The author's didn't propose to settle for $8.5 million. The premise of the suit is that Google bought the lawyers off with a small sum of money (against the damage they done). He's trying to change this and arguing that the reward should predominantly go to the class, not the lawyers.
I'd argue in any class action where the lawyers get all the money that the company paid the lawyers to drop the suit rather than pursue actual damages against the corporation. Settlements like these are nothing more than bribes to get the lawyers to drop the case. That turns these lawsuits around from being about righting wrongs for large groups of people, to be about lawyers shaking down companies and companies paying off lawyers to drop the case.
Most american's hate class actions because they recognize that's what the system has devolved into, shakedowns and payoffs. A good fix for this would require that a certain percentage of benefits go to the class. This would prevent lawyers for settling for large payments for themselves and it would stop lawyers trying to shake down a company for their own benefit.
It's because the foundries have gotten so expensive, their projecting close to $20Billion fab cost for the next node after 10nm/7nm (intel/tsmc+samsung). I don't think even the biggest fab companies including intel can afford that, even for intel it would take 2 years of profits to build that fab.
I don't know that were going to see cooperation between the fabs so much as a total slow down. Instead of pushing the tooling to it's limits they will back off and wait for the tooling to get there. Right now that's what's driving the costs, the tooling is just getting so expensive that no one can even afford it. The tooling has been stalled out for a long time at the current node, normally the tooling would be a couple years ahead of a the next node, but EUV has turned out to be much more difficult than they projected.
One of the bloomberg articles (I dont' recall if it was the followup or the first article) indicated there was a AWS datacenter with 30K of these supermicro motherboards in it. The article directly implies that the entire production line sometime in 2014-2015 was compromised with every server leaving the factory containing a chip.
Did you read the article? If there was 30K in an AWS data center there were at least that many that didn't make it to AWS, the world would literally be flooded with these compromised boards, if they existed that is.
If this spy chip had been implanted into that many motherboards there would be copies of it all over the place for people to study. This is why the NSA doesn't modify actual hardware, everything is in software where they have plausible deniability.
Spy chips create physical evidence and I doubt even China is dumb enough to go that route.
They look at Google App Store and Apple Store as their future revenue growth, not selling OS's.
Not so, they see the App store as a revenue source, but the plan is to turn Windows into a monthly service cost in 2020 just like Office 365 you'll have to pay every month to use windows. This has been in the plans for 5+ years now and it's why Windows 10 was "free". Free in the sense that you gave away all commerical rights to a paid for copy and agreed to pay for the SAAS version of windows when it rolls out as an update to Windows 10.
Honestly if you aren't aware this is the plan you've not been paying attention.
You don't understand how defamation works in the US.
To win they'd need to sue the anonymous source as that's the party that actually defamed apple, not Bloomberg by reporting on it. You just can't win a defamation case like this against a news organization as long as that new organization didn't make anything up themselves. I'd wager Bloomberg didn't make anything up and that they were told this by sources, whether those sources are credible or not I don't know.
Generally a defamation case like this is just a straight up loser, you'll spend millions and if you get lucky you'll get a retraction. You'll never win money, and all you can do is damage your reputation because it takes years for a case like this to be processed. Even if you win by the time you actually win everyone will have forgotten what it was even about.
Tim Cook is right to call them out on it, but he'd be a fool to sue Bloomberg.
The problem with your claim about interstate commerce is that if the FCC declares a service a "data service" congress never gave the FCC authority to regulate it. So in theory you are correct, with the power over interstate commerce the FCC could block state level regulations that impact internet traffic the FCC removed their authority to do so by declaring the service a data service.
This was all settled in 2014 when the Obama administration tried to implement net neutrality rules without the Title II designation (they were data services at the time). The court threw out the regulations because with those services declared as data services congress never gave the FCC authority to regulate data services. In effect the FCC has no authority to regulate or intervene in any case involving a data service and any regulation they attempt to apply on data services is void.
What this means is that the FCC has no regulatory authority to block California nor do they have the authority to even intervene legally. Congress never gave them this power. When the FCC calls a service a data service it becomes entirely unregulated and impossible for the FCC to regulate on any level. The only way the FCC can regulate is to declare a service a Title II service.
