Its 100% your choice to leave.... HOWEVER its 100% OUR choice to let you back in and it will be on OUR terms, not yours.
I think if you're even halfway right that the developed world has devolved to this level of adolescent taunting, we all have far bigger things to worry about than whether the thermometer is going to read 78.2 or 78.5 a decade from now.
Well, sure, but I'm not sure of your point since I didn't say it was hard to provide notice to a given entity whose identity you know.
The issue is one of scale: you have to figure out exactly what companies are involved in providing various internet services, determine the exact legal entities of those companies that provide those services, serve all of them, and then file proof of service with the court. That's a lot of work in exchange for a very uncertain outcome. Yes, you can serve the big boys easily enough, but as I mentioned before those are the ones that seem less likely to block based solely on notice.
So now we had a wipeout from a bug fix for the last wipeout. This will, of course, be the last one... until the next one. Recovery from the prior debacle involved white-hat hackers taking it upon themselves to steal currency from vulnerable wallets (and eventually returning it) before black-hat hackers could. And this time around, apparently the only fix is basically to start an entirely new ecosystem and hope like hell everyone migrates.
Contrast this miserable chaos to the sweet lilting tones from the founders:
Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party interference.
For all the reasons I explained in my post when the magistrate judge's decision came out, this order likely cannot apply to ISPs, search engines, etc., because they weren't involved in the lawsuit (i.e., didn't have their proverbial day in court), and aren't in "active concert or participation" with Sci-Hub.
Sure enough, the actual decision here says: "ORDERED that any person or entity in active concert or participation with Defendant Sci-Hub and with notice of the injunction, including [basically every player involved in providing internet services], cease facilitating access...."
This is basically like saying "everyone to whom the injunction applies must obey it (if ACS can prove they knew about it)," which pretty much says nothing.
First, no individual ISP, search provider, DNS provider, etc. etc. is obligated to do anything until ACS provides them with legal notice of the injunction or otherwise proves they actually saw it (ACS can't just say "Your Honor, it's been all over the news -- they HAD to have heard about it").
Second, ACS would have to show that the party was not just agnostically providing access to / search results for / DNS records for / etc., Sci-Hub just like any other website, but that the party was actually colluding with Sci-Hub. ACS would be very unlikely to be able to do this in my view, and it would be expensive for them to try (some of the smaller players might just fold to avoid the bother, but the larger ones are unlikely to want to set a precedent of just rolling over and implying they're subject to a court order in a case to which they were not a party and had no opportunity to defend their interests).
In short, any blocking would be strictly voluntary, and I'd be fairly surprised if we see a whole lot of that.
After scoping out places with good stuff, presumably it would be trivial for an insider to find out when a given house in the portfolio was expecting a delivery and thus would be a sitting duck. And by waiting a few months between the scoping and the hit, there likely would be enough other deliveries in the interim that it would be extremely difficult to correlate the robberies with a specific Amazon employee (assuming there was even enough of a pattern to make the police think to go to Amazon in the first place).
I think I'll just stick with the (after 5+ years, still purely theoretical) risk of the occasional Amazon delivery box disappearing off my porch.
this smartwatch bug seems to be a first world problem if ever I saw one.
You could just as readily extend that to smartphones in general. Just about everything people do with smartphones falls under incremental efficiency, entertainment, or some combination of the two. It's way too easy to lose sight of how well society somehow managed to function without them.
As I said at the time, the amounts of stock the three execs sold in this particular date range were small percentages of their overall holdings and less than amounts they sold earlier in the year (and, I suspect if someone were to take the time to look, the prior year as well, etc.) If they really were trying to liquidate their holdings in response to bad news, they did a pretty poor job of it.
And look at it this way: if they really did know about the breach, they would have well understood that selling into that bad news would have triggered exactly the reaction it did, creating a huge amount of both civil and criminal risk in exchange for what was for them a fairly small amount of money.
I know conspiracy theories are fun, but I'm holding out hope for a thoughtful response this time.
Dude, it had to take you 10 times longer to type all that than it would have just to look. The previews of the first five hits answer the question without even clicking on the links.
That statement is either untrue or misleading, depending on how charitably one reads it.
Um, yeah. Look around the thread and note that the other person who didn't have turf to protect got it just fine. You're the only one feigning confusion, for reasons that are clear.
To look at the context, one should look further back in the thread, where there was a suggestion to buy nickels and melt them down, expecting an increase in the value of nickel would give an increased value.
Yup.
My point was to highlight that any increased value of the metals in a nickel coin due to nickel price rises would be small, because, at present, the value of the copper dominates the melt value.
