything from another person's point of view, or what. Your justifications for the naming of packages is entirely relative to you. You would happily use any package as long as it's useful no matter the name; a name you consider fun is better than a name you consider boring, because you would rather have a chuckle at some puerile joke.
There's a time and place for that, don't get me wrong. But broadcasting it to the world is just stupid and self-centered.
And that's fine. He can call his package anything he pleases. Doesn't mean that the community has to list it in their package management system. Furthermore, them not listing it is in no way a violation of his rights.
Yeah, you should have the freedom to be a dick. And others should have the freedom to respond accordingly. Having your package un listed in the official system is not a right.
You call others thin-skinned, but you're offended by "God Bless America"? Care to explain why?
I'm guessing you're just anti-religion, but it shouldn't offend you that others aren't. So what if some religious group wants to think their particular deity has blessed or should bless their country?
It's even more interesting, reading your other comments on this same article. Apparently you're some asshole who thinks he can say whatever he wants and express whatever inane opinion to whomever he wants using whatever language he wants. You know what? You sure can. But it makes you an insensitive asshole. Worse, judging by your other comments, you're a self-righteous arrogant asshole, the worst kind. You seem to think you're above everyone else, that you can try to offend people just for profiling purposes, and that that's okay.
Yeah. Lack of empathy or willingness to compromise in any manner, even just to make someone else's day not become unpleasant. That's pretty much textbook antisocial.
It's a shame, too. I don't like political correctness either, but you completely miss the point of why it's bad.
You're using some twisted logic.
Does functionality matter more the image? What a red herring. The functionality has never been in question here.
Do corporations matter more or the community? Well, now you're injecting another strawman, that it's only the corporations that would care about this. Simply not true (well, true that they probably do, but others do too). Personally, I don't want to be googling for things that look like porn, either on my own machines (and tied to my personal search history) nor in a professional work environment. TFA discusses that; by googling the new name of this particular package and another by the same author, he has hit the Google child porn stop twice. Okay, so that's not entirely fair - he was searching for the illicit meaning behind the names - but a couple test queries show that the names themselves are so twisted to one meaning, particularly Misaka, that just searching Misaka comes up with all kinds of anime sites. If you couldn't be arsed to RTFA, Misaka is an anime character, usually depicted 11 years old, and frequently in up-skirt scenes. Even if you don't care about the names, packages like these can have real consequences for users and people searching for them, not knowing what they are getting in to.
How you manage to twist this into an open source vs. the corporations, I have no idea.
OT: How do I moderate? Pretty new user here, and I'm letting mod points go to waste because I don't know how to use them :/
I guess it depends on the field. When I was in school, I specifically looked for a school with a mandatory coop program. To count for school, it was required to be paid, and for us to do real work. Graduated with 1.5-2 years paid experience (and not paid peanuts, myself and most friends were making $17.5/hr and up).
Maybe you should place the value of your internship on the level that your employer does. If they don't want to pay, you're not going to be doing anything useful.
I get your point, hyperbolic as it is, but it's not like people don't realize that there are other websites outside of Facebook.
The things you mention? That's what social networks are for. Connecting with people, all in one place. How do games fit in to that picture? Surely you're not arguing that people enjoy automated and impersonal Farmville spam from friends.
Maybe people will realize they can get retarded flash games all over the internet, and that they don't really need a social network tying their identity to the games they play.
After reading your post below mine, I'm almost sad to say I'm not.
When did simple reason become irrelevant, and hate and cloak and dagger and cronyism become the standard?
So, in that first paragraph, the awkward missing words were apparently interpreted as tags and eaten by slashdot. Something along the lines of $generic unit of currency$. Sorry, still new to this commenting system.
First things first: You, and the person you replied to, are what is wrong with the world today. Highly polarized, closed-minded, hating opposing viewpoints with generalities, getting nothing done. Congratulations.
To the meat of your post...
First, what are these things "we" take for granted? Why are you completely closed to a benefit-cost analysis? Why are you completely closed to the idea that others may not take it for granted and/or may not want it at all?
Second - state granted advantage? That's a bold claim. That implies that the state actively gave Amazon and their affiliates an advantage, and is now revoking it. That is not the case; in reality, CA is passing a law that few other states have tried on a subject there is still no general consensus about in the country at large. Yes, taxing online purchasing is something that needs to be addressed and figured out. But the cause and effect chain here is so obvious that it's laughable that CA would do it. You'd think a state struggling to keep its doors open would worry more about, well, keeping its doors open than jumping on some could-be injustice that's going to destroy jobs and tax income
To your last baiting question: why do you (and notice I am talking to you, not generalizing you into a group of people I disagree with but that you may or may not actually be a part of) - why do you think that the "developed lifestyle we enjoy" requires constant tax increases? Your entire post seems to be defending tax increases a priori, with no regard as to whether or not everyone who pays in to these things wants them. Apparently, to you, as soon as anything gets passed, it is untouchable, must have been the right decision or a good program, and it should receive copious funding?