Exactly. Which is why Pai trying to claim he has the authority to prevent state level regulation will go down in the same flaming mass that the first neutrality regulations did.
The FCC has no congressional authority to regulate data services, including preventing state level regulation, congress never gave it to them.
I'm late to this thread so you probably won't read this reply but the entire idea of base load is going to shift.
When the National electricity regulators and courts upheld the ability of companies to pay for load shifting about 6 years ago it caused a fundamental shift in electricity markets. There are now multiple companies in every jurisdiction paying companies to turn off electricity during peak demand and to spin up demand when there is excess electricity. The result of all this is the idea of base load goes out the window. When renewable sources of electricity are streaming into the grid these companies encourage high power use industries to spin up and use this power and cheaper rates and when those sources shut off (clouds, wind stops, whatever) they pay those companies to stop using power.
In the end what happens is that rather than the base load concept the demand curve warps to fit the supply curve and you no longer need a "base load" that's providing more power than you need at night and less power than you need during the day. Demand scales with supply in this new model and the power markets are changing dramatically.
I should note this scares the bejessus out of the power companies (They fought the national regulation allowing demand tuning to the supreme court) because this has the potential to completely shave off the peak power prices and level power prices throughout the day. These peak power rates in the mid afternoon are where power companies make the majority of their unregulated profits on business power sales. Without the peak and trough power pricing of "base load" pricing they run the risk of significant drops in their unregulated profits. But ultimately that is a good thing for all buyers of power, and it's very good for renewables.
Not the same, the NSA based on the information that's been leaked didn't insert hardware as that would be way to easily noticed, verified, disassembled and countered. The NSA put their exploits in custom firmware's images that looked and behaved just like the real thing and could survive firmware updates.
Even if you knew you had a compromised device the only way you could even verify it was to hook into the firmware electrically and dump the entire image to external media where you could analyze it. And even then you might not even be able to verify what the exploit did.
The BMC has access to EVERYTHING. It can run its own network interface on the main interfaces (called out of band management, the primary feature of BMC's). It can snoop memory, it can control the bios, the hard drives, USB.
You name it and the BMC is hooked into it at the BIOS level. It's pretty much the only place you could compromise and have something useful. But the ability to insert a chip and still keep the BMC unaware of the addition and keep everything else in spec would be pretty low. It would require a LOT of effort to design and test something and you'd need to do it for every model and you'd need a way to update it because the BMC has an update-able firmware. To survive such an update the device itself would need to be able to be updated, before the BMC update is applied no less as the BMC update could shutdown the communication channel the device relies on.
Everything about this story is barely plausible. The NSA doesn't do stuff like this because it's easily noticed, quickly disassembled and easy to verify, they do all their compromising for the most part by putting modified firmwares on existing parts. Where it's impossible to stumble on and it can be concealed in the existing firmware.
You've got two problems with tying a chip to the BMC.
First the BMC would have to actually accept such a connection, given that it wasn't designed to do so it's unlikely you could.
Second the BMC has a firmware and software running on it, current draws, commands or anything else that modified the BMC out of spec would cause the BMC to be buggy and would immediately be noticed as it would likely cause the entire board to be buggy.
This is not a trivial hack they are discussing here. It would need to get through all of SM's quality control. The design modification would need to be invisible to QC/QA. The hardware/software would need to be transparant with no current draws and no bugs or it will be noticed. I doubt even the NSA could do this, they typically just hack the firmwares.
How on earth could they modify supermicro's design without Supermicro knowing? If SM doesn't design their own boards that might be possible but I doubt that's the case.
About the only way I can see something like this type of compromise would be useful would be to either replace the aspeed BMC or hook something into the BMC.
Both would likely be noticed by a QC check of the boards. The sneaky one would be to replace the whole Aspeed BMC with a custom chip but you'd have the problem of having to run the BMC exactly the same so the firmware will actually run. This would be incredibly difficult to design and implement.
California absolutely has the the right to do this within their own borders. The federal government foreclosed their ability to regulate this when they took away the title II regulation.
Remember when the Obama FCC tried to implement net neutrality rules while keeping data services outside title II designation? Well the court ruling that struck down those rules found the FCC has no authority to regulate unless they declare the service a Title II service. So when the new Trump FCC rolled back the Title II designation they removed all regulatory authority from themselves, so the little statement the FCC put in the rule that foreclosed all state action is actually as unenforceable as the the original net neutrality rules because the FCC doesn't have authority to regulate without a Title II deceleration.
