Couldn't Ecuador officially employ him as an ambassador, now that he is a citizen? If the UK doesn't like his role as an ambassador, they can always kick him out of the country.
I am not a lawyer. However, I was an insurance agent responsible for the accounts of two large (in excess of $250 million a year) medical products manufacturers -- one was test equipment, and the other was pharmaceuticals. All it takes is "use of this product doubles your chances of acquiring condition X in the next ten years, never mind that your risk went from one in 100,000 to one in 50,000" to be successfully sued. The vast majority of people using the product are not harmed, and it is impossible to determine which people who get Condition X would have gotten it anyhow, and which would not have. Yet every single person using the product has standing to join in a class action lawsuit, and this is why such companies carry tens of millions of dollars in liability insurance -- because it is not possible to predict every single possible result of the use of their products, yet they are responsible for those results just the same.
"Your risk of being pwned by malicious actors has increased tenfold" is very much in the same sort of speculative realm as "use Celebrex, double your chances of Condition X", and such cases are pursued succesfully all the time. It's generally much more successful for the lawyers than for the class being represented of course, but that doesn't make it any less expensive for the manufacturer that is on the hook.
It doesn't matter if Intel intended to open up a security hole or not. The tort system in the U.S. is one of strict liability. If something goes wrong with your product, and you didn't explicitly say NOT to do that, then you're on the hook. It doesn't matter what your intentions were, only the result.
What happens when the symbolism gets co-opted by the targets? This has happened before, and the most recent case I can think of is Jewish forum posters choosing to put (((Echo Brackets))) on their handles.
The problem with what we have now is that since no state can have less than one representative, a state with fewer residents than the average district nationwide has disproportionate power in the House. Also, increasing the number of representatives decreases the power advantage of the rural states because the electors that correspond to senators will be diluted.
No slots (or if you're lucky, maybe M.2 slots) seem to be the order of the day in thin-and-light laptops, and that seems to be what the average person buys now -- and has been for several years. Telling them to upgrade RAM is tantamount to saying "your computer is obsolete".
As for those old laptops, I've rehabilitated a number of dual-core Merom laptops and put them back in service with family members and friends. They still work just fine, but they are admittedly hot, bulky, and noisy. They also (generally) have a 4 GB RAM limit by design, although they are 64-bit and the Merom architecture itself is not limited to 4 GB. I wouldn't want to sleep with one running by my bed 24/7 though, and I do that with the C720. It's my TV-driving machine, my Minecraft server, and my day-trip computer all in one. I certainly planned that purchase with the knowledge that the RAM was not upgradeable, but that the storage was.
Basically, if someone has a laptop from 2009 or later, they probably don't have to replace it. That's why laptop sales are weak, but it doesn't mean that there isn't value in the thin-and-light trends that have followed. It's just a different kind of value. Still, these machines are the new baseline, and it does mean "throw more RAM at it" is not an option in a lot of cases.
But lots of laptops now ship without DIMM slots. What you get when you buy it is all you will ever have. My Acer C720 has 4 GB of RAM, which is generally adequate, but I do hit the page file a lot. Fortunately, this is made tolerable by an SSD that pretty much saturates the SATA III bus on both reads and writes. (Even the stock 16GB Kingston SSD is really fast, but my 250 GB replacement is slightly faster.)
For a whole lot of people in a whole lot of situations, adding more RAM just isn't an option. It almost always is an option on a desktop PC, but that has been a shrinking piece of the computing pie for many years now, and can't really be considered a "typical use case" for Windows or Linux any longer.
Laptops don't go through the same degree of power variance that phones do, and also they are generally configured to run slower on battery anyhow. That's how they can advertise -- and actually deliver -- eight or nine hour run times.
I don't let my hacked Chromebook do any of that shit. No dimming the display, no throttling the CPU, no switching off the WiFi (because it doesn't always switch back on). It still runs three to three and a half hours with a Minecraft server running in the background. That's long enough for me to be "off the leash", as that was the optimistic runtime of laptops on batteries just ten years ago. Longer runtimes are nice, but I got quite used to not having them, and now I prefer to keep my experience as pleasant as possible rather than maximize battery life.
