Why does a judge have to rule on an out of court settlement? AFAIK there is no law that allows a judge to force a plaintiff to continue with a tort they wish to drop.
Let's paraphase the post your replied to, and your post
I want to stream movies from several SMB shares without needing to install a transcoding PMS (possibly because one of them is Network Attached Storage so installing a PMS would be impossible)
There are two reasons for this, only one of which you can do anything about. The first is synonym matching. That's where you search for something like, I don't know, "website" and it will match "web page" as well. (I'm sure there are better examples). This is the one you can do something about, by putting +website, which forces it to appear as-is. You can also get this by putting a single word in quotes.
The second reason is that google matches not only text on the page, but also frequent text in anchors that link to it. That is to say, even if Slashdot didn't actually have the word "Slashdot" anywhere on it, it would still show up as the first match because of all of the people linking to it with the word Slashdot in their anchor text somewhere. This is the one that you can't do anything about. I do wish you could put something beside a keyword to tell Google to only show websites that contain that keyword, without any fancy stuff. (Though for all I know, maybe the + operator does that too...)
The third is that Google can't crawl every website every second. (Three, there are three reasons.) Dynamic pages will always be slightly out of date, so if a Slashdot article slips off the front page between being crawled and when you search, you'll be frustrated. That's mostly avoided because if you match, say, a Slashdot article, your top link will almost always be a link to the actual article+comments, rather than to the front page. Even still, if you find a match to a comment in a Slashdot article, when you click the link that comment might be collapsed, and thus will not show up in a text search unless the keyword was in the first handful of words. There are plenty of non-Slashdot examples as well, I'm sure.
Fourth, a fanatical devotion to the pope...four...I'll just come in again shall I?
Isn't their belief, possibly based on the fact that they have never even heard of the person you are so poorly impersonating prior to the event, evidence that your terribly bad impersonation was still credible none-the-less?
No.
Sure, the law apparently also talks about Intent..
Intent is one of the most well defined terms in law. Almost all criminal law is based around intent.
I was going to say the same thing. It strikes me as hipster bullshit. "I'd rather have 1 person absolutely fanatically devoted to my game, than 10,000 who thought it was OK, even though I'd still have that same one person fanatically devoted!" That's just absurd. OK, if that one person is a hipster too, maybe they wouldn't still have them "Man, I liked this game when nobody liked it. Now it's too mainstream, SELLOUTS"
Google can't reasonably be held responsible for them.
Most countries follow the "eggshell skull" rule. This rule states that a plaintiff in a tort is liable for the harm as it happened, not as they intended. The titular example is the person who shoves a fellow bar patron up against a wall, which due to his thin or "egghshell" skull (A medical condition) kills him. He is civilly responsible for that death, even though a minor shove up against a wall should not be expected to cause any lasting harm, let alone death. Because he was wrong to do it, so he must take responsibility for absolutely anything that happens because of that wrong doing. Another example would be throwing a PBJ sandwich at somebody, and they end up being allergic to peanuts. You didn't know, you thought it would just splat on their face and teach them a lesson, not potentially kill them. However, it was not the victims fault for not alerting you in advance.
So, in this case, Google CAN be held responsible for the aggravation of this woman's mental condition. But only if they are first found to have wrongfully the picture in the first place. The eggshell skull rule simply says that IF you commit a tort, you are responsible for all harm that results, regardless of how exceptional that harm end up being due to circumstances unknown to you at the time. However, without the tort, there is no case. So, if I say to a woman with a mental illness "Good day, ma'am" and this triggers some sort of episode, I am not legally responsible, because a friendly greeting is not a tort. (In most jurisdictions I hope)
No, it probably had one kind of clicker. This is a patent on allowing more than one kind of device to send the signal that the base station receives. That's an incredible innovation. That's why TVs compatible with universal remotes were patented. Imagine the technological innovation that had to go into televisions to allow them to properly respond to signals coming from multiple different types of devices!
Great. A VGA Cable costs $5. A DVI cable costs $25, and that's if you order from a really cheap vendor, and you have to pay shipping on that shit. If you go to Best Buy, they have their $50 gold plated one. If that's in stock at all. Usually it's just the $100+ Monster DVI cable...Fucking wonderful.