This is what that original court ruling laid out in minute detail. Congress granted the FCC authority to regulate, but ONLY when it's a title II service. Everyone warned the new FCC that when they removed the title II designation that they were in fact opening up to state level regulation. I have no doubt in my mind that California is going to win this and it's all cause the Trump FCC rolled back the Title II designation.
The courts have always been allowed to force you to reveal a password, there is work going on to roll this back but the sad fact is the supreme court ruled many years ago (back in the 80's) that the pa sword to a computer was no different than the lock to a safe and it could be compelled. Passwords and pin codes are routinely forced by courts to be disclosed.
Now that we have things like smartphones that contain literally your entire life there is talk about rolling this power back and requiring high standards but right now any court can force you to disclose passwords without any retaliation.
You really should provide the disclaimer that you are not a lawyer because your advice is bullshit.
They absolutely can force you to provide the pin code or password, they do so routinely in the court system and the process is accepted under current supreme court precedent. If you refuse to provide them they can hold you in contempt of court and basically incarcerate you until you agree to provide them essentially up to life in prison and you can't appeal contempt of court rulings.
You might not like it that it's like this but that's the truth. You can be compelled to provide passwords and pins, they are not any safer than using biometric type ID's.
You have companies like Fox that are clearly being run by the republican party. Party operatives with little to no media experience are division heads and operating officers in the company. They routinely lie and mislead on public airwaves. Their programming is routinely opinion based and often directed by GOP operatives. You can frequently catch their "news" reporters reading directly from statements provided by the GOP to all their members as if this information is coming directly from the reporter and not this outside coordination.
FOX at this point is little more than the propaganda channel at this point. They are caught routinely reading from GOP talking points handed to them by the party.
And they're worried about google? Really their "concern" is that they don't control the internet like they do traditional media. They can't manipulate Google news with talking points created by GOP committees. They can't get Facebook to post these talking points to everyone's feed.
The sad thing is that if we still had the fairness doctrine neither party would be able to control the traditional media either. And bullshit going on in traditional media right now is because the Internet disrupted the business model and the snakes were able to get in and start controlling the media.
It's funny they're angry about this because in the 1930's the US learned the danger of organizations and people gaining this type of media control when Randolph Hearst got control of the media at the time. This caused the FCC rules like the fairness doctrine to be created to prevent this direct type of propaganda from being created (Hearst used to use this very type of propaganda all the time). The funny bit this time is they aren't worried about the danger of the propaganda, they're worried the "wrong" people could control this propaganda.
Yes, there isn't necessarily a correlation that a shortage of intel CPU's would result in increased AMD sales.
But that lack of correlation goes both ways. We simply don't know if it's having an affect either direction. My personal opinion is that based on recent stock moves and upgrades it has in fact had an impact in the sales channel on AMD shipments, or AMD chips are very popular in their own right, and it appears from monitoring retail channels that AMD is selling them as fast as they can make them but again that could be unrelated to the Intel supply problem, and just due to the popularity of the AMD chips.
Without direct access to both Intel and AMD sales numbers directly from both companies you can't know for certain. The number I would be most interested in would be at the major cloud providers. They account for almost 30% of the market for server chips at this point, their is only a handful of majors (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc) and they are not anchored to any particular silicon. The cloud providers can easily and seamlessly change chip vendors and even architectures with little impact to their business so they represent the best view into how good any server chips actually are. If you've got that data, share it.
I'd agree we are a bit more materialistic, but not much more than's reasonable for a change in generation.
Most Millennial's got stuck with an economy and an education funding system that basically screwed them over far worse than any prior generation. Most are simply not in a financial position to buy homes, but if they were I believe they would, it's simply that they cannot due to debt loads. I think they will be more accepting of college like situations (renting, sharing housing, etc) after graduation than prior generations because they don't have the financial resources to curb those behaviors.
I think the Millennials will actually be good leaders and political stewards in the same way the "greatest generation' was after having experienced the great depression. Millennials were hit the hardest of any group during the great recessions and those lessons and impacts will be long lasting.