If I do have to replace the battery, it will be as simple as swapping out the SSD. Take off the back (13 screws), then the bracket retaining the part in question. Replace, and reassemble. It's a ten minute job, though the lack of NVRAM on Chromebooks does mean rEFInd is probably going to have a seizure on the first boot after the swap.
The population of Wyoming was estimated at 586,107 in 2015. If we were to re-allocate, then it would be done on the basis that each representative stands for 586,107 people as near as possible. The population of the country was 320 million at that time, so that would mean 546 representatives almost exactly (assuming DC gets one). Vermont's population was 626,042, so perhaps it would be more fair to set the population-per-representative to 605,000 or so. (Wyoming would still get one.)
That's the gist of the idea, but it would have to be modified slightly to accommodate states that would otherwise be left "in the cracks" as far as number of representatives. (Not such a huge problem with a large state, but it is if the options are one representative or two.) Thus, the actual population per representative might have to be tweaked mathematically to make the spread as fair as possible -- and this would have to be re-done every ten years, but we re-district every ten years already, so it's just adding one layer of complexity to a process we already do.
China now produces plenty of waste of their own, and they are struggling to handle their own volume of garbage. It's no surprise they would stop accepting anyone else's.
I have a four-monitor setup specifically so that I can put windows in specific places and then not move them for hours, or even days. Even my LCD monitors start to display "burn-in" with this use, but it disappears after a night powered off. If I had a massive 8K display, I would be doing the same thing: placing windows in various places so that I don't have to swap between background and foreground tasks. I'd probably see damage to the OLED within months, and a screen saver won't do shit if I'm actually using the machine.
It was good for convincing less populous states that they weren't going to get steamrollered by the more populous states.
Personally I say let it stay, but make all electors proportional to the popular vote in their states. It would reduce the impact greatly, while not requiring a constitutional amendment to make such a change, and the rural states would still hold a slight edge in power, per capita.
At the same time, enlarge the House of Representatives to whatever degree is necessary to make each representative stand for the same number of people, as closely as practical while keeping the total under, say, 600.
I know what they mean. Everything within Downtown is easily walkable. The fact that this suddenly ends at the edge of Downtown is not an accident. That's why I said Downtown does not WANT monorail access.
Yes, but visitors don't vote in the area, and don't stick around long enough for their opinions to matter to the locals.
The Strip is supposed to be "you have money, come blow some here and we'll pamper you", while Downtown is "everyman's Vegas". Two very different demographics are being targeted.
Downtown Vegas doesn't want to be connected. Everything there is already in easy walking distance, and generally more middle-brow than the Strip (including in price). If people could casually move from Strip to Fremont and vice versa, the two areas would begin to converge on their expenses and their clientele, and the Horseshoe, the Four Queens, the Lady Luck, the Fremont -- none of them want to compete heads-up with the Wynn and the Bellagio.
There's a reason why Fremont looks more like South Beach during spring break than the Strip does, and the Fremont side at least wants to keep it that way. (The Strip may want to also.)
It is close to the strip -- as close as it can be, which is on the back side of the hotels that front the street. At the Hard Rock Hotel, I had a glorious view of the monorail track from my window. If the window had been capable of opening, I could have soft-tossed objects and hit it. Unless the casinos want massive concrete-and-rebar pillars in their front porches, it couldn't have been placed any closer.
I figured this was more a case of the Steve Jobs side saying "Apple let this one slip through the cracks, now they have to buy us if they want to get rid of us". Will Apple take the bait? I suppose that depends on how much the asset is really worth to them.
"We're dicks, but it's legal" is not fraud, it is the sort of semantic game Apple plays all the time with their own patent portfolio. Like any game, they're going to lose at least occasionally, else it's not much of a game. This time, they got out-lawyered. Nothing of any real significance happened to anyone outside of the two companies in question.
Outright forgery of a brand is a crime. Making sly references to a brand is not. Putting Gibson headstocks on Epiphones and selling them out the back door of the factory probably isn't legal, but it seems to be tolerated by authorities. (The third great blunder is: Never start a lawsuit in China.) It happened to Aquilasax, twice. Both times, the manufacturing company was releasing "back door" horns before they had delivered their promised contract to him.
