600,000 computers? How big do they think the U.S. Navy is anyway? That's almost two computers for every active duty service member.
You presume that the suit is limited to computers actually owned by the Navy. Add in Navy contractors running the software to support the Navy and the number doesn't seem so implausible. 28 USC 1498 requires that you sue the government for a contractor's copyright infringement if its done under the terms of their government contract.
arf arf. But seriously, almost 600,000 copies of a piece of software when the Department of the Navy has fewer official user workstations than that...much fewer. That's Army level of personnel, not Navy.
You cannot sue a government contractor for patent or copyright infringement separately and apart from the relevant government department or agency running the contract. 28 USC 1498 requires that you sue the government for the contractor's infringement of any copyright, such as in this case.
The Department of the Navy may have fewer user workstations, but what happens when you add in the number of workstations plausibly involved on the contractor/supplier side? Exactly. Very large numbers begin to be involved.
First, they could ban the Bots who are collecting and trading the skins that are being gambled on. We all know that this would only be a temporary measure. More bots would simply be created to replace those banned. Secondly, they could alter the API for Steam to prohibit the type of trading that is occurring. However, they would break a lot of legitimate functions if they went this route. So saying that Steam "won't block" the gambling is being pretty disingenuous.
The Steam API *does* require a key. I know this because I've used it and I have a key.
You're not actually disagreeing with each other. The GP did not say that accounts could not be blocked (e.g., keys blocked or revoked). The GP is merely saying that Valve would have to engage in account-by-account whack-a-mole (with the inevitable false positives) and the gambling sites would adapt their use to be more dispersed and more similar to users (increasing the false positive risk). Or, alternately, remove the functionality for everyone -- the "this is why we can't have nice things" trope writ large.
Valve's current strategy is actually more likely to be effective. Cease and desist letter (not effective), then lawsuit (minimally effective), then injunction (modestly effective), then obtain the cooperation of payment processors (surprisingly effective and easy once you have a court document that ties the activity to heavily regulated gambling/money laundering-related activities). You can't kill it all, with bitcoin and flying below the radar (like many torrent sites), but you can suppress your problem.
I'm a lawyer. I plow through these things regularly for clients to advise them whether certain objectionable things are present, or occasionally even to negotiate the fine details of the wording.
That being said, I don't read them at all when signing up for services for myself. Oh, I'll do better than most and actually read the closing documents for my house, or for the loan for my car, or an employment agreement, because there's real money involved there. But for "free" services, and even that $25/mo Netflix account, no, it's not worth the time or aggravation. You draw the line somewhere based upon how much you'd write off by saying "screw it, I'm out of here." Guess what -- to a surprising extent my business clients do the same thing.
The extreme example here is not relevant because there's no way on Earth that a court will permit them to collect. They're of course trying to highlight that people don't read even terms that can be enforced against them, like binding arbitration clauses. I applaud the effort in principle, but it's a losing cause because it ignores a more fundamental problem that people instinctually recognize: For most individuals, the terms are essentially non-negotiable. If you want to hire a programmer to do something for you, by all means, negotiate in detail and do it well. If you want to buy consumer software, take it or leave it. If you're signing up for some new cloud service, take it or leave it. Unless you are willing to put in a lot of effort, can generate enough outrage to create an ad-hoc negotiating group, or are confident that you can find an advocate within the business, reading the agreement changes nothing. Also, very few ordinary people are deciding whether or not to enter into a contract based upon enforceable terms like an arbitration provision. That's a very high order effect in their personal utility function, if it would be considered at all.
Short summary: If the license says something that is enforceable in court, odds are super good that you can't get it removed with anything short of an activist campaign. If that's not your thing, you're still a decent human being for not caring. I understand that you have other priorities. If the license says something that is not enforceable in court, why should you care at the outset? Deal with it if the circumstance arises. Again, you have other priorities.
I call it pragmatism. I don't care whether you do or not.