And what's to prevent retailers from burying competitors by posting smack about them, or paying SEO companies to post smack about them, now that Google makes a (naive) attempt to evaluate semantics?
Google has altered their PageRank algorithm to not give back linking points to bad reviews
Any other questions that could be answered by reading even just the first half of the first sentence in the summary?
In the user's mind. If you use public key encryption, Firefox only needs to store the public key on-disk in order to read the list. If Microsoft or Apple or Google reads the public key, all they can do is read the list of installed plugins and extensions. They cannot add to the list without using the public key to crack the private key, which is incredibly resource intensive just to install a browser toolbar on ONE SINGLE USER'S machine.
Of course, you are still correct in that this can be trivially defeated by just by generating a new keypair, re-encrypting the list with your new private key, and replacing Firefox's stored public key with the new one. But this will reset the user's password to whatever you have chosen. If the user is occasionally (or always?) prompted for their password, and it suddenly doesn't match, this will immediately alert them. And at any rate, Microsoft, Apple, or Google wouldn't want to have headlines about how they are erasing user passwords just to install obnoxious toolbars. It wouldn't protect against actual trojan attacks, though periodic password prompting would at least make the user aware of the tampering.
Obviously, his answer to the question of "should you cheat, too?" is "yes", and he started by cheating his way around my preferences that exclude all kdawson articles;)
They can't link to Righthaven because Righthaven doesn't print the article. The Las Vegas Review Journal does. It's bad press when a newspaper sues a reader for reprinting a single quote from the paper, so they "sell" their publications rights to a puppet company they run, and that sues people. Yes, in this instance it's the entire article, but they are scattershotting lawsuits at any matches. They have previously sued for putting a sentance or two in a summary and linking to the article. That is, they would sue Slashdot in a heartbeat;)
Most newspapers are for-profit, so there goes that claim. Hard to sell newspapers when others are giving away your work for free (Yes I"m ignoring the fact the lvrj posted it on their website).
However, they are not being sued by the LVRJ, they are being sued by a puppet corporation that LVRJ sold the article to in exchange for a license to keep using it in the LVRJ. So, since their puppet corporation is not publishing it and is not making any money off of it except by suing, that will be a hard sell. If anything, since the only way this puppet corporation makes money is by being sold articles so it can attack, republishing LVRJ increases their revenues, so the effect is "positive";) Not that I think it's right to republish entire articles, even with permission, just because you are a non-profit. But since they aren't being sued by the LVRJ...
People in England talk differently. Instead of asking for your "numbers" they'll ask for your "numerics". Technically not correct English since "numeric" is an adjective. But we say lots of incorrect things. "I should have!" is only the short form for "I should have done!" (Expressing regret) instead of "I should have it!" (Expressing belief that you possess something, or probably possess something, or that if things were proper/fair/just/etc you WOULD posses something) by CONVENTION, but by explicit meaning. But, it's fine, because that's how people talk, they leave things implied. In England you can say "numeric" leaving it implied as "numeric data" or "numeric value" or, in this case "numeric label" which is the textbook definition of an IP Address.
An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label
As for "IP Holder, a holder, legally (and these are LAWYERS in case you forgot), is "one that holds or occupies the property of another by agreement and esp. under a lease". Guess what the DHCP calls it when a client has been assigned an IP address? A lease! Looks like holder is probably the best way to refer to somebody who has been assigned a particular IP address. Because, regardless of what computer got assigned that address, and what person or persons were using that computer, the ISP's client is the one who is "holding" that address. That is to say, they are the one assigned the legal right to use that particular address under the conditions of their signed service agreement. I therefore suggest that "IP Holder" is more correct than any term you would think to use for it, and certainly more succinct.
It's like laughing at that Senator for saying the internet is tubes, like, "It's pipes, not tubes!"