Gen-X is just as politically active, the problem is Gen-X is about 1/3rd the size of a normal generation so the votes don't count for much as the boomers can dominate our voting. Our advantage comes with the Millenials, who are just and cynical and family oriented.
I'd argue Gen-X and millennial differ very little political and life views on the whole and Millenials outnumber both Boomers and Gen-X combined. Each year as more and more of Millenials reach the age when they start voting regularly they are beginning to shape the electorate away from the Boomer dominated system of stupidity.
That's not true, in the 90's they called us all a bunch of lazy shiftless flannel wearing losers who would amount to nothing.
I remember years of news articles and tv shows about how GenX was going to be the end of America. Kinda like how they treat Millennial today.
Honestly is anyone surprised that age leads to wisdom about scams? If that was the real title of the article then people would roll their eyes and move on but they through in the millennial tag to draw eyeballs and everyone, particularly the baby boomers jumped in to gloat like the losers they are.
You seem to be conflating molten salt with molten sodium. They are completely different. Sodium by itself is highly reactive, whereas sodium chloride (though somewhat corrosive) is quite stable. If you hit a LFTR with a bunker-buster bomb, it would indeed spray radioactive molten salt around the countryside. But it would rapidly solidify and fall to the ground, where it would be easy to find with a geiger counter. (Unlike radioactive steam which just floats away...)
Maybe you should investigate the chemical composition, it's not molten NaCl. It's typically a lithium flouride or berylium flouride based salt as in previous designs, though the recent tendency in these designs has been to super heated liquid sodium for heat transfer.
The reason for that pressure vessel is because water boils at 100C, and nuclear reactors are just getting warmed up around 400C. So a water-cooled reactor needs plumbing that can handle 150 atmospheres of pressure, just so they can run the reactor at the barely efficient temperature of 300C. But since FLiBe doesn't even melt until 360C (and doesn't boil until well over 1400C) you have a very heat-dense material that can both transport your fuel (enabling on-the-fly reprocessing) and cool your reactor over a broad range of heat regimes... and it does all this at ambient pressure. So you don't need that $20B pressure vessel in the first place.
The reason for the pressure vessel and the surrounding concrete sarcophagus (the huge cost in any reactor) is to contain a meltdown. The difference between Chernobyl and Fukashima was Japan had a full concrete sarcophagus containment chamber (which eventually leaked) whereas Chernobyl had no containment vessel so when it went critical, exploded and then began to burn there was nothing to contain the radioactivity that rained down on the surrounding countryside.
Nuclear's an uneconomical boondoggle. It's not cost effective, it's dangerous and it's accidents are catastrophic. There is literally no reason to pursue it, we have better, cheaper, cleaner means of energy production.
So just because we tried it, polluted a huge area and generated a couple hundred metric tons of contaminated material it's all good, we just didn't do it right that time?
Color me skeptical that in any system where cost is a consideration you're going to likely end up with a superfund site.
Reprocessing is hard and it generates a lot of waste material used in the reprocessing, that's just a fact of using chemical seperation processes. Is it worth generating 100 Tons of highly radioactive material to reprocess a ton of nuclear material?
If by proven you means experimented with but no actual safety, reliability, cost or power generating capability analysis done.
Running a little experimental reactor for a couple years tells you nothing about the commercial viability let alone safety. One of the biggest problems with "molten salt" or liquid sodium reactors is that if the reaction vessel holding this mix of highly radioactive sodium and uranium mixture is every directly exposed to water or oxygen it will explode, burn and fill the atmosphere with a highly radioactive cloud of burning sodium which will then rain down on the surrounding countryside.
Reactor designs like molten salt reactors always fall apart as viable designs when they start talking about surviving things like earthquakes or other natural disasters. This is because to engineer around those disasters you have to do stuff like the current Georgia reactor under construction and spend $20 Billion building a pressure vessel that can survey tidal waves and earthquakes that wipe out the rest of the plant. And when that eventual power is priced at $0.25 kw/hr it's completely uneconomical.
The government doesn't research these "innovative" reactors because every time in the past they've tried the site ended up a superfund site. Every Single Time.