That's cute. You think all Hillary's votes are actual people and that no voter fraud happened. Yes, I am sure the woman who had half as many people at her rallies "legitimately" won.
Wait a minute. The democrats and democrat-leaning activists have declared that voter fraud essentially doesn't exist (i.e., is too low to have any impact on anything), therefore Republican efforts to tamp down on voter fraud for the pat 8 years were really aimed at minority voter suppression.
So which is it, Bernie supporters? Does voter fraud not exist, or are there legitimate reasons to demand more rigorous documentation from voters at the polls?
Hosting illegal materials is still illegal. The CDA doesn't exonerate someone who knowingly and willfully continues to make content available that is illegal regardless of who is considered the "publisher". Ever seen the operator of a child porn site get raided? Yeah, it's like that except with terrorists. Just because Facebook is Facebook doesn't make them above the law, and trying to cling to your weak/twisted interpretation of the CDA doesn't change that.
It's not as if we haven't seen this before: Twitter responded that as a publisher, it is immune from liability for content posted by its users under the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
But plaintiffs' attorney Joshua Arisohn said that because direct messages are not published, they fall outside the protections of that statute.
"The common definition of publisher is one who disseminates information to the public," Arisohn said. "If Congress wanted a broader definition for publisher, it could have made one."
Twitter attorney Seth Waxman replied that direct messages are covered under the 2009 Ninth Circuit ruling, Barnes v. Yahoo!, which found that entities cannot be held liable for content posted online by third parties. Finding otherwise would that mean every provider of email and direct messaging, such as Apple and Google, could be liable for content exchanged by their users, Waxman said.
Orrick was not persuaded that companies like Twitter could be sued for messages sent by users.
"Just because it's private messaging doesn't put this beyond the Communications Decency Act's reach," Orrick said.
But please, continue to make unsupported assertions about the field I practice in. I'll certainly take your word over actual precedent and reputable lawyers.
I don't see a blanket statement releasing them from liability for what they publish...
That's funny, because you've quoted it.
47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
It helps if you read everything that I wrote. Then again, the original poster did not say that Facebook could be sued for not censoring something, so I didn't emphasize that point.
If you want to take that position, you should research the CDA as well. We've seen it before, we will see it again, and I for one do not expect to see a different result.
The second part (sec. 230(c)(1), which is actually the first part of that subsection) says that they are not liable for not censoring things. Did you read that? Did you read the part that of my post that specifically discussed it?
Were those parts too difficult for you to understand? How do you propose to get around 230(c)(1)? Shall I drag out the ever growing canon of CDA caselaw that puts the concept in even plainer terms for you?
The first part addressed the bad argument that because they choose to censor at all, they lost their immunity. If you stopped there, that's your problem, not mine.
Has no one ever heard the term "common carrier"? You don't get to pick and choose what speech you allow on your little safe space AND be free from liability if someone commits crimes or otherwise does "bad things" on your services. This is why telephone companies have been classified as common carriers for nearly a century. If you allow all speech, unfettered, then you're free from liability for what anyone does on your service.
I'm honestly shocked it took this long for someone to call these hypocritical companies out on their bullshit, and I support it 100%.
I'm not shocked. It takes a special brand of stupid to sue an industry that has statutory immunity:
The Communications Decency Act states that: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected...
Facebook does get to pick and choose, and is in most instances free from liability for that choice. Facebook isn't even obligated to pick and choose in the first place, which makes it terribly difficult to prove that a decision not to remove content posted by an independent third party somehow falls outside the CDA immunity.
Facebook doesn't have to do what they do perfectly, and they certainly don't have to do it your way. This suit is a loser.
Internet companies are NOT common carriers. They have lobbied to NOT be common carriers specifically so they have the power to control and and disallow speech they personally disagree with. By NOT censoring terrorist groups, they have shown that they are giving de facto support to those groups and that they effectively agree with the speech of terrorists, thereby they can absolutely be held liable for the content of the conversations and speech that traverses their networks.