To your first paragraph: the (faulty) assumption you're making is that moved around in private industry is the same as moved around by the government - that we shouldn't care what the is being spent on or to whom it goes to. This obviously isn't true; most people would rather it in a program like Amazon's than the defense contractors. Also, your analogy is terrible. Look at it this way: if the government taxes less, then they overspend by a larger percent, increasing the multiplier! Free money that no one will ever be accountable for! Genius!
To your second paragraph: with the exception of healthcare, all those things you list have been in place for about 100 years, and yet we've not had the states going bankrupt or the federal debt so ridiculously high. I don't think (most) people are going to argue against the use of these things, save healthcare, so this is just a red herring - especially because there are fees and taxes to these things based directly on use. There's obviously more going on here.
To your third paragraph: and now you've completely lost me. No, privatizing everything isn't good; but managed effectively, there are a lot of areas where it can do a lot of good. You (fail to) cite an example where it may have gone poorly, but you gloss over details and make it out to be the business's fault. Not saying it's not, but where's the accountability for the government, making such a poor decision? Who's to say the business didn't have friends in the government?
No. There's no logic in your statement
>>Well, if you can lump all the android devices together to claim dominance over iPhone marketshare, as is commonly done on here, that includes all the crappy Android handsets as well as the really good ones, then it seems fair to lump them all together when looking at bulk failure rate. You have to take the rough with the smooth.
If we're talking about the smartphone market, marketshare is marketshare. Others (e.g. Apple) may not compete for the low-end, but that doesn't matter - for marketshare. I think it should be blindingly obvious to everyone why the marketshare is as it is, and you can draw your own conclusion from that. However, Android does benefit from its larger installed userbase.
On the other hand, applying these statistics to all Android phones is misleading and an abuse of statistics and probability. You can't take an aggregate statistic of a heterogeneous sample and apply it to a single datapoint. Saying a given, specific Android phone is more likely to fail than an Apple phone is an unfounded conclusion, based on the numbers we have here. It's applying an aggregate statistic to a specific embodiment. It's like saying that because 70% of school children fail a specific test on average, if you select a single child at random, that child's chances of failing are 70%. That's not true; what is true, is that you have a 70% chance of selecting a child who will fail. Each child, however, based on their own merits, have there own probabilities of failing.
Applying it to the topic of interest - this principle just gives us back what we already knew. There's a large population of cheap Android phones which are more likely to fail. If pooled, and you selected one at random, odds are it would be a phone that is more likely to fail early than a competitor - because it's more likely to be a low-end phone. But we don't select phones at random. You get to *choose* your phone. And an informed buyer (or just a buyer who has the common sense that a sub-$100 smartphone probably isn't as high quality as a $300 phone) can easily have much better odds at failure.
What are those odds? We don't know, due to this absurd study. But we can make a reasonable assumption that the odds are better than what are stated here, because the low-end phones - which there are a lot of, skewing the results - have higher failure rates. Knowing that, it's not unreasonable to assume that failure rates of quality Android phones are comparable to other smartphone makers (making phones at similar price points/quality).
I'm sorry that you feel this is a personal fight, and that you get to make up silly rules to try to make things seem fair. You should try letting reason and logic guide you, not misplaced trust and personal identity in your consumer electronics.
Umm... why? Why is Android being available on a range of pricepoints and hardware a mitigating factor in its marketshare? It seems like you're trying to say that only phone of a certain price/quality should qualify for marketshare. Which is nonsense.
I think what you're trying to say is that marketshare isn't by itself a fair representation of the market - that other makes (Apple) don't try to compete for the low-end, so the low-end inflates Android numbers? It's fine to say that, but marketshare is marketshare. And even if competitors do fair well against that segment of Android phones they compete against, the Android marketshare is still an advantage to the whole Android ecosystem.
Have you ever tried using any Microsoft websites to find answers to... anything? It's all advertising. God help you if you have a technical query.
Such a headache. I can believe that someone could spend equal or more time there.
I just don't even bother any more.
Only for significant values of a.
if a=1E-5, it's made no difference at all.
>>> So, in the event of a crime, we are not allowed to refer to it as "your" crime, merely "a" crime.
I don't see how what you're saying has anything to do with the GP's point.
All (s)he is saying is that there is no evidence of any connection to LulzSec, not even the authorities are claiming or hinting as such, and yet the article is claiming that some unnamed sources of unknown reliability are claiming it as so. This has nothing to do with presumption of innocence pre-trial. Basically all they're saying is that "Gee, this LulzSec group has been in the news for hacking, and then there's this kid being arrested for computer-related crimes, maybe they're related?"
There are two ways to take that. On one hand, it seems a totally reasonable connection to make and wonder about. On the other hand, there's no evidence for making the connection, and the article is the one drawing that link (presumably because it will get them attention). Far from avoiding the angst of lawyers - this is approaching slander.
I'm not claiming it is slander, but that's how you run a professional smear-job. Associate the person with all manner of things nefarious in the public eye, but in a purely speculative manner - and after all, it was "unnamed observers" suggesting it, not your esteemed journal.