Wow, all that from "[y]ou seem to have forgotten that nickels (the coins) are 75% copper." Talk about leaving your options open.
In any event, you've now pivoted to attacking a straw man. OP never said the melt value would increase proportionately to the price of nickel -- simply that there would be an increase. That's true because... well, math.
You tried (and continue to try) to deflect from this point.
It's pretty tough to try to deflect from a point before you make it.
Thus endeth the Critical Thinking 101 lesson for this thread. Happy trails.
Apparently, you either can't use Google or cannot read. Which is it?
You're deflecting, and understandably so. Let's review:
1. GP said that nickels have a melt value of $0.041. 2. You pointed out that nickels are 75% copper, apparently fancying yourself to be clever. 3. I suggested you confirm for yourself that the melt value of $0.041 was based on 25% nickel content, not 100%. 4. You did so and posted a link.
Seems like we're all in agreement except for the you being clever part.
The thread of the conversation is crystal clear and here for all to read, and all the invective and table pounding you care to dish out can't change the fact that you silently shifted to attacking a completely different post after I called out your cheap shot at the first one. If you honestly think you were discussing the same post throughout, perhaps a med rebalance is in order.
$238 million for 8630 employees over 5 years comes out to about $5,500/year/employee.
That's a lot less than I would have expected for an upper limit at this early of a stage in the proceedings, when numbers are typically very optimistic in order to leave headroom for surprises as the case evolves.
I'd imagine that means their reasonable expectation of what they'll be able to show is quite a bit less than that, and maybe quite a bit less than even the $100 million (about $2,300/year/employee).
Wow, I don't see how you could possibly be talking about the same comment you originally replied to. Oh, wait, you're not -- you're jumping to a completely different one. Apparently the spelling gaffe was the only thing you could find wrong in the original comment.
Remember, standing up for ACs in a discussion on Russian media influence makes you a useful idiot at best.
Ok, Senator McCarthy -- got it. (Do you ever take a step back and listen to yourself when you say stuff like this?)
But while we're on the subject, what does it make you if you believe that all ACs in a thread are the same poster (dude, really?)
On paper Qualcomm has to follow FRAND licensing. The complaint of Apple and others is that it does not.
Yes, customers of Qualcomm chips are contesting Qualcomm's pricing structure, but that's a different facet of FRAND. The big picture is that a FRAND commitment prevents Qualcomm from arbitrarily withholding licenses from competing modem manufacturers who want to sell their own chips.
Qualcomm doesn't have monopoly power over CDMA anymore if it ever did -- its foundational patents expired years ago, and any live patents that are truly necessary to later CDMA standards are likely subject to FRAND licensing. The proof in the pudding is that multiple other chipset manufacturers like MediaTek and HiSilicon have sold chips with CDMA support for some time, and Intel just released one of its own.
It's fairly telling that you can look at a post that so accurately and straightforwardly nails Ratzo as the spiteful, bitter little man he's become in direct contrast to the flowery story in his profile, and the only real response you can manage is to point out a single spelling gaffe.
Yes sometimes we're able to figure out who they are.
There's no "we" here, which was my whole point. The article is about Facebook, a private corporation with accountability to no one, chock full of employees who live for stuff like this to be true, and who as far as I can tell is just asking us to take its word that it is true.
That's fine for topics like the percentage of subscribers who post cat videos in a typical month. That's not at all fine for a topic like this.
Or do we just have to take their word that they've fortuitously found exactly what they set out to look for, from people who are supposedly foreign operatives but apparently are too dumb to cover their tracks?
"Best-case scenario" has a well-understood and measurable meaning -- it's not just a label you throw out when someone brings up something inconvenient to your position. If you have some specific criticism of either paper I cited, I'm happy to discuss.
make up for loss of arable land? [nationalgeographic.com]
And here we have what I've come to fondly term the "lilypad" style of debate -- after "CO2 is junk food for plants" didn't work out for you, you've simply moved on to a completely different proposition. I'll play one round with you, but likely not two.
The infographic you linked is definitely cool eye candy but doesn't say a thing about how much arable land would supposedly be lost, so I'm not quite sure what you want me to respond to. But more importantly, it doesn't even bother to explain the assumptions behind the data in general (other than admitting it used HADGEM2 which it characterizes as an "aggressive climate model" -- this seems about par for a consumer-level scare piece).
If you take the time to actually read the papers I linked, you'll note that the Deryng paper specifically looks at the net impact on both yield and water usage of anticipated climate changes outside the actual increase in CO2 levels. It goes out to 2080 rather than your 2050, also uses HADGEM2 as one of its models, and basically comes out at a break-even global yield. If you have something that comes to a dramatically different conclusion and actually shows its work, I'll be happy to take a look.