Surely the world can do better than outright brand forgery, but the world isn't exactly in a crisis over it outside of a few specific markets like pharmaceuticals. Granting Apple automatic ownership of anything resembling a second- or third-derivative of their precious brand is likewise swinging too far in the opposite direction. I think this case may have defined exactly where the line is. Rejoice in that, I suppose. A rule got clarified without a precipitating disaster, and the world isn't really any worse off.
I remember that through the 1970s and 1980s, a whole lot of Christian sects were big on the whole "mark of the beast" thing, and railed against trackable transactions (among other things). Their fears were most likely way out of proportion to the actual threat, but where are they now? We could use some useful idiots willing to take the point.
It was one thing when bots could beat up on donkeys, but when even the best human players can't win it means only bots will be left standing. That doesn't mean humans are totally out of the loop, someone still has to be standing by to talk to the admin when questioned about their human status -- for now. That too will probably fall before long.
The micro-stakes tables will probably remain largely human because there's very little to lose (or gain) down there, but for high-stakes games this signals a rapidly approaching end.
I'm glad someone is ready to challenge YouTube's dominance, but did it have to be Amazon? I mean, it could be worse, it could be Microsoft or Oracle or Adobe, but Amazon is pretty high up the list of Darth Vader companies.
Unfortunately, it probably did have to be someone like Amazon. The number of entities that can ramp up fast enough to truly eat YouTube's breakfast is small.
I do too. I always pick a date that, if I can't remember it, I can look up. July 20, 1969 (Apollo 11 lands on the moon), August 8, 1974 (Nixon resigns), January 28, 1986 (Challenger disaster), etc. -- things you can easily reference if forgotten -- make good fake birth dates, and people actually were born on those days, so how can they call you out on it?
Not on this particular point. The Soviets had the most aggressive, most successful, and most disastrous biological weapons program on the planet (yes, all three at the same time). This continued in post-soviet Russia, and while publicly available information is over a decade old, it damn well looks like they still haven't stopped.
Slashdot Mirror
Omit the air holes, and he can fill the pouch with hot air and float himself out.
Couldn't Ecuador officially employ him as an ambassador, now that he is a citizen? If the UK doesn't like his role as an ambassador, they can always kick him out of the country.
I am not a lawyer. However, I was an insurance agent responsible for the accounts of two large (in excess of $250 million a year) medical products manufacturers -- one was test equipment, and the other was pharmaceuticals. All it takes is "use of this product doubles your chances of acquiring condition X in the next ten years, never mind that your risk went from one in 100,000 to one in 50,000" to be successfully sued. The vast majority of people using the product are not harmed, and it is impossible to determine which people who get Condition X would have gotten it anyhow, and which would not have. Yet every single person using the product has standing to join in a class action lawsuit, and this is why such companies carry tens of millions of dollars in liability insurance -- because it is not possible to predict every single possible result of the use of their products, yet they are responsible for those results just the same.
"Your risk of being pwned by malicious actors has increased tenfold" is very much in the same sort of speculative realm as "use Celebrex, double your chances of Condition X", and such cases are pursued succesfully all the time. It's generally much more successful for the lawyers than for the class being represented of course, but that doesn't make it any less expensive for the manufacturer that is on the hook.
It doesn't matter if Intel intended to open up a security hole or not. The tort system in the U.S. is one of strict liability. If something goes wrong with your product, and you didn't explicitly say NOT to do that, then you're on the hook. It doesn't matter what your intentions were, only the result.
What happens when the symbolism gets co-opted by the targets? This has happened before, and the most recent case I can think of is Jewish forum posters choosing to put (((Echo Brackets))) on their handles.
The problem with what we have now is that since no state can have less than one representative, a state with fewer residents than the average district nationwide has disproportionate power in the House. Also, increasing the number of representatives decreases the power advantage of the rural states because the electors that correspond to senators will be diluted.
No slots (or if you're lucky, maybe M.2 slots) seem to be the order of the day in thin-and-light laptops, and that seems to be what the average person buys now -- and has been for several years. Telling them to upgrade RAM is tantamount to saying "your computer is obsolete".
