If anything I'd say it's more likely that torrentfreak is in bed with Starz - posting the article on Starz' behalf, then Starz gets it taken down, then Torrentleak "blows the whistle".
It's even more likely that you are in bed with torrentfreak and Starz. Then you go on Slashdot and whip up the conspiracy theory outrage machine to spread the word amongst those who can't be bothered to RTFA while pocketing your filthy, filthy lucre.
Think about that ? It makes me very sad that this guy is so threatened by this situation he has to deny the value of his work.
Your public insights into the private thoughts of an individual who has publicly and expressly stated that he is not thinking that way are truly awesome.
If I'm going to verify the file on my end anyway, there's no real reason for the site to waste CPU encrypting the entire ISO every time someone downloads it.
Nobody will see this due to the wall of trolling that's accumulated under your post, but...
Sure there is. "They'll"* know that you downloaded that file through their deep packet inspection gear.
*They being the government (three letter agencies), or the transit provider, or the cable/DSL oligopoly, or FAANG because why the hell not.
If they send enough bills, then the GOP will accuse the Democrats of wasting Congress's time by bullying the Senate and refusing to produce workable legislation...
Name one piece of workable legislation that the Senate has proposed or passed in the new Congressional term.
I'll save you the trouble. They graciously decided to back-pay furloughed government workers at the end of the shutdown, and they've done f-all else in 3 months.
Aren't pretty much all of these permanently tied to an account so they'd be useless to the thieves anyway?
It's cute that you think that these are equipped with secure enclaves and such like a cellular phone rather than a hard reset like your garden variety WiFi router or IoT device.
Security is something to add in v4 so that you capture a an additional round of upgrades after the early adopters and first wave mass adopters get burned by having multi-hundred-dollar pieces of equipment wander off.
Ryzen 3000 (presumably) products / Zen 2 will be on PCIe 4.0. Even if you only get 16 lanes for the primary slots, that's equivalent to 32 lanes of PCIE 3.0. Plus you'll have 4 PCIe 4.0 lanes for NVMe. That's equivalent to 8 lanes of PCIE 3.0.
No, it's not equivalent, because you still have only 16 lanes for the primary slots, and still have only 4 lanes for NVMe. You must have a PCIe 4.0-capable device for there to be any bandwidth equivalence, otherwise you won't even have that.
If you want a PCIe 4.0-capable GPU, there's reportedly Navi releasing in July. That's it. No prior-generation AMD(ATI) products, no current or prior generation NVIDIA products.
If you want a PCIe 4.0-capable NVMe SSD, there's a Phison prototype that's reportedly releasing in 19Q3.
Your 2 GPUs and 2 NVMe drives are covered, provided there's a motherboard that carves it up the way you like, or you're willing to use risers/adapters.
Why are you using the present tense for an unreleased CPU combined with an unreleased GPU and unreleased SSD? Why do you assume that someone who has an issue with spending a few thousand on a HEDT CPU and motherboard will replace the MB, the CPU, 2x GPUs, and 2x SSDs just to achieve a lateral-grade to a 20 lane PCIe 4.0 platform from a 28 lane PCIe 3.0 platform?
And in a future scenario where we have 4x PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives and 16x PCIe 4.0 GPUs that you want to use, you can fix it by upgrading to a single GPU. SLI and CrossFire are dead ends.
Let me know when there's top-of-the-line PCIe 4.0 GPU that beats 2x first tier current (or last) generation PCIe 3.0 GPUs. Your "future scenario" is 4-5 years out.
The non-streaming catalog is (was) greater and does not disappear due to arbitrary license expirations. Breakage, non-replacement, and tailing-off of new purchases is what is driving down the service value now.
Cat aficionados who fancy themselves "scientists" are unable to recognize instances of operant conditioning when they see them.
For these cats, the sequence of sounds we humans call "their names" end up being followed by feeding, treats, petting, scritch-scratching, and warm, luxurious laps in which to relax and unwind from a stressful day of napping in the sunshine and occasionally trying to catch their arch-nemesis, that stupid glowing red dot... all good and pleasant things. Naturally, being living organisms, cats tend to gravitate towards that which is pleasant, and avoid that which is not. Having the collection of sounds that they hear right before something nice happens resulting in them tending to come to expect the same or similar when it happens again is just operant conditioning.
Now the fun part is where you consider the process by which you learned own name to have been different.
They are exempt from taxation, because they are a non-profit organization. There is literally nothing to tax, since the IRS taxes profits. This is as silly as when the banks complained that credit unions didn't have to pay federal income taxes.