That's just silly, you'd have to throw out all current TVs and make new ones that can't work with current AV systems. I mean, I know YOU think it's silly, but the mods disagree;)
More likely you'll just get Fox style 1 hour ads. Bones has been rendered nearly unwatchable. There was an episode last season where the secondary storyline was entirely about a character's new Honda. And, there have been others. Everybody comments on it. "Wow, a minivan, but you're not a soccer mom!" "Haha, that's a common misconception, actually minivans are great for everybody. As an artist, I love the stow and go seating for bringing a large piece to an art gallery! Plus it has a reverse camera, so downtown parking is a breeze even if the back is full of paintings!" Now they all have iPhones and whenever they make calls it zooms in on the iPhone to show how cool the multitouch gestures are. And they all use iPads instead of actual paper files. Instead of dropping a folder of pictures "do you recognize any of these men" they give them an iPad and zoom in on them swiping each time to go from one picture to the next. And the characters and the suspects always comment "Wow these iPads are so cool, everybody should be using these instead of paper files!" Every fucking episode. They had a 1 hour ad for Avatar, too. The entire episode was about the characters lined up for the premiere of Avatar.
And, actually, I think just about every single cop show on TV, this season, has switched over to using iPhones and iPads instead of normal phones and paper files. Because it makes sense that field agents would want to use phones that get like 1 hour of talk time between two-hour long charge periods.
And that's only the beginning. Next season I hear the main story arc for CSI will be about a serial killer who kills people using Pepsi, and they will have to enlist the help of good, wholesome Coca-Cola mascot Santa Clause to finally catch him. House will start out just throwing in "If only our patient had All State insurance, the treatment would be covered. Oh well, guess he dies, but at least I know why!" but rapidly degenerate into just 1 hour infomercials about health insurance. There's already a new Nick cartoon about characters who fight evil mutants that use the power of foot odor for world domination. Their only weakness? Sketchers' new odor fighting fabrics. Seriously.
In the end, I'd think that all of the blatant and poorly done product placement would get people mad. But it appears that everybody is totally fine with it. I thought people would object to being shown ads at the theater, but now they're up to 30 minutes long. How soon before you won't be allowed to go in late because "You missed the ads" I wonder...
He didn't eat "only junkfood". Haven't you learned? Never trust the summary, and only trust TFA sparingly;) He got 2/3 of his calories from twinkies, doritos, and other junk food. The other 1/3 came from protein shakes and canned green beans. Plus he also took multivitamins to avoid malnutrition. And, he didn't just lose weight. He lost fat, and maintained muscle mass, as well as improving his cholesterol ratio and lowering his triglyceride levels. The point of this isn't that nutrition is meaningless, it's that you can eat healthy, but still too much. Well, more like the converse, you can eat crap, but a small amount of crap, and still do OK. At least, better than he was doing before. So, when people say "Sugars = triglycerides = dead", this is only true if you go overboard. You (apparently) can get away with eating cake daily, if it's a small amount of cake.
This is a feature of an SD card. They are designed to work this way. A media player is allowed to take ownership of a card. From that point on, any other device in the world will not be able to access the card in any way. It can't be reformatted. As far as any other device is concerned, you didn't put an SD card in at all. It's completely and irreversibly toast. Working as designed. They are meant to do this. MS didn't do any weird shit to fry the card. It used it as intended. If you don't want your card doing what it's designed to, in a device working as designed, you shouldn't have undone all those screws to get at the internal card slot, cut the warning label telling you not to replace the card if you want to ever use it again, and inserted it?
No, you cannot reformat it. Because, you're right that it's making a disk-spanning file system so the SD card+NAND are treated as one file system. But it also password locks the SD card, meaning it'll never again be able to work in another device (EVER). That's a seldom-touted feature of an SD card, and what the SECURE in the name means. (And when I say it'll never ever work in something else ever again, I mean unless the Windows 7 uses the password it locked it with to unlock it again, which it can't and won't).
Well, a StarTrek style replicator would be incredibly dangerous. Replicating a bottle cap involves as much energy as a hydrogen bomb. A fuck-up making Picard's Earl Gray tea would be enough to destroy the planet!
At any rate, remember that Star Trek's utopia came about after brutal class warfare, where a huge portion of the population was herded at gunpoint into welfare ghettos. Then some social upheaval and revolt that lead to thermonuclear war. With some brutal fiefdoms run by genetically engineered supermen somewhere in there, too. The few million? (or was it hundred-thousand) survivors hiding in the wilderness, or ruled by warlords in brutal enclaves only survived because the arrival of aliens told us we weren't alone, and sparked a grand feeling of human strength and unity. Though, it's highly optimistic in that we just cast off xenophobic aggression, instead of turning it from human "outsiders" to real outsiders.