Slashdot Mirror
The author's didn't propose to settle for $8.5 million. The premise of the suit is that Google bought the lawyers off with a small sum of money (against the damage they done). He's trying to change this and arguing that the reward should predominantly go to the class, not the lawyers.
I'd argue in any class action where the lawyers get all the money that the company paid the lawyers to drop the suit rather than pursue actual damages against the corporation. Settlements like these are nothing more than bribes to get the lawyers to drop the case. That turns these lawsuits around from being about righting wrongs for large groups of people, to be about lawyers shaking down companies and companies paying off lawyers to drop the case.
Most american's hate class actions because they recognize that's what the system has devolved into, shakedowns and payoffs. A good fix for this would require that a certain percentage of benefits go to the class. This would prevent lawyers for settling for large payments for themselves and it would stop lawyers trying to shake down a company for their own benefit.
It's because the foundries have gotten so expensive, their projecting close to $20Billion fab cost for the next node after 10nm/7nm (intel/tsmc+samsung). I don't think even the biggest fab companies including intel can afford that, even for intel it would take 2 years of profits to build that fab.
I don't know that were going to see cooperation between the fabs so much as a total slow down. Instead of pushing the tooling to it's limits they will back off and wait for the tooling to get there. Right now that's what's driving the costs, the tooling is just getting so expensive that no one can even afford it. The tooling has been stalled out for a long time at the current node, normally the tooling would be a couple years ahead of a the next node, but EUV has turned out to be much more difficult than they projected.
One of the bloomberg articles (I dont' recall if it was the followup or the first article) indicated there was a AWS datacenter with 30K of these supermicro motherboards in it. The article directly implies that the entire production line sometime in 2014-2015 was compromised with every server leaving the factory containing a chip.
Did you read the article? If there was 30K in an AWS data center there were at least that many that didn't make it to AWS, the world would literally be flooded with these compromised boards, if they existed that is.
If this spy chip had been implanted into that many motherboards there would be copies of it all over the place for people to study. This is why the NSA doesn't modify actual hardware, everything is in software where they have plausible deniability.
Spy chips create physical evidence and I doubt even China is dumb enough to go that route.
They look at Google App Store and Apple Store as their future revenue growth, not selling OS's.
Not so, they see the App store as a revenue source, but the plan is to turn Windows into a monthly service cost in 2020 just like Office 365 you'll have to pay every month to use windows. This has been in the plans for 5+ years now and it's why Windows 10 was "free". Free in the sense that you gave away all commerical rights to a paid for copy and agreed to pay for the SAAS version of windows when it rolls out as an update to Windows 10.
Honestly if you aren't aware this is the plan you've not been paying attention.
You don't understand how defamation works in the US.
To win they'd need to sue the anonymous source as that's the party that actually defamed apple, not Bloomberg by reporting on it. You just can't win a defamation case like this against a news organization as long as that new organization didn't make anything up themselves. I'd wager Bloomberg didn't make anything up and that they were told this by sources, whether those sources are credible or not I don't know.
Generally a defamation case like this is just a straight up loser, you'll spend millions and if you get lucky you'll get a retraction. You'll never win money, and all you can do is damage your reputation because it takes years for a case like this to be processed. Even if you win by the time you actually win everyone will have forgotten what it was even about.
Tim Cook is right to call them out on it, but he'd be a fool to sue Bloomberg.
Trump is an expert at alienating the people on your side. He does it over and over again.
He opened his trade war by attacking our allies instead of rallying them to stop Chinese trade abuses.
The problem with your claim about interstate commerce is that if the FCC declares a service a "data service" congress never gave the FCC authority to regulate it. So in theory you are correct, with the power over interstate commerce the FCC could block state level regulations that impact internet traffic the FCC removed their authority to do so by declaring the service a data service.
This was all settled in 2014 when the Obama administration tried to implement net neutrality rules without the Title II designation (they were data services at the time). The court threw out the regulations because with those services declared as data services congress never gave the FCC authority to regulate data services. In effect the FCC has no authority to regulate or intervene in any case involving a data service and any regulation they attempt to apply on data services is void.
What this means is that the FCC has no regulatory authority to block California nor do they have the authority to even intervene legally. Congress never gave them this power. When the FCC calls a service a data service it becomes entirely unregulated and impossible for the FCC to regulate on any level. The only way the FCC can regulate is to declare a service a Title II service.