Turn in your law license, now.
The Communications Decency Act specifically allows this. 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(2) states, in quite understandable terms, that: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected...
47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1) also states that: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Which means that you must show not only that Facebook was aware of the specific messages complained of (since (c)(1) does not impose any duty to investigate), but also that any decision was not taken in good faith. One example of a good faith basis for a decision not to censor: the government cannot punish a speaker for making statements that do not rise to imminent threats of lawless action, and Facebook has no legal obligation to create or impose a broader standard.
Your "de facto" support argument would be crushed. Hopefully, the lawyers who filed the suit have more than that, or their clients will be paying large monetary sanctions after Facebook wins its Rule 11 motion.
I just read about a poor sop that lives a few towns over who has a gaggle of people constantly in front of his used-to-be-a-church home.
The public is using public property adjacent to private property? How dare they! We should totally create a buffer zone around homes that is exclusive to the owner. We could call it a "yard." If you wanted to, you could purchase a home with a "yard." If you didn't want to, you could simply suck it up rather than summoning the WHAAAAmbulance.
If a second company gets hacked and you shared the same passwords, the second company is responsible for the damage done to it, and you are responsible for the damage done to you. The first company should not be held accountable.
Foreseeable consequence of disclosing the password, so whether the first company can be held accountable is very much open to debate, unless they've had the foresight to drop something appropriate into their terms and conditions. Even then, the FTC has a few things to say concerning data breaches, including login/password information breaches.
You can't complain when it has been repeated so often NOT TO USE COMMON PASSWORDS. YOUR SECURITY IS THAT OF THE WEAKEST PASSWORDS.
Yes, you can. If a company is disclosing confidential information, you can complain. It remains to be seen whether a reasonable consumer would be expected to use and remember a unique password for the tens to hundreds of sites that they use in a given year. You can tout best practices until the cows come home, but the FTC's standards for a reasonable consumer do not automatically rise to that level.
You can't complain because you failed to enable two-factor.
Please explain where and how Apple has promoted two factor to people who are not interested in reading the Apple press. Device notification? Prominent email? Anything? Because this is the first time I've heard of two factor for iCloud/iTunes accounts.
You can't complain if your password was easy to guess and the attackers guessed it (you can if the company allows millions to be tested without locking out your account and blocking the attack, this is a brute force password break, and should be mitigated in authentication software).
Undercut your own argument surprisingly quickly on that one...
You cannot assume that that the reported data rate (slide 7) is decreased due to 8b/10b encoding.
As in gigabit ethernet, the media appears to be reporting a data rate where the signalling rate would be ((10b/8b)-1) higher (e.g., in gigabit ethernet, 1.25 Gbps). That being said, it could easily be the reverse and people are mistakenly reporting the signalling rate as a data rate.
I don't work in this area, so I can't say. I've gotten as close to an "official" source as I can in the first link.
Of course if can fit into a lot of devices if those devices are designed for it. Would it have killed them to make it backwards compatible with the hardware that already exists? I'm sure it has all sorts of lovely features but is it really too much to ask for the designers of this shit to think about future proofing their designs as well as backwards compatibility?
The interfaces for the two card standards are completely different, just as the interfaces for PCI devices were completely changed electrically to PCI-e to increase speeds, and just as the interfaces for ATA and SCSI were completely changed electrically to SATA and SAS to increase speeds.
If you're happy with a 50 MHz, 4 lane parallel bus for I/O, go nuts. Nobody is going to stop selling SD cards anytime soon. But exotic encoding schemes will only take you so far. UFS starts, with a single lane, at 362MB/sec -- faster than the HD312 mode in UHS-II.
You may as well pine for UDMA (ATA Mode 6) SSDs because NVME M.2 is "just what everybody was asking for" and "Would it have killed them to make it backwards compatible with the hardware that already exists?" You have storage compatible with the hardware that already exists -- for the new hardware, such as 4K and 8K video recording devices, that storage really does not cut it.