Anyways, and I'm stealing this idea wholesale from David Wong, the middle ground between Post scarcity = utopia where everybody gets anything they want for free (star trek, Culture, etc), and Post Scarcity = Brutal Dictatorship where one government uses this replicator/cold fusion/etc technology to rule with a (possibly velvet gloved) iron fist (such as the Sten novels), is the Way of Bullshit. Basically, if you can grow a steak in a vat for 50 cents, and it tastes as good as the finest real steak, then you just sell your free range organic steaks anyway, and people will think they taste better by virtue of their rarity and price. AKA the Audiophile effect, where if you replace a $1 label with a $100 label on a cable, they can all hear the incredible difference. And that's assuming that the vat meat does taste the same. Presumably, it would be a long long time from now before it ever gets up to snuff, so the purists who say real equals better would have a lot of history of being completely right behind them when replicated/vat grown food DOES catch up. And the same sort of thing for non-food, too. My shoes may cost 100x as much, but they are hand-made in China, not replicated like your cheap shit! In case that's not enough, tell people (and this is 100% true) that if they don't buy real, they will hurt the economy and lose their job! See, the free market is a lot more resilient than people think. But the other concerns are still true. If a replicator can make a TV, then all of the electronics makers have a huge vested interest in DRM to prevent replicating unauthorized patterns. And more so than with other DRM, they have a very good case for why. If you're replicating shoes, not much can go wrong. If they have sharp pointy bits or aren't comfortable, no great harm done. A bad TV pattern can mean electrocution or explosion. There's a legitimate concern in allowing replicators to just make any old pattern. So, if corporations have a lot of backing for Music and Movie DRM, they'll have a whole lot more behind Replicator DRM. At least for electronics and other things that can go horribly wrong if the Creative Commons licensed pattern you used is no good. To an extent that can be mitigated by government testing, and having the replicators only make government approved products...which is fine, I'm sure you can get something like the FSF, a collective that gets donations and pays for testing of major "Open Source" patterns. Just so long as those replicator makers, the same ones who don't want you replicating TVs, decide to allow all government approved patterns, rather than just their own;) They'll have an argument that they don't see why they should be FORCED to allow competition like that, I'm sure.
Either way, it's not likely to be a sudden thing, but very gradual, as 3D printing and related replicator-like stuff slowly progresses.
Slashdot Mirror
Because this is not damages.
Why does a judge have to rule on an out of court settlement? AFAIK there is no law that allows a judge to force a plaintiff to continue with a tort they wish to drop.
Now your response:
There are two reasons for this, only one of which you can do anything about. The first is synonym matching. That's where you search for something like, I don't know, "website" and it will match "web page" as well. (I'm sure there are better examples). This is the one you can do something about, by putting +website, which forces it to appear as-is. You can also get this by putting a single word in quotes.
The second reason is that google matches not only text on the page, but also frequent text in anchors that link to it. That is to say, even if Slashdot didn't actually have the word "Slashdot" anywhere on it, it would still show up as the first match because of all of the people linking to it with the word Slashdot in their anchor text somewhere. This is the one that you can't do anything about. I do wish you could put something beside a keyword to tell Google to only show websites that contain that keyword, without any fancy stuff. (Though for all I know, maybe the + operator does that too...)
The third is that Google can't crawl every website every second. (Three, there are three reasons.) Dynamic pages will always be slightly out of date, so if a Slashdot article slips off the front page between being crawled and when you search, you'll be frustrated. That's mostly avoided because if you match, say, a Slashdot article, your top link will almost always be a link to the actual article+comments, rather than to the front page. Even still, if you find a match to a comment in a Slashdot article, when you click the link that comment might be collapsed, and thus will not show up in a text search unless the keyword was in the first handful of words. There are plenty of non-Slashdot examples as well, I'm sure.
Fourth, a fanatical devotion to the pope...four...I'll just come in again shall I?
I agree, at this point it would just be throwing out the baby to spite your face.
No.
Intent is one of the most well defined terms in law. Almost all criminal law is based around intent.
* Android 2.2 update bricking nearly all of the Bell branded Samsung Galaxies S that installed it.