As for those old laptops, I've rehabilitated a number of dual-core Merom laptops and put them back in service with family members and friends. They still work just fine, but they are admittedly hot, bulky, and noisy. They also (generally) have a 4 GB RAM limit by design, although they are 64-bit and the Merom architecture itself is not limited to 4 GB. I wouldn't want to sleep with one running by my bed 24/7 though, and I do that with the C720. It's my TV-driving machine, my Minecraft server, and my day-trip computer all in one. I certainly planned that purchase with the knowledge that the RAM was not upgradeable, but that the storage was.
Basically, if someone has a laptop from 2009 or later, they probably don't have to replace it. That's why laptop sales are weak, but it doesn't mean that there isn't value in the thin-and-light trends that have followed. It's just a different kind of value. Still, these machines are the new baseline, and it does mean "throw more RAM at it" is not an option in a lot of cases.
But lots of laptops now ship without DIMM slots. What you get when you buy it is all you will ever have. My Acer C720 has 4 GB of RAM, which is generally adequate, but I do hit the page file a lot. Fortunately, this is made tolerable by an SSD that pretty much saturates the SATA III bus on both reads and writes. (Even the stock 16GB Kingston SSD is really fast, but my 250 GB replacement is slightly faster.)
For a whole lot of people in a whole lot of situations, adding more RAM just isn't an option. It almost always is an option on a desktop PC, but that has been a shrinking piece of the computing pie for many years now, and can't really be considered a "typical use case" for Windows or Linux any longer.
Laptops don't go through the same degree of power variance that phones do, and also they are generally configured to run slower on battery anyhow. That's how they can advertise -- and actually deliver -- eight or nine hour run times.
I don't let my hacked Chromebook do any of that shit. No dimming the display, no throttling the CPU, no switching off the WiFi (because it doesn't always switch back on). It still runs three to three and a half hours with a Minecraft server running in the background. That's long enough for me to be "off the leash", as that was the optimistic runtime of laptops on batteries just ten years ago. Longer runtimes are nice, but I got quite used to not having them, and now I prefer to keep my experience as pleasant as possible rather than maximize battery life.
If I do have to replace the battery, it will be as simple as swapping out the SSD. Take off the back (13 screws), then the bracket retaining the part in question. Replace, and reassemble. It's a ten minute job, though the lack of NVRAM on Chromebooks does mean rEFInd is probably going to have a seizure on the first boot after the swap.
Break out the Marvel Mystery Oil and pour some in the spark plug holes a day before you try to turn the engine over.
Even then, you still want to keep your fingers crossed that nothing flies apart or explodes. Unmaintained boilers are particularly problematic.
The population of Wyoming was estimated at 586,107 in 2015. If we were to re-allocate, then it would be done on the basis that each representative stands for 586,107 people as near as possible. The population of the country was 320 million at that time, so that would mean 546 representatives almost exactly (assuming DC gets one). Vermont's population was 626,042, so perhaps it would be more fair to set the population-per-representative to 605,000 or so. (Wyoming would still get one.)
That's the gist of the idea, but it would have to be modified slightly to accommodate states that would otherwise be left "in the cracks" as far as number of representatives. (Not such a huge problem with a large state, but it is if the options are one representative or two.) Thus, the actual population per representative might have to be tweaked mathematically to make the spread as fair as possible -- and this would have to be re-done every ten years, but we re-district every ten years already, so it's just adding one layer of complexity to a process we already do.
China now produces plenty of waste of their own, and they are struggling to handle their own volume of garbage. It's no surprise they would stop accepting anyone else's.
There's always Africa, right?
I have a four-monitor setup specifically so that I can put windows in specific places and then not move them for hours, or even days. Even my LCD monitors start to display "burn-in" with this use, but it disappears after a night powered off. If I had a massive 8K display, I would be doing the same thing: placing windows in various places so that I don't have to swap between background and foreground tasks. I'd probably see damage to the OLED within months, and a screen saver won't do shit if I'm actually using the machine.
It was good for convincing less populous states that they weren't going to get steamrollered by the more populous states.
Personally I say let it stay, but make all electors proportional to the popular vote in their states. It would reduce the impact greatly, while not requiring a constitutional amendment to make such a change, and the rural states would still hold a slight edge in power, per capita.
At the same time, enlarge the House of Representatives to whatever degree is necessary to make each representative stand for the same number of people, as closely as practical while keeping the total under, say, 600.