1. You can only be a tax-exempt "non-profit organization" on certain grounds laid out in section 501(c) of the tax code. Read the second link. Then explore the other related categories. 2. Nothing except for the $300M in accumulated untaxed assets and $20M in net income made in 2016. Read the first link. Then tell me how there is "literally nothing to tax." 3. What is silly is your belief that the world works only in the way in which you want it to after 10 seconds of thought, when all evidence is to the contrary.
You're so far into an imaginary universe, calling it "wrong" does a disservice to those who try but don't get it right.
I will say from the outside looking in the argument that any of these awards shows are "trade organizations" seems quite weak, and I would love to see how the court case goes here...
Yes, it's quite a weak argument when you publicly categorize yourself as a trade organization for an exemption from taxation by the IRS.
It seems like award shows should be free to chose whatever they like as criteria to base awards on - just as the public can feel free to ignore award shows that choose to slide into irrelevancy... not justice department needed I should say.
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
This award show is run via written and oral agreements -- i.e., contracts -- amongst members who are competitors and effectively operates as a trade organization. The Sherman Act does not include an "award show" exception, and I see no need for a snap amateur opinion on whether the Justice Department is needed in lieu of a professional opinion by persons qualified to practice antitrust law, i.e., the DOJ antitrust division.
That's some pretty heavy AI, unless they ask advertisers to self-disclose in some official form what kind of ad this is, which seems impractical to enforce.
Why is it limited to AI and self-disclosure? How is compliance impractical to enforce? Was it impractical for radio, newspapers, magazines, and television to enforce? Classified advertising ring a bell?
Is there some law that says that once you move onto the internet you suddenly have no duty to put actual human thought into the transactions that you yourself are engaging in? Hint: No. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) remains as valid precedent.
This is not a user posting on their "wall" or "timeline" or into a Facebook group. This is Facebook actively selling the delivery of messages to selected users (algorithmically, yes) in particular transactions for particular amounts of cash.
Surprise. Internet exceptionalism has limits, and this is one of them.
How do you allow advertisers to target, say, latin-dancing party ads to a market segment "interested in Hispanic culture" without permitting the kind of discrimination talked about?
The kind of discrimination talked about being Fair Housing Act-related discrimination?
I believe that you do it by not advertising housing... which latin-dancing party ads would not be doing.
It's less fun when you don't get to make-up overly broad forms of unlawful discrimination, I know...
Theses measures come from the UN, the EU just adopted them. You disable the speed limiter by pushing hard on the accelerator, or you can also disable it permanently. It is the mandatory black box installed that is worrying. If you crash and it can be shown that you were speeding and regularly do so, your insurance company might screw you. It will also record where ever you go with the car, who will have access to that data?
The lizard people flying the black helicopters and on their way to examine your colon, of course.
It's only a few days after the bomb cyclone we've started actually approaching average temperatures.
Own-goal. March 3rd to March 7th is indeed a "few days" from bomb cyclone to average high temperature. Also, not something that supports your point.
So how do we have more melting that normal with below average tertmpetures?
You misspelled "temperatures." I'd let it slide, but you have a spelling fetish it seems. How do you have more melting? Something about greater snowpack, which you admit, and daytime temperatures routinely above freezing, which we can see for ourselves. But wait, it gets better, because for some reason you want to only talk about Denver.
You can dance around it all you like, but the fact is you and your scientifically, data starved ignorant friends are simply wrong about what is happening now, and you base your forecasts on this fundamentally mistaken view of the world... sad.
Pretty telling that I am the only one providing real data while you try to spread fear and panic by totally ignoring what the weather is actually doing.
You can't click on a hyperlink to NWS temperatures? SAD. You should try clicking on these links. But you won't. SAD. You think that I have the sole responsibility to provide "real data" that is being published constantly yet you actively ignore? SAD.
I'll let you have the last response, since at this point everyone is onto your game of deception... everyone except for you it would seem.
You won't. You'll come back and post some nonsense, including that fact that "everyone" (except for every single reply to your post) agrees with your delusional position.
"My grandfather would have wanted them to have the right to repair, as long as they used only John Deere authentic parts purchased from a dealer. He filed those patents to also prevent others from making use of the technology he created but ignore that part as it's a bit counter to my argument.
Hardly counter to his argument. He's arguing for a right to repair the technology, not a right to manufacture copies of the technology.
"Right to repair" is not a synonym for "open source hardware." Try to make it so and you'll doom it.
In Colorado we've had record low temperatures for February.