Why RTFA when you can just read the highest rated comments? ;)
I was going to say the same thing. It strikes me as hipster bullshit. "I'd rather have 1 person absolutely fanatically devoted to my game, than 10,000 who thought it was OK, even though I'd still have that same one person fanatically devoted!" That's just absurd. OK, if that one person is a hipster too, maybe they wouldn't still have them "Man, I liked this game when nobody liked it. Now it's too mainstream, SELLOUTS"
Most countries follow the "eggshell skull" rule. This rule states that a plaintiff in a tort is liable for the harm as it happened, not as they intended. The titular example is the person who shoves a fellow bar patron up against a wall, which due to his thin or "egghshell" skull (A medical condition) kills him. He is civilly responsible for that death, even though a minor shove up against a wall should not be expected to cause any lasting harm, let alone death. Because he was wrong to do it, so he must take responsibility for absolutely anything that happens because of that wrong doing. Another example would be throwing a PBJ sandwich at somebody, and they end up being allergic to peanuts. You didn't know, you thought it would just splat on their face and teach them a lesson, not potentially kill them. However, it was not the victims fault for not alerting you in advance.
So, in this case, Google CAN be held responsible for the aggravation of this woman's mental condition. But only if they are first found to have wrongfully the picture in the first place. The eggshell skull rule simply says that IF you commit a tort, you are responsible for all harm that results, regardless of how exceptional that harm end up being due to circumstances unknown to you at the time. However, without the tort, there is no case. So, if I say to a woman with a mental illness "Good day, ma'am" and this triggers some sort of episode, I am not legally responsible, because a friendly greeting is not a tort. (In most jurisdictions I hope)
No, it probably had one kind of clicker. This is a patent on allowing more than one kind of device to send the signal that the base station receives. That's an incredible innovation. That's why TVs compatible with universal remotes were patented. Imagine the technological innovation that had to go into televisions to allow them to properly respond to signals coming from multiple different types of devices!
Great. A VGA Cable costs $5. A DVI cable costs $25, and that's if you order from a really cheap vendor, and you have to pay shipping on that shit. If you go to Best Buy, they have their $50 gold plated one. If that's in stock at all. Usually it's just the $100+ Monster DVI cable...Fucking wonderful.
Any other questions that could be answered by reading even just the first half of the first sentence in the summary?
Encrypted with a key stored where?
In the user's mind. If you use public key encryption, Firefox only needs to store the public key on-disk in order to read the list. If Microsoft or Apple or Google reads the public key, all they can do is read the list of installed plugins and extensions. They cannot add to the list without using the public key to crack the private key, which is incredibly resource intensive just to install a browser toolbar on ONE SINGLE USER'S machine.
Of course, you are still correct in that this can be trivially defeated by just by generating a new keypair, re-encrypting the list with your new private key, and replacing Firefox's stored public key with the new one. But this will reset the user's password to whatever you have chosen. If the user is occasionally (or always?) prompted for their password, and it suddenly doesn't match, this will immediately alert them. And at any rate, Microsoft, Apple, or Google wouldn't want to have headlines about how they are erasing user passwords just to install obnoxious toolbars. It wouldn't protect against actual trojan attacks, though periodic password prompting would at least make the user aware of the tampering.
Obviously, his answer to the question of "should you cheat, too?" is "yes", and he started by cheating his way around my preferences that exclude all kdawson articles ;)
My subordinate clauses got tangled. "without permission, even with a citation".
They can't link to Righthaven because Righthaven doesn't print the article. The Las Vegas Review Journal does. It's bad press when a newspaper sues a reader for reprinting a single quote from the paper, so they "sell" their publications rights to a puppet company they run, and that sues people. Yes, in this instance it's the entire article, but they are scattershotting lawsuits at any matches. They have previously sued for putting a sentance or two in a summary and linking to the article. That is, they would sue Slashdot in a heartbeat ;)
However, they are not being sued by the LVRJ, they are being sued by a puppet corporation that LVRJ sold the article to in exchange for a license to keep using it in the LVRJ. So, since their puppet corporation is not publishing it and is not making any money off of it except by suing, that will be a hard sell. If anything, since the only way this puppet corporation makes money is by being sold articles so it can attack, republishing LVRJ increases their revenues, so the effect is "positive" ;) Not that I think it's right to republish entire articles, even with permission, just because you are a non-profit. But since they aren't being sued by the LVRJ...