I know what they mean. Everything within Downtown is easily walkable. The fact that this suddenly ends at the edge of Downtown is not an accident. That's why I said Downtown does not WANT monorail access.
Go ahead and run it to the airport, absolutely.
Yes, but visitors don't vote in the area, and don't stick around long enough for their opinions to matter to the locals.
The Strip is supposed to be "you have money, come blow some here and we'll pamper you", while Downtown is "everyman's Vegas". Two very different demographics are being targeted.
Downtown Vegas doesn't want to be connected. Everything there is already in easy walking distance, and generally more middle-brow than the Strip (including in price). If people could casually move from Strip to Fremont and vice versa, the two areas would begin to converge on their expenses and their clientele, and the Horseshoe, the Four Queens, the Lady Luck, the Fremont -- none of them want to compete heads-up with the Wynn and the Bellagio.
There's a reason why Fremont looks more like South Beach during spring break than the Strip does, and the Fremont side at least wants to keep it that way. (The Strip may want to also.)
It is close to the strip -- as close as it can be, which is on the back side of the hotels that front the street. At the Hard Rock Hotel, I had a glorious view of the monorail track from my window. If the window had been capable of opening, I could have soft-tossed objects and hit it. Unless the casinos want massive concrete-and-rebar pillars in their front porches, it couldn't have been placed any closer.
I figured this was more a case of the Steve Jobs side saying "Apple let this one slip through the cracks, now they have to buy us if they want to get rid of us". Will Apple take the bait? I suppose that depends on how much the asset is really worth to them.
"We're dicks, but it's legal" is not fraud, it is the sort of semantic game Apple plays all the time with their own patent portfolio. Like any game, they're going to lose at least occasionally, else it's not much of a game. This time, they got out-lawyered. Nothing of any real significance happened to anyone outside of the two companies in question.
Outright forgery of a brand is a crime. Making sly references to a brand is not. Putting Gibson headstocks on Epiphones and selling them out the back door of the factory probably isn't legal, but it seems to be tolerated by authorities. (The third great blunder is: Never start a lawsuit in China.) It happened to Aquilasax, twice. Both times, the manufacturing company was releasing "back door" horns before they had delivered their promised contract to him.
Surely the world can do better than outright brand forgery, but the world isn't exactly in a crisis over it outside of a few specific markets like pharmaceuticals. Granting Apple automatic ownership of anything resembling a second- or third-derivative of their precious brand is likewise swinging too far in the opposite direction. I think this case may have defined exactly where the line is. Rejoice in that, I suppose. A rule got clarified without a precipitating disaster, and the world isn't really any worse off.
I remember that through the 1970s and 1980s, a whole lot of Christian sects were big on the whole "mark of the beast" thing, and railed against trackable transactions (among other things). Their fears were most likely way out of proportion to the actual threat, but where are they now? We could use some useful idiots willing to take the point.
It was one thing when bots could beat up on donkeys, but when even the best human players can't win it means only bots will be left standing. That doesn't mean humans are totally out of the loop, someone still has to be standing by to talk to the admin when questioned about their human status -- for now. That too will probably fall before long.
The micro-stakes tables will probably remain largely human because there's very little to lose (or gain) down there, but for high-stakes games this signals a rapidly approaching end.
I'm glad someone is ready to challenge YouTube's dominance, but did it have to be Amazon? I mean, it could be worse, it could be Microsoft or Oracle or Adobe, but Amazon is pretty high up the list of Darth Vader companies.
Unfortunately, it probably did have to be someone like Amazon. The number of entities that can ramp up fast enough to truly eat YouTube's breakfast is small.
I do too. I always pick a date that, if I can't remember it, I can look up. July 20, 1969 (Apollo 11 lands on the moon), August 8, 1974 (Nixon resigns), January 28, 1986 (Challenger disaster), etc. -- things you can easily reference if forgotten -- make good fake birth dates, and people actually were born on those days, so how can they call you out on it?
Not on this particular point. The Soviets had the most aggressive, most successful, and most disastrous biological weapons program on the planet (yes, all three at the same time). This continued in post-soviet Russia, and while publicly available information is over a decade old, it damn well looks like they still haven't stopped.