No, you had record cold temperatures in February -- you ignore the other days mentioned in your own article:
The cold snap came amid a wild, roller coaster swing. Denver had a high temperature of 69 degrees on Sunday, and then the temperature dropped to a low of minus 3 degrees at 6:45 a.m. Tuesday. The 72-degree swing is the 13th widest on record, spanning 147 years, in Denver in a 36- to 48-hour time range, according to the weather service.
It is because people are confusing "monopoly" with "vertical integration.["]
And you're confusing laws containing a requirement for monopoly or "market power" (U.S. law) with laws governing anticompetitive actions (EU. law). Neither immunizes vertical integration from scrutiny, but competition law not so limited as you think, and certainly not as narrow as antitrust law.
The top and bottom of it is, you don't want to be dependent upon someone else's platform incase they decide to later cut you out of the market.
Like Apple is/was dependent upon Qualcomm (excpeting their sudden decision to adopt inferior Intel modems because, surprise, Qualcomm has cut them off)?
What was Apple's actual response, again? Withhold billions in royalty payments and file antitrust/anticompetition lawsuits? Precisely.
Just because there are advantages to open platforms doesn't mean that it's always and at all times economically efficient to create or implement them,. They also do not justify a closed platform "leverag[ing] their position to take that profit for themselves."
Apple makes a phone and sells music services on it.
Spotify could make a phone and sell music services on it too. But instead, it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.
That's a bit of revisionist history.
Apple makes a phone and launches a store that is the only way for non-enterprise, non-developer customers to load software upon it. Apple invites essentially all comers to the store, which is governed by generally applicable rules. It's 2007.
Spotify launches a music service and an app through the Apple store. It's 2008. Apple sells music services -- through iTunes, which is automatically present on the phone -- that do not include streaming music services.
Apple launches streaming music services -- through the Music app, which is automatically present on the phone -- that includes streaming music services. It's 2015. Spotify has been in this space on this device for 7 years.
Apple's music app is not subject to the same pricing structure -- Apple simply matches the Spotify service fee without the overhead of paying itself 30% -- and is marketed by email to all Apple ID holders, something Spotify itself cannot do.
But instead, it wants to JUST sell its music services, and ride on the coattails of someone else who bothers to make the hardware to make that possible.
They were invited in. Then Apple leveraged its dominance in the platform to make special, anticompetitive rules for itself and expand into that line of business. There are terms for bodies of law that govern that. I believe that they include antitrust (U.S.) and competition law (E.U.).
On a related note...Spotify of course doesn't make the music either. It is just a middle man. It wants to connector creators and consumers, and charge a Spotify tax to SOMEBODY (either users who pay, or advertise), to make use of its marketplace. Sound familiar?
Nope - not remotely familiar. Spotify doesn't impose special rules on the content of music based whether the artist is a Spotify employee (or partner) or not. Spotify doesn't function as a creator and a connector self-interested in promoting itself to the detriment of other creators. Spotify doesn't have a fee structure that requires artists to pay it substantially more than it pays itself to distribute creations through the service.
I'm not convinced by your argument at all. European authorities will not be either.
I'm surprised no-one pointed out the obvious here: All banks work this way - they overleverage and loan out more money than they have reserve to cover. This is why a bank run is such a problem.
No, no legitimate banks work this way. They do "overleverage" and loan out more money than they have in their cash reserve to cover withdrawals, because that's how they earn the interest that they pay customers for their deposits! Most bank loans and investments are illiquid -- you cannot simply call in the loan or sell the investment immediately on demand -- and the bank's cash reserve is only on the order of 5% of deposits based upon long-time historical analysis of deposit holdings versus withdrawal rates.
But the bank loans and investments are subject to quality reviews and standards imposed by Federally chartered entities (FDIC/Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac), state regulations, and private ensurers. They are almost always legitimate debts with predictable replayment flows and solvency. This is why the mortgage meltdown set the financial world and people are incensed that there have been minimal criminal proceedings (although the civil settlements against mortgage originators have been huge).
The cryptocurrency exchanges aren't making legitimate loans. They are treating their deposits as a piggy bank at best, and raiding them for hookers and blow at the worst. Graft, corruption, and self-dealing are not "overleveraging," and you should be ashamed to have equated the two.
Slashdot Mirror
It's even more likely that you are in bed with torrentfreak and Starz. Then you go on Slashdot and whip up the conspiracy theory outrage machine to spread the word amongst those who can't be bothered to RTFA while pocketing your filthy, filthy lucre.
After all, in bed it's the more the merrier...
Your public insights into the private thoughts of an individual who has publicly and expressly stated that he is not thinking that way are truly awesome.