People in England talk differently. Instead of asking for your "numbers" they'll ask for your "numerics". Technically not correct English since "numeric" is an adjective. But we say lots of incorrect things. "I should have!" is only the short form for "I should have done!" (Expressing regret) instead of "I should have it!" (Expressing belief that you possess something, or probably possess something, or that if things were proper/fair/just/etc you WOULD posses something) by CONVENTION, but by explicit meaning. But, it's fine, because that's how people talk, they leave things implied. In England you can say "numeric" leaving it implied as "numeric data" or "numeric value" or, in this case "numeric label" which is the textbook definition of an IP Address.
As for "IP Holder, a holder, legally (and these are LAWYERS in case you forgot), is "one that holds or occupies the property of another by agreement and esp. under a lease". Guess what the DHCP calls it when a client has been assigned an IP address? A lease! Looks like holder is probably the best way to refer to somebody who has been assigned a particular IP address. Because, regardless of what computer got assigned that address, and what person or persons were using that computer, the ISP's client is the one who is "holding" that address. That is to say, they are the one assigned the legal right to use that particular address under the conditions of their signed service agreement. I therefore suggest that "IP Holder" is more correct than any term you would think to use for it, and certainly more succinct.
It's like laughing at that Senator for saying the internet is tubes, like, "It's pipes, not tubes!"
That's just silly, you'd have to throw out all current TVs and make new ones that can't work with current AV systems. I mean, I know YOU think it's silly, but the mods disagree ;)
More likely you'll just get Fox style 1 hour ads. Bones has been rendered nearly unwatchable. There was an episode last season where the secondary storyline was entirely about a character's new Honda. And, there have been others. Everybody comments on it. "Wow, a minivan, but you're not a soccer mom!" "Haha, that's a common misconception, actually minivans are great for everybody. As an artist, I love the stow and go seating for bringing a large piece to an art gallery! Plus it has a reverse camera, so downtown parking is a breeze even if the back is full of paintings!" Now they all have iPhones and whenever they make calls it zooms in on the iPhone to show how cool the multitouch gestures are. And they all use iPads instead of actual paper files. Instead of dropping a folder of pictures "do you recognize any of these men" they give them an iPad and zoom in on them swiping each time to go from one picture to the next. And the characters and the suspects always comment "Wow these iPads are so cool, everybody should be using these instead of paper files!" Every fucking episode. They had a 1 hour ad for Avatar, too. The entire episode was about the characters lined up for the premiere of Avatar.
And, actually, I think just about every single cop show on TV, this season, has switched over to using iPhones and iPads instead of normal phones and paper files. Because it makes sense that field agents would want to use phones that get like 1 hour of talk time between two-hour long charge periods.
And that's only the beginning. Next season I hear the main story arc for CSI will be about a serial killer who kills people using Pepsi, and they will have to enlist the help of good, wholesome Coca-Cola mascot Santa Clause to finally catch him. House will start out just throwing in "If only our patient had All State insurance, the treatment would be covered. Oh well, guess he dies, but at least I know why!" but rapidly degenerate into just 1 hour infomercials about health insurance. There's already a new Nick cartoon about characters who fight evil mutants that use the power of foot odor for world domination. Their only weakness? Sketchers' new odor fighting fabrics. Seriously.
In the end, I'd think that all of the blatant and poorly done product placement would get people mad. But it appears that everybody is totally fine with it. I thought people would object to being shown ads at the theater, but now they're up to 30 minutes long. How soon before you won't be allowed to go in late because "You missed the ads" I wonder...
He didn't eat "only junkfood". Haven't you learned? Never trust the summary, and only trust TFA sparingly ;) He got 2/3 of his calories from twinkies, doritos, and other junk food. The other 1/3 came from protein shakes and canned green beans. Plus he also took multivitamins to avoid malnutrition. And, he didn't just lose weight. He lost fat, and maintained muscle mass, as well as improving his cholesterol ratio and lowering his triglyceride levels. The point of this isn't that nutrition is meaningless, it's that you can eat healthy, but still too much. Well, more like the converse, you can eat crap, but a small amount of crap, and still do OK. At least, better than he was doing before. So, when people say "Sugars = triglycerides = dead", this is only true if you go overboard. You (apparently) can get away with eating cake daily, if it's a small amount of cake.