The SD card format is 17 years old. They future-proofed the horse until it finally fell over and died of old age. You might finally have to accept the transition to an automobile.
Meanwhile, the Space Needle's owners have complained that all the towers being thrown up by Amazon and developers hoping to house its workers are crowding out views of the aging tourist attraction.
Did those owners pay the other property owners to surrender their air rights so that the Space Needle could have unobstructed views, or are they merely trying to seize a right to prevent others from building structures that are equally high? I.e., a real estate version of pulling the ladder up behind you.
Argh. GMO-free crops will not solve that problem. Stupid typo.
The take-away message is, GMO crops are a net improvement, GMO-free crops will not solve the problem, and farms will still have too use a variable and integrated management strategy either way to overcome biological problems like pests and weeds.
Now explain to us why glyphosate resistance is bad. No, really. Are we reserving glyphosate for some distant future when weeds become mobile super predators, and nobody's publicized the fact?
Glyphosate was a broad spectrum herbicide that could only be used to annihilate plant cover. Roundup-ready crops added a gene that provided glyphosate resistance, allowing gyphosate to be used like a selective herbicide. We have plenty of non-selective herbicides. We have tilling. We have fire. Glyphosate resistance is not anything like antibiotic resistence.
In addition, glyposate resistance was coming, GMO crop or not, due to the use of no-till farming. Glyphosate resistance, like virtually all heribicide resistance, has nothing to do with the crop trait moving into the weeds (the one exception that I know of is 'weedy rice,' where you can have hybridization), but with the weeds evolving in the face of a selective pressure.
Treat it, till it, burn it, but the weeds will evolve to resist any control strategy that is applied consistently without varying the crop and herbicide strategy so as to outpace their ability to change. GMO-free crops will solve that problem.
How are drug busts made? A DEA agent makes contacts... infiltrates... deep cover happens. * * * Its really not that hard, sport. We've been doing this for hundreds of years. Its not new. Local police to the FBI have been doing it since the old days and never stopped.
Why can't YOU personally see this as an option even though it is obvious? You should be able. Why can't you?
Are you mentally blocked somehow or are you aware of the solutions and simply intentionally refuse to implement them?
But I can see it. And I am able. And I do. Also, no, I'm not blocked; yes, I am aware; and, no, I haven't refused "to implement them."
You, on the other hand, are seemingly unaware that your "solution" for the Orlando shooter simply didn't work. You complain that "no one does anything because they don't want to appear racist" -- interesting how your own option amounts to "nothing" -- but you don't even know what was done. Or else you've simply decided that reality is too complex and too disappointing, so instead you'll complain about our failure to live up to a strawman fantasy where people born in the U.S. can "not be allowed in" and every sting op is a guaranteed success.
I'd say you're the one who is mentally blocked. Not even the Israelis can completely stop domestic terrorism.
That is incorrect. Between the "newer" i5s and i7s, the only difference is an increase in the number of EUs and the inclusion of the Crystalwell EDRAM cache.
I wouldn't get very far because they're fucking retards like you. The one thing the French government does that others should also do is preserve the fucking language so it doesn't get fucked to the point of becoming nothing but grunts and emojis.
Forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfao urum gyltendum, you modern English-speaking bastard.
Slashdot Mirror
You presume that the suit is limited to computers actually owned by the Navy. Add in Navy contractors running the software to support the Navy and the number doesn't seem so implausible. 28 USC 1498 requires that you sue the government for a contractor's copyright infringement if its done under the terms of their government contract.
You cannot sue a government contractor for patent or copyright infringement separately and apart from the relevant government department or agency running the contract. 28 USC 1498 requires that you sue the government for the contractor's infringement of any copyright, such as in this case.
The Department of the Navy may have fewer user workstations, but what happens when you add in the number of workstations plausibly involved on the contractor/supplier side? Exactly. Very large numbers begin to be involved.