More accurately, CO2 is plant junk food. Higher CO2 levels produce less nutritious crops
Not sure why you provided a paywalled link when there are alternatives like this one.
You might read the actual study if you haven't -- the details suggest a lot less of a clear-cut situation even for the single variable the authors are trying to isolate. The generally single-digit decreases in zinc and iron varied widely per cultivar of a given crop, and some cultivars had little decrease or even had an increase in nutrient content when grown under elevated CO2.
So stack up a negligible decrease in certain nutrients, most of which likely could be avoided via cultivar selection and breeding, against likely double-digit increases in both gross yield and yield per unit of water.
True: the site says "the arbitration clause and class action waiver... does not apply to this cybersecurity incident." * * * On the other hand, if you take up their offer of ID protection, you take with it any terms they DO impose on you as a result.
It's not really clear what you think you're correcting. The ten words that for some strange reason you snipped from the middle of your quote make it clear that the terms you agree to in order to receive TrustedID protection due to this incident do NOT include a class action waiver and forced arbitration. Here's the full text:
2) No Waiver Of Rights For This Cyber Security Incident In response to consumer inquiries, we have made it clear that the arbitration clause and class action waiver included in the Equifax and TrustedID Premier terms of use does not apply to this cybersecurity incident.
But the implication that "without their specific waiver, it would apply" is false for the general public, who have not "REGISTER[ed] FOR, USE[d] OR PURCHASE[d] ANY PRODUCT." from Equifax or TrustedID.
What implication? OP said he never "signed any kind of contract with Equifax." As your quote aptly shows, there's a lot of airspace between that and the entire set of actions that could (save this waiver) force you into arbitration. Instead of getting down in the weeds on that, I just cut to the chase and showed why forced arbitration over this incident can't apply to him at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Its 100% your choice to leave.... HOWEVER its 100% OUR choice to let you back in and it will be on OUR terms, not yours.
I think if you're even halfway right that the developed world has devolved to this level of adolescent taunting, we all have far bigger things to worry about than whether the thermometer is going to read 78.2 or 78.5 a decade from now.
Well, sure, but I'm not sure of your point since I didn't say it was hard to provide notice to a given entity whose identity you know.
The issue is one of scale: you have to figure out exactly what companies are involved in providing various internet services, determine the exact legal entities of those companies that provide those services, serve all of them, and then file proof of service with the court. That's a lot of work in exchange for a very uncertain outcome. Yes, you can serve the big boys easily enough, but as I mentioned before those are the ones that seem less likely to block based solely on notice.
So now we had a wipeout from a bug fix for the last wipeout. This will, of course, be the last one... until the next one. Recovery from the prior debacle involved white-hat hackers taking it upon themselves to steal currency from vulnerable wallets (and eventually returning it) before black-hat hackers could. And this time around, apparently the only fix is basically to start an entirely new ecosystem and hope like hell everyone migrates.
Contrast this miserable chaos to the sweet lilting tones from the founders:
Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party interference .
Caveat emptor indeed.
For all the reasons I explained in my post when the magistrate judge's decision came out, this order likely cannot apply to ISPs, search engines, etc., because they weren't involved in the lawsuit (i.e., didn't have their proverbial day in court), and aren't in "active concert or participation" with Sci-Hub.
Sure enough, the actual decision here says: "ORDERED that any person or entity in active concert or participation with Defendant Sci-Hub and with notice of the injunction, including [basically every player involved in providing internet services], cease facilitating access...."
This is basically like saying "everyone to whom the injunction applies must obey it (if ACS can prove they knew about it)," which pretty much says nothing.
First, no individual ISP, search provider, DNS provider, etc. etc. is obligated to do anything until ACS provides them with legal notice of the injunction or otherwise proves they actually saw it (ACS can't just say "Your Honor, it's been all over the news -- they HAD to have heard about it").
Second, ACS would have to show that the party was not just agnostically providing access to / search results for / DNS records for / etc., Sci-Hub just like any other website, but that the party was actually colluding with Sci-Hub. ACS would be very unlikely to be able to do this in my view, and it would be expensive for them to try (some of the smaller players might just fold to avoid the bother, but the larger ones are unlikely to want to set a precedent of just rolling over and implying they're subject to a court order in a case to which they were not a party and had no opportunity to defend their interests).
In short, any blocking would be strictly voluntary, and I'd be fairly surprised if we see a whole lot of that.
No precedents were harmed in the making of this lawsuit.
Furthermore, some people have alarm systems and some don't, also something that will become evident to the Amazon delivery guy.