Exactly. Which is why Pai trying to claim he has the authority to prevent state level regulation will go down in the same flaming mass that the first neutrality regulations did.
The FCC has no congressional authority to regulate data services, including preventing state level regulation, congress never gave it to them.
I'm late to this thread so you probably won't read this reply but the entire idea of base load is going to shift.
When the National electricity regulators and courts upheld the ability of companies to pay for load shifting about 6 years ago it caused a fundamental shift in electricity markets. There are now multiple companies in every jurisdiction paying companies to turn off electricity during peak demand and to spin up demand when there is excess electricity. The result of all this is the idea of base load goes out the window. When renewable sources of electricity are streaming into the grid these companies encourage high power use industries to spin up and use this power and cheaper rates and when those sources shut off (clouds, wind stops, whatever) they pay those companies to stop using power.
In the end what happens is that rather than the base load concept the demand curve warps to fit the supply curve and you no longer need a "base load" that's providing more power than you need at night and less power than you need during the day. Demand scales with supply in this new model and the power markets are changing dramatically.
I should note this scares the bejessus out of the power companies (They fought the national regulation allowing demand tuning to the supreme court) because this has the potential to completely shave off the peak power prices and level power prices throughout the day. These peak power rates in the mid afternoon are where power companies make the majority of their unregulated profits on business power sales. Without the peak and trough power pricing of "base load" pricing they run the risk of significant drops in their unregulated profits. But ultimately that is a good thing for all buyers of power, and it's very good for renewables.
Not the same, the NSA based on the information that's been leaked didn't insert hardware as that would be way to easily noticed, verified, disassembled and countered. The NSA put their exploits in custom firmware's images that looked and behaved just like the real thing and could survive firmware updates.
Even if you knew you had a compromised device the only way you could even verify it was to hook into the firmware electrically and dump the entire image to external media where you could analyze it. And even then you might not even be able to verify what the exploit did.
The BMC has access to EVERYTHING. It can run its own network interface on the main interfaces (called out of band management, the primary feature of BMC's). It can snoop memory, it can control the bios, the hard drives, USB.
You name it and the BMC is hooked into it at the BIOS level. It's pretty much the only place you could compromise and have something useful. But the ability to insert a chip and still keep the BMC unaware of the addition and keep everything else in spec would be pretty low. It would require a LOT of effort to design and test something and you'd need to do it for every model and you'd need a way to update it because the BMC has an update-able firmware. To survive such an update the device itself would need to be able to be updated, before the BMC update is applied no less as the BMC update could shutdown the communication channel the device relies on.
Everything about this story is barely plausible. The NSA doesn't do stuff like this because it's easily noticed, quickly disassembled and easy to verify, they do all their compromising for the most part by putting modified firmwares on existing parts. Where it's impossible to stumble on and it can be concealed in the existing firmware.
You've got two problems with tying a chip to the BMC.
First the BMC would have to actually accept such a connection, given that it wasn't designed to do so it's unlikely you could.
Second the BMC has a firmware and software running on it, current draws, commands or anything else that modified the BMC out of spec would cause the BMC to be buggy and would immediately be noticed as it would likely cause the entire board to be buggy.
This is not a trivial hack they are discussing here. It would need to get through all of SM's quality control. The design modification would need to be invisible to QC/QA. The hardware/software would need to be transparant with no current draws and no bugs or it will be noticed. I doubt even the NSA could do this, they typically just hack the firmwares.
How on earth could they modify supermicro's design without Supermicro knowing? If SM doesn't design their own boards that might be possible but I doubt that's the case.
About the only way I can see something like this type of compromise would be useful would be to either replace the aspeed BMC or hook something into the BMC.
Both would likely be noticed by a QC check of the boards. The sneaky one would be to replace the whole Aspeed BMC with a custom chip but you'd have the problem of having to run the BMC exactly the same so the firmware will actually run. This would be incredibly difficult to design and implement.
California absolutely has the the right to do this within their own borders. The federal government foreclosed their ability to regulate this when they took away the title II regulation.