You're not actually disagreeing with each other. The GP did not say that accounts could not be blocked (e.g., keys blocked or revoked). The GP is merely saying that Valve would have to engage in account-by-account whack-a-mole (with the inevitable false positives) and the gambling sites would adapt their use to be more dispersed and more similar to users (increasing the false positive risk). Or, alternately, remove the functionality for everyone -- the "this is why we can't have nice things" trope writ large.
Valve's current strategy is actually more likely to be effective. Cease and desist letter (not effective), then lawsuit (minimally effective), then injunction (modestly effective), then obtain the cooperation of payment processors (surprisingly effective and easy once you have a court document that ties the activity to heavily regulated gambling/money laundering-related activities). You can't kill it all, with bitcoin and flying below the radar (like many torrent sites), but you can suppress your problem.
It's an idiom, idiot. And, frankly, I cannot hear myself talk, because I don't mouth the words while I write.
by spending your days staring at a computer monitor and attempting to tell the masses how to live their lives instead!
Well, they'll certainly reform now that some pseudononymous oldster posting on slashdot has shown them the error of their ways.
Or simply continue to do what they're doing while waiting for you to todder off into oblivion. Like younger generations always have.
Congress passed a law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the law.
I'll pick my own hill to potentially die upon, thank you very much. You can choose differently, but you'll be choosing for yourself.
I'm a lawyer. I plow through these things regularly for clients to advise them whether certain objectionable things are present, or occasionally even to negotiate the fine details of the wording.
That being said, I don't read them at all when signing up for services for myself. Oh, I'll do better than most and actually read the closing documents for my house, or for the loan for my car, or an employment agreement, because there's real money involved there. But for "free" services, and even that $25/mo Netflix account, no, it's not worth the time or aggravation. You draw the line somewhere based upon how much you'd write off by saying "screw it, I'm out of here." Guess what -- to a surprising extent my business clients do the same thing.
The extreme example here is not relevant because there's no way on Earth that a court will permit them to collect. They're of course trying to highlight that people don't read even terms that can be enforced against them, like binding arbitration clauses. I applaud the effort in principle, but it's a losing cause because it ignores a more fundamental problem that people instinctually recognize:
For most individuals, the terms are essentially non-negotiable.
If you want to hire a programmer to do something for you, by all means, negotiate in detail and do it well. If you want to buy consumer software, take it or leave it. If you're signing up for some new cloud service, take it or leave it. Unless you are willing to put in a lot of effort, can generate enough outrage to create an ad-hoc negotiating group, or are confident that you can find an advocate within the business, reading the agreement changes nothing.
Also, very few ordinary people are deciding whether or not to enter into a contract based upon enforceable terms like an arbitration provision. That's a very high order effect in their personal utility function, if it would be considered at all.
Short summary: If the license says something that is enforceable in court, odds are super good that you can't get it removed with anything short of an activist campaign. If that's not your thing, you're still a decent human being for not caring. I understand that you have other priorities. If the license says something that is not enforceable in court, why should you care at the outset? Deal with it if the circumstance arises. Again, you have other priorities.
I call it pragmatism. I don't care whether you do or not.
Wait a minute. The democrats and democrat-leaning activists have declared that voter fraud essentially doesn't exist (i.e., is too low to have any impact on anything), therefore Republican efforts to tamp down on voter fraud for the pat 8 years were really aimed at minority voter suppression.
So which is it, Bernie supporters? Does voter fraud not exist, or are there legitimate reasons to demand more rigorous documentation from voters at the polls?
Whatever the truth is, it cannot be both.
Prevailing interpretation of the CDA to you.
It's not as if we haven't seen this before:
Twitter responded that as a publisher, it is immune from liability for content posted by its users under the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
But plaintiffs' attorney Joshua Arisohn said that because direct messages are not published, they fall outside the protections of that statute.