It's even worse than that. To use Amazon Key, you have to disable your home security system on delivery days.
After scoping out places with good stuff, presumably it would be trivial for an insider to find out when a given house in the portfolio was expecting a delivery and thus would be a sitting duck. And by waiting a few months between the scoping and the hit, there likely would be enough other deliveries in the interim that it would be extremely difficult to correlate the robberies with a specific Amazon employee (assuming there was even enough of a pattern to make the police think to go to Amazon in the first place).
I think I'll just stick with the (after 5+ years, still purely theoretical) risk of the occasional Amazon delivery box disappearing off my porch.
this smartwatch bug seems to be a first world problem if ever I saw one.
You could just as readily extend that to smartphones in general. Just about everything people do with smartphones falls under incremental efficiency, entertainment, or some combination of the two. It's way too easy to lose sight of how well society somehow managed to function without them.
As I said at the time, the amounts of stock the three execs sold in this particular date range were small percentages of their overall holdings and less than amounts they sold earlier in the year (and, I suspect if someone were to take the time to look, the prior year as well, etc.) If they really were trying to liquidate their holdings in response to bad news, they did a pretty poor job of it.
And look at it this way: if they really did know about the breach, they would have well understood that selling into that bad news would have triggered exactly the reaction it did, creating a huge amount of both civil and criminal risk in exchange for what was for them a fairly small amount of money.
I know conspiracy theories are fun, but I'm holding out hope for a thoughtful response this time.
Dude, it had to take you 10 times longer to type all that than it would have just to look. The previews of the first five hits answer the question without even clicking on the links.
Spolier alert: It's non-refundable.
It plans to launch tiered subscription offerings for its digital news business (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled . . .
That statement is either untrue or misleading, depending on how charitably one reads it.
Um, yeah. Look around the thread and note that the other person who didn't have turf to protect got it just fine. You're the only one feigning confusion, for reasons that are clear.
To look at the context, one should look further back in the thread, where there was a suggestion to buy nickels and melt them down, expecting an increase in the value of nickel would give an increased value.
Yup.
My point was to highlight that any increased value of the metals in a nickel coin due to nickel price rises would be small, because, at present, the value of the copper dominates the melt value.
Wow, all that from "[y]ou seem to have forgotten that nickels (the coins) are 75% copper." Talk about leaving your options open.
In any event, you've now pivoted to attacking a straw man. OP never said the melt value would increase proportionately to the price of nickel -- simply that there would be an increase. That's true because... well, math.
You tried (and continue to try) to deflect from this point.
It's pretty tough to try to deflect from a point before you make it.
Thus endeth the Critical Thinking 101 lesson for this thread. Happy trails.
Apparently, you either can't use Google or cannot read. Which is it?
You're deflecting, and understandably so. Let's review:
1. GP said that nickels have a melt value of $0.041.
2. You pointed out that nickels are 75% copper, apparently fancying yourself to be clever.
3. I suggested you confirm for yourself that the melt value of $0.041 was based on 25% nickel content, not 100%.
4. You did so and posted a link.
Seems like we're all in agreement except for the you being clever part.
You seem to have forgotten that nickels (the coins) are 75% copper.
A quick search for "nickel melt value" would have told you that $0.041 is based on the 25% nickel content.
The thread of the conversation is crystal clear and here for all to read, and all the invective and table pounding you care to dish out can't change the fact that you silently shifted to attacking a completely different post after I called out your cheap shot at the first one. If you honestly think you were discussing the same post throughout, perhaps a med rebalance is in order.
$238 million for 8630 employees over 5 years comes out to about $5,500/year/employee.
That's a lot less than I would have expected for an upper limit at this early of a stage in the proceedings, when numbers are typically very optimistic in order to leave headroom for surprises as the case evolves.
I'd imagine that means their reasonable expectation of what they'll be able to show is quite a bit less than that, and maybe quite a bit less than even the $100 million (about $2,300/year/employee).
Mueller... Hillary... Obama... Russia...
Wow, I don't see how you could possibly be talking about the same comment you originally replied to. Oh, wait, you're not -- you're jumping to a completely different one. Apparently the spelling gaffe was the only thing you could find wrong in the original comment.
Remember, standing up for ACs in a discussion on Russian media influence makes you a useful idiot at best.
Ok, Senator McCarthy -- got it. (Do you ever take a step back and listen to yourself when you say stuff like this?)
But while we're on the subject, what does it make you if you believe that all ACs in a thread are the same poster (dude, really?)
On paper Qualcomm has to follow FRAND licensing. The complaint of Apple and others is that it does not.