Now tell us how he's not really gay.
Nobody will see this due to the wall of trolling that's accumulated under your post, but...
Sure there is. "They'll"* know that you downloaded that file through their deep packet inspection gear.
*They being the government (three letter agencies), or the transit provider, or the cable/DSL oligopoly, or FAANG because why the hell not.
Name one piece of workable legislation that the Senate has proposed or passed in the new Congressional term.
I'll save you the trouble. They graciously decided to back-pay furloughed government workers at the end of the shutdown, and they've done f-all else in 3 months.
It's cute that you think that these are equipped with secure enclaves and such like a cellular phone rather than a hard reset like your garden variety WiFi router or IoT device.
Security is something to add in v4 so that you capture a an additional round of upgrades after the early adopters and first wave mass adopters get burned by having multi-hundred-dollar pieces of equipment wander off.
Pull the other one.
No, it's not equivalent, because you still have only 16 lanes for the primary slots, and still have only 4 lanes for NVMe. You must have a PCIe 4.0-capable device for there to be any bandwidth equivalence, otherwise you won't even have that.
If you want a PCIe 4.0-capable GPU, there's reportedly Navi releasing in July. That's it. No prior-generation AMD(ATI) products, no current or prior generation NVIDIA products.
If you want a PCIe 4.0-capable NVMe SSD, there's a Phison prototype that's reportedly releasing in 19Q3.
Why are you using the present tense for an unreleased CPU combined with an unreleased GPU and unreleased SSD? Why do you assume that someone who has an issue with spending a few thousand on a HEDT CPU and motherboard will replace the MB, the CPU, 2x GPUs, and 2x SSDs just to achieve a lateral-grade to a 20 lane PCIe 4.0 platform from a 28 lane PCIe 3.0 platform?
Let me know when there's top-of-the-line PCIe 4.0 GPU that beats 2x first tier current (or last) generation PCIe 3.0 GPUs. Your "future scenario" is 4-5 years out.
The non-streaming catalog is (was) greater and does not disappear due to arbitrary license expirations. Breakage, non-replacement, and tailing-off of new purchases is what is driving down the service value now.
Now the fun part is where you consider the process by which you learned own name to have been different.
1. You can only be a tax-exempt "non-profit organization" on certain grounds laid out in section 501(c) of the tax code. Read the second link. Then explore the other related categories.
2. Nothing except for the $300M in accumulated untaxed assets and $20M in net income made in 2016. Read the first link. Then tell me how there is "literally nothing to tax."
3. What is silly is your belief that the world works only in the way in which you want it to after 10 seconds of thought, when all evidence is to the contrary.
You're so far into an imaginary universe, calling it "wrong" does a disservice to those who try but don't get it right.
Yes, it's quite a weak argument when you publicly categorize yourself as a trade organization for an exemption from taxation by the IRS.
It can be because the Sherman Antitrust Act says:
This award show is run via written and oral agreements -- i.e., contracts -- amongst members who are competitors and effectively operates as a trade organization. The Sherman Act does not include an "award show" exception, and I see no need for a snap amateur opinion on whether the Justice Department is needed in lieu of a professional opinion by persons qualified to practice antitrust law, i.e., the DOJ antitrust division.
I my day we had M.U.L.E. And we LIKED IT.
Why is it limited to AI and self-disclosure? How is compliance impractical to enforce? Was it impractical for radio, newspapers, magazines, and television to enforce? Classified advertising ring a bell?
Is there some law that says that once you move onto the internet you suddenly have no duty to put actual human thought into the transactions that you yourself are engaging in? Hint: No. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) remains as valid precedent.
This is not a user posting on their "wall" or "timeline" or into a Facebook group. This is Facebook actively selling the delivery of messages to selected users (algorithmically, yes) in particular transactions for particular amounts of cash.
Surprise. Internet exceptionalism has limits, and this is one of them.
The kind of discrimination talked about being Fair Housing Act-related discrimination?
I believe that you do it by not advertising housing... which latin-dancing party ads would not be doing.
It's less fun when you don't get to make-up overly broad forms of unlawful discrimination, I know...
The lizard people flying the black helicopters and on their way to examine your colon, of course.
Not what your weatherman means if he says says "record cold for February," now is it?
We can see the temperatures ourselves, moron. Two days. Three if you want to pretend that 28 F is some sort of barn-burning cold. Only four days that didn't go above 32.
Own-goal. March 3rd to March 7th is indeed a "few days" from bomb cyclone to average high temperature. Also, not something that supports your point.