"The common definition of publisher is one who disseminates information to the public," Arisohn said. "If Congress wanted a broader definition for publisher, it could have made one."
Twitter attorney Seth Waxman replied that direct messages are covered under the 2009 Ninth Circuit ruling, Barnes v. Yahoo!, which found that entities cannot be held liable for content posted online by third parties. Finding otherwise would that mean every provider of email and direct messaging, such as Apple and Google, could be liable for content exchanged by their users, Waxman said.
Orrick was not persuaded that companies like Twitter could be sued for messages sent by users.
"Just because it's private messaging doesn't put this beyond the Communications Decency Act's reach," Orrick said.
But please, continue to make unsupported assertions about the field I practice in. I'll certainly take your word over actual precedent and reputable lawyers.
That's funny, because you've quoted it.
47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)
Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Not liable for publishing third party content
over
and over
and over again
It helps if you read everything that I wrote. Then again, the original poster did not say that Facebook could be sued for not censoring something, so I didn't emphasize that point.
If you want to take that position, you should research the CDA as well. We've seen it before, we will see it again, and I for one do not expect to see a different result.
The second part (sec. 230(c)(1), which is actually the first part of that subsection) says that they are not liable for not censoring things. Did you read that? Did you read the part that of my post that specifically discussed it?
Were those parts too difficult for you to understand? How do you propose to get around 230(c)(1)? Shall I drag out the ever growing canon of CDA caselaw that puts the concept in even plainer terms for you?
The first part addressed the bad argument that because they choose to censor at all, they lost their immunity. If you stopped there, that's your problem, not mine.
I'm not shocked. It takes a special brand of stupid to sue an industry that has statutory immunity:
The Communications Decency Act states that:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected...
Facebook does get to pick and choose, and is in most instances free from liability for that choice. Facebook isn't even obligated to pick and choose in the first place, which makes it terribly difficult to prove that a decision not to remove content posted by an independent third party somehow falls outside the CDA immunity.
Facebook doesn't have to do what they do perfectly, and they certainly don't have to do it your way. This suit is a loser.
Turn in your law license, now.
The Communications Decency Act specifically allows this. 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(2) states, in quite understandable terms, that:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected...
47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1) also states that:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Which means that you must show not only that Facebook was aware of the specific messages complained of (since (c)(1) does not impose any duty to investigate), but also that any decision was not taken in good faith. One example of a good faith basis for a decision not to censor: the government cannot punish a speaker for making statements that do not rise to imminent threats of lawless action, and Facebook has no legal obligation to create or impose a broader standard.
Your "de facto" support argument would be crushed. Hopefully, the lawyers who filed the suit have more than that, or their clients will be paying large monetary sanctions after Facebook wins its Rule 11 motion.
The public is using public property adjacent to private property? How dare they! We should totally create a buffer zone around homes that is exclusive to the owner. We could call it a "yard." If you wanted to, you could purchase a home with a "yard." If you didn't want to, you could simply suck it up rather than summoning the WHAAAAmbulance.
Foreseeable consequence of disclosing the password, so whether the first company can be held accountable is very much open to debate, unless they've had the foresight to drop something appropriate into their terms and conditions. Even then, the FTC has a few things to say concerning data breaches, including login/password information breaches.
Yes, you can. If a company is disclosing confidential information, you can complain. It remains to be seen whether a reasonable consumer would be expected to use and remember a unique password for the tens to hundreds of sites that they use in a given year. You can tout best practices until the cows come home, but the FTC's standards for a reasonable consumer do not automatically rise to that level.
Please explain where and how Apple has promoted two factor to people who are not interested in reading the Apple press. Device notification? Prominent email? Anything? Because this is the first time I've heard of two factor for iCloud/iTunes accounts.
Undercut your own argument surprisingly quickly on that one...
You cannot assume that that the reported data rate (slide 7) is decreased due to 8b/10b encoding.