This is a feature of an SD card. They are designed to work this way. A media player is allowed to take ownership of a card. From that point on, any other device in the world will not be able to access the card in any way. It can't be reformatted. As far as any other device is concerned, you didn't put an SD card in at all. It's completely and irreversibly toast. Working as designed. They are meant to do this. MS didn't do any weird shit to fry the card. It used it as intended. If you don't want your card doing what it's designed to, in a device working as designed, you shouldn't have undone all those screws to get at the internal card slot, cut the warning label telling you not to replace the card if you want to ever use it again, and inserted it?
No, you cannot reformat it. Because, you're right that it's making a disk-spanning file system so the SD card+NAND are treated as one file system. But it also password locks the SD card, meaning it'll never again be able to work in another device (EVER). That's a seldom-touted feature of an SD card, and what the SECURE in the name means. (And when I say it'll never ever work in something else ever again, I mean unless the Windows 7 uses the password it locked it with to unlock it again, which it can't and won't).
Well, a StarTrek style replicator would be incredibly dangerous. Replicating a bottle cap involves as much energy as a hydrogen bomb. A fuck-up making Picard's Earl Gray tea would be enough to destroy the planet!
At any rate, remember that Star Trek's utopia came about after brutal class warfare, where a huge portion of the population was herded at gunpoint into welfare ghettos. Then some social upheaval and revolt that lead to thermonuclear war. With some brutal fiefdoms run by genetically engineered supermen somewhere in there, too. The few million? (or was it hundred-thousand) survivors hiding in the wilderness, or ruled by warlords in brutal enclaves only survived because the arrival of aliens told us we weren't alone, and sparked a grand feeling of human strength and unity. Though, it's highly optimistic in that we just cast off xenophobic aggression, instead of turning it from human "outsiders" to real outsiders.
Anyways, and I'm stealing this idea wholesale from David Wong, the middle ground between Post scarcity = utopia where everybody gets anything they want for free (star trek, Culture, etc), and Post Scarcity = Brutal Dictatorship where one government uses this replicator/cold fusion/etc technology to rule with a (possibly velvet gloved) iron fist (such as the Sten novels), is the Way of Bullshit. Basically, if you can grow a steak in a vat for 50 cents, and it tastes as good as the finest real steak, then you just sell your free range organic steaks anyway, and people will think they taste better by virtue of their rarity and price. AKA the Audiophile effect, where if you replace a $1 label with a $100 label on a cable, they can all hear the incredible difference. And that's assuming that the vat meat does taste the same. Presumably, it would be a long long time from now before it ever gets up to snuff, so the purists who say real equals better would have a lot of history of being completely right behind them when replicated/vat grown food DOES catch up. And the same sort of thing for non-food, too. My shoes may cost 100x as much, but they are hand-made in China, not replicated like your cheap shit! In case that's not enough, tell people (and this is 100% true) that if they don't buy real, they will hurt the economy and lose their job! See, the free market is a lot more resilient than people think. But the other concerns are still true. If a replicator can make a TV, then all of the electronics makers have a huge vested interest in DRM to prevent replicating unauthorized patterns. And more so than with other DRM, they have a very good case for why. If you're replicating shoes, not much can go wrong. If they have sharp pointy bits or aren't comfortable, no great harm done. A bad TV pattern can mean electrocution or explosion. There's a legitimate concern in allowing replicators to just make any old pattern. So, if corporations have a lot of backing for Music and Movie DRM, they'll have a whole lot more behind Replicator DRM. At least for electronics and other things that can go horribly wrong if the Creative Commons licensed pattern you used is no good. To an extent that can be mitigated by government testing, and having the replicators only make government approved products...which is fine, I'm sure you can get something like the FSF, a collective that gets donations and pays for testing of major "Open Source" patterns. Just so long as those replicator makers, the same ones who don't want you replicating TVs, decide to allow all government approved patterns, rather than just their own ;) They'll have an argument that they don't see why they should be FORCED to allow competition like that, I'm sure.
Either way, it's not likely to be a sudden thing, but very gradual, as 3D printing and related replicator-like stuff slowly progresses.
That warning goes into effect in 1.5 hours. As opposed to last fucking night.