Remember when the Obama FCC tried to implement net neutrality rules while keeping data services outside title II designation? Well the court ruling that struck down those rules found the FCC has no authority to regulate unless they declare the service a Title II service. So when the new Trump FCC rolled back the Title II designation they removed all regulatory authority from themselves, so the little statement the FCC put in the rule that foreclosed all state action is actually as unenforceable as the the original net neutrality rules because the FCC doesn't have authority to regulate without a Title II deceleration.
This is what that original court ruling laid out in minute detail. Congress granted the FCC authority to regulate, but ONLY when it's a title II service. Everyone warned the new FCC that when they removed the title II designation that they were in fact opening up to state level regulation. I have no doubt in my mind that California is going to win this and it's all cause the Trump FCC rolled back the Title II designation.
The courts have always been allowed to force you to reveal a password, there is work going on to roll this back but the sad fact is the supreme court ruled many years ago (back in the 80's) that the pa sword to a computer was no different than the lock to a safe and it could be compelled. Passwords and pin codes are routinely forced by courts to be disclosed.
Now that we have things like smartphones that contain literally your entire life there is talk about rolling this power back and requiring high standards but right now any court can force you to disclose passwords without any retaliation.
You really should provide the disclaimer that you are not a lawyer because your advice is bullshit.
They absolutely can force you to provide the pin code or password, they do so routinely in the court system and the process is accepted under current supreme court precedent. If you refuse to provide them they can hold you in contempt of court and basically incarcerate you until you agree to provide them essentially up to life in prison and you can't appeal contempt of court rulings.
You might not like it that it's like this but that's the truth. You can be compelled to provide passwords and pins, they are not any safer than using biometric type ID's.
You have companies like Fox that are clearly being run by the republican party. Party operatives with little to no media experience are division heads and operating officers in the company. They routinely lie and mislead on public airwaves. Their programming is routinely opinion based and often directed by GOP operatives. You can frequently catch their "news" reporters reading directly from statements provided by the GOP to all their members as if this information is coming directly from the reporter and not this outside coordination.
FOX at this point is little more than the propaganda channel at this point. They are caught routinely reading from GOP talking points handed to them by the party.
And they're worried about google? Really their "concern" is that they don't control the internet like they do traditional media. They can't manipulate Google news with talking points created by GOP committees. They can't get Facebook to post these talking points to everyone's feed.
The sad thing is that if we still had the fairness doctrine neither party would be able to control the traditional media either. And bullshit going on in traditional media right now is because the Internet disrupted the business model and the snakes were able to get in and start controlling the media.
It's funny they're angry about this because in the 1930's the US learned the danger of organizations and people gaining this type of media control when Randolph Hearst got control of the media at the time. This caused the FCC rules like the fairness doctrine to be created to prevent this direct type of propaganda from being created (Hearst used to use this very type of propaganda all the time). The funny bit this time is they aren't worried about the danger of the propaganda, they're worried the "wrong" people could control this propaganda.
Yes, there isn't necessarily a correlation that a shortage of intel CPU's would result in increased AMD sales.
But that lack of correlation goes both ways. We simply don't know if it's having an affect either direction. My personal opinion is that based on recent stock moves and upgrades it has in fact had an impact in the sales channel on AMD shipments, or AMD chips are very popular in their own right, and it appears from monitoring retail channels that AMD is selling them as fast as they can make them but again that could be unrelated to the Intel supply problem, and just due to the popularity of the AMD chips.
Without direct access to both Intel and AMD sales numbers directly from both companies you can't know for certain. The number I would be most interested in would be at the major cloud providers. They account for almost 30% of the market for server chips at this point, their is only a handful of majors (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc) and they are not anchored to any particular silicon. The cloud providers can easily and seamlessly change chip vendors and even architectures with little impact to their business so they represent the best view into how good any server chips actually are. If you've got that data, share it.
I'd agree we are a bit more materialistic, but not much more than's reasonable for a change in generation.
Most Millennial's got stuck with an economy and an education funding system that basically screwed them over far worse than any prior generation. Most are simply not in a financial position to buy homes, but if they were I believe they would, it's simply that they cannot due to debt loads. I think they will be more accepting of college like situations (renting, sharing housing, etc) after graduation than prior generations because they don't have the financial resources to curb those behaviors.