As in gigabit ethernet, the media appears to be reporting a data rate where the signalling rate would be ((10b/8b)-1) higher (e.g., in gigabit ethernet, 1.25 Gbps). That being said, it could easily be the reverse and people are mistakenly reporting the signalling rate as a data rate.
I don't work in this area, so I can't say. I've gotten as close to an "official" source as I can in the first link.
Short answer, yes.
The interfaces for the two card standards are completely different, just as the interfaces for PCI devices were completely changed electrically to PCI-e to increase speeds, and just as the interfaces for ATA and SCSI were completely changed electrically to SATA and SAS to increase speeds.
If you're happy with a 50 MHz, 4 lane parallel bus for I/O, go nuts. Nobody is going to stop selling SD cards anytime soon. But exotic encoding schemes will only take you so far. UFS starts, with a single lane, at 362MB/sec -- faster than the HD312 mode in UHS-II.
You may as well pine for UDMA (ATA Mode 6) SSDs because NVME M.2 is "just what everybody was asking for" and "Would it have killed them to make it backwards compatible with the hardware that already exists?" You have storage compatible with the hardware that already exists -- for the new hardware, such as 4K and 8K video recording devices, that storage really does not cut it.
The SD card format is 17 years old. They future-proofed the horse until it finally fell over and died of old age. You might finally have to accept the transition to an automobile.
Or has DEC been dead and buried for so long (18 years) that someone has decided to repurpose the graphic simply because they can?
*BINGO*
DEC, dead. Compaq, dead. HP, dead enough.
Let it go.
Did those owners pay the other property owners to surrender their air rights so that the Space Needle could have unobstructed views, or are they merely trying to seize a right to prevent others from building structures that are equally high? I.e., a real estate version of pulling the ladder up behind you.
Argh. GMO-free crops will not solve that problem. Stupid typo.
The take-away message is, GMO crops are a net improvement, GMO-free crops will not solve the problem, and farms will still have too use a variable and integrated management strategy either way to overcome biological problems like pests and weeds.
Now explain to us why glyphosate resistance is bad. No, really. Are we reserving glyphosate for some distant future when weeds become mobile super predators, and nobody's publicized the fact?
Glyphosate was a broad spectrum herbicide that could only be used to annihilate plant cover. Roundup-ready crops added a gene that provided glyphosate resistance, allowing gyphosate to be used like a selective herbicide. We have plenty of non-selective herbicides. We have tilling. We have fire. Glyphosate resistance is not anything like antibiotic resistence.
In addition, glyposate resistance was coming, GMO crop or not, due to the use of no-till farming. Glyphosate resistance, like virtually all heribicide resistance, has nothing to do with the crop trait moving into the weeds (the one exception that I know of is 'weedy rice,' where you can have hybridization), but with the weeds evolving in the face of a selective pressure.
Treat it, till it, burn it, but the weeds will evolve to resist any control strategy that is applied consistently without varying the crop and herbicide strategy so as to outpace their ability to change. GMO-free crops will solve that problem.
Yep, they never stopped..
But I can see it. And I am able. And I do.
Also, no, I'm not blocked; yes, I am aware; and, no, I haven't refused "to implement them."
You, on the other hand, are seemingly unaware that your "solution" for the Orlando shooter simply didn't work. You complain that "no one does anything because they don't want to appear racist" -- interesting how your own option amounts to "nothing" -- but you don't even know what was done. Or else you've simply decided that reality is too complex and too disappointing, so instead you'll complain about our failure to live up to a strawman fantasy where people born in the U.S. can "not be allowed in" and every sting op is a guaranteed success.
I'd say you're the one who is mentally blocked. Not even the Israelis can completely stop domestic terrorism.
That is incorrect. Between the "newer" i5s and i7s, the only difference is an increase in the number of EUs and the inclusion of the Crystalwell EDRAM cache.
The two systems have exactly the same video decoding capabilities, which are handled by the uncore, not the EUs themselves.
Forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfao urum gyltendum, you modern English-speaking bastard.