Yes, customers of Qualcomm chips are contesting Qualcomm's pricing structure, but that's a different facet of FRAND. The big picture is that a FRAND commitment prevents Qualcomm from arbitrarily withholding licenses from competing modem manufacturers who want to sell their own chips.
You can't build a cellphone that's functional without including CMDA technologies that aren't under a FRAND license agreement.
Which ones?
Wanting it to be different doesn't change the reality that Qualacomm has deep patents in cellular technologies, many of which they pioneered.
And those pioneering patents have expired, as I originally said. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, I'm happy to look at it.
No Qual Comm would mean no CDMA.
Qualcomm doesn't have monopoly power over CDMA anymore if it ever did -- its foundational patents expired years ago, and any live patents that are truly necessary to later CDMA standards are likely subject to FRAND licensing. The proof in the pudding is that multiple other chipset manufacturers like MediaTek and HiSilicon have sold chips with CDMA support for some time, and Intel just released one of its own.
Sewing?
It's fairly telling that you can look at a post that so accurately and straightforwardly nails Ratzo as the spiteful, bitter little man he's become in direct contrast to the flowery story in his profile, and the only real response you can manage is to point out a single spelling gaffe.
Yes sometimes we're able to figure out who they are.
There's no "we" here, which was my whole point. The article is about Facebook, a private corporation with accountability to no one, chock full of employees who live for stuff like this to be true, and who as far as I can tell is just asking us to take its word that it is true.
That's fine for topics like the percentage of subscribers who post cat videos in a typical month. That's not at all fine for a topic like this.
Or do we just have to take their word that they've fortuitously found exactly what they set out to look for, from people who are supposedly foreign operatives but apparently are too dumb to cover their tracks?
your best-case scenario gains
"Best-case scenario" has a well-understood and measurable meaning -- it's not just a label you throw out when someone brings up something inconvenient to your position. If you have some specific criticism of either paper I cited, I'm happy to discuss.
make up for loss of arable land? [nationalgeographic.com]
And here we have what I've come to fondly term the "lilypad" style of debate -- after "CO2 is junk food for plants" didn't work out for you, you've simply moved on to a completely different proposition. I'll play one round with you, but likely not two.
The infographic you linked is definitely cool eye candy but doesn't say a thing about how much arable land would supposedly be lost, so I'm not quite sure what you want me to respond to. But more importantly, it doesn't even bother to explain the assumptions behind the data in general (other than admitting it used HADGEM2 which it characterizes as an "aggressive climate model" -- this seems about par for a consumer-level scare piece).
If you take the time to actually read the papers I linked, you'll note that the Deryng paper specifically looks at the net impact on both yield and water usage of anticipated climate changes outside the actual increase in CO2 levels. It goes out to 2080 rather than your 2050, also uses HADGEM2 as one of its models, and basically comes out at a break-even global yield. If you have something that comes to a dramatically different conclusion and actually shows its work, I'll be happy to take a look.
More accurately, CO2 is plant junk food. Higher CO2 levels produce less nutritious crops
Not sure why you provided a paywalled link when there are alternatives like this one.
You might read the actual study if you haven't -- the details suggest a lot less of a clear-cut situation even for the single variable the authors are trying to isolate. The generally single-digit decreases in zinc and iron varied widely per cultivar of a given crop, and some cultivars had little decrease or even had an increase in nutrient content when grown under elevated CO2.
So stack up a negligible decrease in certain nutrients, most of which likely could be avoided via cultivar selection and breeding, against likely double-digit increases in both gross yield and yield per unit of water.
Would that we had more "junk food" like that.
True: the site says "the arbitration clause and class action waiver ... does not apply to this cybersecurity incident."
* * *
On the other hand, if you take up their offer of ID protection, you take with it any terms they DO impose on you as a result.
It's not really clear what you think you're correcting. The ten words that for some strange reason you snipped from the middle of your quote make it clear that the terms you agree to in order to receive TrustedID protection due to this incident do NOT include a class action waiver and forced arbitration. Here's the full text:
In response to consumer inquiries, we have made it clear that the arbitration clause and class action waiver included in the Equifax and TrustedID Premier terms of use does not apply to this cybersecurity incident
But the implication that "without their specific waiver, it would apply" is false for the general public, who have not "REGISTER[ed] FOR, USE[d] OR PURCHASE[d] ANY PRODUCT." from Equifax or TrustedID.
What implication? OP said he never "signed any kind of contract with Equifax." As your quote aptly shows, there's a lot of airspace between that and the entire set of actions that could (save this waiver) force you into arbitration. Instead of getting down in the weeds on that, I just cut to the chase and showed why forced arbitration over this incident can't apply to him at all.