You misspelled "temperatures." I'd let it slide, but you have a spelling fetish it seems. How do you have more melting? Something about greater snowpack, which you admit, and daytime temperatures routinely above freezing, which we can see for ourselves. But wait, it gets better, because for some reason you want to only talk about Denver.
You're appearing to confuse Denver with the predicted flooding areas, and then the world.
You can't locate Denver on a map. SAD. The rest of us can. It's in one of those square states full of white.
No, I really didn't.
You can't click on a hyperlink to NWS temperatures? SAD.
You should try clicking on these links. But you won't. SAD.
You think that I have the sole responsibility to provide "real data" that is being published constantly yet you actively ignore? SAD.
You won't. You'll come back and post some nonsense, including that fact that "everyone" (except for every single reply to your post) agrees with your delusional position.
Hardly counter to his argument. He's arguing for a right to repair the technology, not a right to manufacture copies of the technology.
"Right to repair" is not a synonym for "open source hardware." Try to make it so and you'll doom it.
No, you had record cold temperatures in February -- you ignore the other days mentioned in your own article:
Similarly
Two days, again according to your own article.
Your February wasn't even in your top 20 coldest Februarys, so it's hard to see what trend carried into March.
Funny how those rare events keep increasing in frequency.
Just one act and you forget Trump's not-so-in-the-past antisemitism.
See the Times of Israel for the embodiment of an anti-semite.
Did David Duke switch parties? *checks* Nope. Still a republican.
"Almost" meaning forget about Charlottesville and "Jews will not replace us," activities held by "very fine people" according to Trump.
And you're confusing laws containing a requirement for monopoly or "market power" (U.S. law) with laws governing anticompetitive actions (EU. law). Neither immunizes vertical integration from scrutiny, but competition law not so limited as you think, and certainly not as narrow as antitrust law.
Like Apple is/was dependent upon Qualcomm (excpeting their sudden decision to adopt inferior Intel modems because, surprise, Qualcomm has cut them off)?
What was Apple's actual response, again? Withhold billions in royalty payments and file antitrust/anticompetition lawsuits? Precisely.
Just because there are advantages to open platforms doesn't mean that it's always and at all times economically efficient to create or implement them,. They also do not justify a closed platform "leverag[ing] their position to take that profit for themselves."
That's a bit of revisionist history.
Apple makes a phone and launches a store that is the only way for non-enterprise, non-developer customers to load software upon it. Apple invites essentially all comers to the store, which is governed by generally applicable rules. It's 2007.
Spotify launches a music service and an app through the Apple store. It's 2008. Apple sells music services -- through iTunes, which is automatically present on the phone -- that do not include streaming music services.
Apple launches streaming music services -- through the Music app, which is automatically present on the phone -- that includes streaming music services. It's 2015. Spotify has been in this space on this device for 7 years.
Apple's music app is not subject to the same pricing structure -- Apple simply matches the Spotify service fee without the overhead of paying itself 30% -- and is marketed by email to all Apple ID holders, something Spotify itself cannot do.
They were invited in. Then Apple leveraged its dominance in the platform to make special, anticompetitive rules for itself and expand into that line of business. There are terms for bodies of law that govern that. I believe that they include antitrust (U.S.) and competition law (E.U.).
Nope - not remotely familiar. Spotify doesn't impose special rules on the content of music based whether the artist is a Spotify employee (or partner) or not. Spotify doesn't function as a creator and a connector self-interested in promoting itself to the detriment of other creators. Spotify doesn't have a fee structure that requires artists to pay it substantially more than it pays itself to distribute creations through the service.
I'm not convinced by your argument at all. European authorities will not be either.
No, no legitimate banks work this way. They do "overleverage" and loan out more money than they have in their cash reserve to cover withdrawals, because that's how they earn the interest that they pay customers for their deposits! Most bank loans and investments are illiquid -- you cannot simply call in the loan or sell the investment immediately on demand -- and the bank's cash reserve is only on the order of 5% of deposits based upon long-time historical analysis of deposit holdings versus withdrawal rates.
But the bank loans and investments are subject to quality reviews and standards imposed by Federally chartered entities (FDIC/Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac), state regulations, and private ensurers. They are almost always legitimate debts with predictable replayment flows and solvency. This is why the mortgage meltdown set the financial world and people are incensed that there have been minimal criminal proceedings (although the civil settlements against mortgage originators have been huge).
The cryptocurrency exchanges aren't making legitimate loans. They are treating their deposits as a piggy bank at best, and raiding them for hookers and blow at the worst. Graft, corruption, and self-dealing are not "overleveraging," and you should be ashamed to have equated the two.