I think the Millennials will actually be good leaders and political stewards in the same way the "greatest generation' was after having experienced the great depression. Millennials were hit the hardest of any group during the great recessions and those lessons and impacts will be long lasting.
Gen-X is just as politically active, the problem is Gen-X is about 1/3rd the size of a normal generation so the votes don't count for much as the boomers can dominate our voting. Our advantage comes with the Millenials, who are just and cynical and family oriented.
I'd argue Gen-X and millennial differ very little political and life views on the whole and Millenials outnumber both Boomers and Gen-X combined. Each year as more and more of Millenials reach the age when they start voting regularly they are beginning to shape the electorate away from the Boomer dominated system of stupidity.
That's not true, in the 90's they called us all a bunch of lazy shiftless flannel wearing losers who would amount to nothing.
I remember years of news articles and tv shows about how GenX was going to be the end of America. Kinda like how they treat Millennial today.
Honestly is anyone surprised that age leads to wisdom about scams? If that was the real title of the article then people would roll their eyes and move on but they through in the millennial tag to draw eyeballs and everyone, particularly the baby boomers jumped in to gloat like the losers they are.
You seem to be conflating molten salt with molten sodium. They are completely different. Sodium by itself is highly reactive, whereas sodium chloride (though somewhat corrosive) is quite stable. If you hit a LFTR with a bunker-buster bomb, it would indeed spray radioactive molten salt around the countryside. But it would rapidly solidify and fall to the ground, where it would be easy to find with a geiger counter. (Unlike radioactive steam which just floats away...)
Maybe you should investigate the chemical composition, it's not molten NaCl. It's typically a lithium flouride or berylium flouride based salt as in previous designs, though the recent tendency in these designs has been to super heated liquid sodium for heat transfer.
The reason for that pressure vessel is because water boils at 100C, and nuclear reactors are just getting warmed up around 400C. So a water-cooled reactor needs plumbing that can handle 150 atmospheres of pressure, just so they can run the reactor at the barely efficient temperature of 300C. But since FLiBe doesn't even melt until 360C (and doesn't boil until well over 1400C) you have a very heat-dense material that can both transport your fuel (enabling on-the-fly reprocessing) and cool your reactor over a broad range of heat regimes... and it does all this at ambient pressure. So you don't need that $20B pressure vessel in the first place.
The reason for the pressure vessel and the surrounding concrete sarcophagus (the huge cost in any reactor) is to contain a meltdown. The difference between Chernobyl and Fukashima was Japan had a full concrete sarcophagus containment chamber (which eventually leaked) whereas Chernobyl had no containment vessel so when it went critical, exploded and then began to burn there was nothing to contain the radioactivity that rained down on the surrounding countryside.
Nuclear's an uneconomical boondoggle. It's not cost effective, it's dangerous and it's accidents are catastrophic. There is literally no reason to pursue it, we have better, cheaper, cleaner means of energy production.
So just because we tried it, polluted a huge area and generated a couple hundred metric tons of contaminated material it's all good, we just didn't do it right that time?
Color me skeptical that in any system where cost is a consideration you're going to likely end up with a superfund site.
Reprocessing is hard and it generates a lot of waste material used in the reprocessing, that's just a fact of using chemical seperation processes. Is it worth generating 100 Tons of highly radioactive material to reprocess a ton of nuclear material?
If by proven you means experimented with but no actual safety, reliability, cost or power generating capability analysis done.
Running a little experimental reactor for a couple years tells you nothing about the commercial viability let alone safety. One of the biggest problems with "molten salt" or liquid sodium reactors is that if the reaction vessel holding this mix of highly radioactive sodium and uranium mixture is every directly exposed to water or oxygen it will explode, burn and fill the atmosphere with a highly radioactive cloud of burning sodium which will then rain down on the surrounding countryside.
Reactor designs like molten salt reactors always fall apart as viable designs when they start talking about surviving things like earthquakes or other natural disasters. This is because to engineer around those disasters you have to do stuff like the current Georgia reactor under construction and spend $20 Billion building a pressure vessel that can survey tidal waves and earthquakes that wipe out the rest of the plant. And when that eventual power is priced at $0.25 kw/hr it's completely uneconomical.
The government doesn't research these "innovative" reactors because every time in the past they've tried the site ended up a superfund site. Every Single Time.