Datasets:

jkruk

/

tech-data

like 0

Yes, but the current version of Moonlight is behind Silverlight in many features. I think if Silverlight ever becomes popular, they'll always keep Moonlight a few steps behind.

Corporations are considered people in a strict sense. Natural persons are themselves legal entities. Corporations are legal entities. A corporation is not a natural person by virtue of being a legal entity. In legalese, a "legal person" is a a legal entity, but simply "a person" will 99 times out of 100 refer to a natural person. But yes, I should have simplified it further by saying "natural person" instead of "person in a strict sense", since this is the internet. >People cannot serve as president in general. Only "natural born US Citizens" can serve. A corporation is not a natural person. I do not believe they meet the criteria of being "born" and I do not believe they are citizens. "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." - U.S. Const. Art. II Sec. I You are making two erroneous assumptions now. One, a person is a legal entity, but not all legal entities are persons. Two, the meaning of and use of the term "natural born citizen". It does not say a natural person, but rather "natural born" and "citizen"; however it is clear from the framers intent in U.S. Const. Art II, Sec. 1, the 14th Amendment, and the Title 8 of the USC (and various other references) that anything other than a "natural person" as used in the first paragraph of my response is ever meant. The 14th amendment defines citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." US Const. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, allows Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship. This is codified in Title 8 of the U.S.C. The Constitution never uses the word "run" for President, but it does use the word eligible, which means, if the person does not satisfy the requirements, they can not obtain the office of the President. So if it can not obtain the office, it can not win.

I don't download movies and I don't seed movies I've ripped. I don't own any movies, either. The only thing I rip movies for is sometimes I won't have time to watch a netflix delivery so I'll rip it and send it back (I tend to have time in bunches, lately I haven't even had time to do the rip!). When I watch the rip I immediately delete it when I'm done. I assume this time-shifting would be infringing copyrights?

This article was written by someone who either hasn't seen the films they think they're poking fun at, or was too busy snorting to pay attention to them. A few examples; AT-AT's are presented as almost indestructible , and are used as heavy guns. That's why there are stormtroopers and scouts all around and ahead of them when they attack the rebels. In fact I think Luke is the only one out of the entire rebel army to bring any of them down. HAL malfunctions because of what he's told to do before the mission starts. You find this out in 2010, which the article writer must have missed when he was too busy congratulating himself on his own 'cleverness'. BATMAN has a rule of not killing people. Lots of people who don't even like Batman are aware of this, so having guns that don't kill people is not really much of a surprise. KITT is a car computer from a series designed for eight year olds. I was going to say the writer must have run out of ideas when he pulled this one out, but then the entire article seems to be bereft of ideas. And knowledge.

The reasons why 3D "will never work" are basically the same as why reading "will never work". The brain isn't actually wired to read text and it certainly isn't designed to read long pieces of text. So how do we overcome this problem? We read a lot. In fact the first part of your school years are designed to help you learn how to read. For some people, this doesn't work very well and we end up with people who can read, meaning they can look at a piece of text and repeat what that piece of text actually says, but they might actually have a hard time decoding the meaning or implications of that text. This is why some people just don't like reading, because they don't really understand what they are reading, but they might be capable of watching a movie and understand every single subtle hint the actor makes simply because they've watched so many movies that they are able to intuitively decode the visual information in that movie. The problem these people who are not that good at reading run into is that the activity of reading causes your eyes to strain and your mind to tire out, almost exactly the same symptoms as a lot of people have with 3D. However the solution is simply, just force yourself to do it a lot and eventually the brain will find ways to make the process less painful.

that sure is a bunch of words for something that has nothing to do with the article It has everything to do with the article. The brain can learn how to solve problem, simply because we can't solve the problem right away doesn't mean the problem is impossible to solve. In the case of 3D the reason why you get problematic symptoms is because the brain and the eyes are used to dealing with this experience. I used reading an an example of how the brain can learn something which didn't evolve to do, namely to read. People learn how to read by doing it, a lot, in fact that takes at about a full decade just to get a hang of reading properly to the point at which you can understand most of what has been written, at least that which has been written well, in your own native language. The ability is derived from the ability to spot visual patterns, which you rightly points out a monkey can do, and the ability to understand language, however it takes YEARS to learn how to read properly simply because the task of reading forces the brain to basically rewire itself in order to compensate for the it's lack wiring between these two part of the brain. Meaning you have the ability to spot visual patterns and understand language biologically, but in order to learn how to read you need to actually learn how to read, it will not come naturally to you since you have to combine two natural abilities. If you don't train your ability to read, you will have problems reading and you'll basically experience the same symptoms as when you are watching 3D movies, you'll strain your eyes because you're not used to scanning pages in such a way and maintaining focus on a single point of distance for very long and your brain will get tired simply because it is overwhelmed by the lingual and visual information it's being fed as your are reading. The brain however has a natural ability to restructure itself as to make this process like tiresome and body parts have a way of increasing efficiency over time. The eye eventually just structures itself so that it doesn't hurt to read for long and the brain increases it's efficiency in processing the information. This is no different than a muscle gradually getting stronger as you use it, the immune system building up an immunity and the liver learning how to metabolize things like alcohol better. The brain has amazing ability to solve mental problems and make them less energy consuming, this is why the learning process takes you from a place where solving a problem is hard at first but eventually you gradually improve and make it less hard. With 3D the process of reconfiguring your eyes will at first be difficult enough that you'll experience physical symptoms but as time goes on, your body will learn how to deal these problems. This is what makes the human body so amazing. Fingers, hands and arms weren't evolved to play the piano, however we can learn do so because we have a basic ability of motor control which the brain can improve to the point at which playing the piano becomes second nature and the muscles which control these parts can be trained to the point at which you can play for hours on end without tiring. What the EYE evolved to do is irrelevant, it's muscles can be trained and the brain controls those muscles. The fact still remain, we can see 3D movies, just for not very long, because we aren't used to having all those buttons pushed. Push them enough time and you eventually Now I'm not defending 3D, I am arguing against the notion that 3D can't work because the eye didn't evolved to watch 3D, ask any neuroscientist and he'll probably agree with me.

I don't see why they should create a desktop app. Netflix's website (and api-based services, aka instantwatcher) work great for finding playable content and being able to play the movie in-browser is awesome! While I've never been a fan of Microsoft, silverlight works without issue.

Yeah, I got nothin' for you there. I got out of the iPhone club and into Android early enough to where I just don't give a shit about its apps, exclusivity, or i-anything anymore. Judging by its current focii, Apple's moving more and more in the direction of mobile and touch and further away from the Mac itself, which is another discussion but another part of the strategy I disagree with.

No jackass, they don't want 30% of the profit. If that was all they wanted this wouldn't be such a big deal. They want 30% of the REVENUE and that's a nut crusher for almost any business. There probably isn't a business out there today that could survive that. Apple itself couldn't survive if someone was taking 30% of their revenue . Apple had profit of 26B with 77B of revenue. If someone siphoned off 23.1 billion of Apple's revenue they would be losing money. They couldn't continue as a business!

Mixed up profit and revenue ? Banned from Reddit! >They want 30% of the REVENUE ... There probably isn't a business out there today that could survive that. So all these iOS developers will go out of business, the platform will dry up and you can sleep at night. I don't completely agree with these new app store terms, but you seem to resent Apple making any profit off of the store at all.

Saying Avatar destroyed the box office because it was 3D is like saying that Snow White's classic status is solely because it is animated. I really do agree with your point, although I try to avoid 3D gimmicky stuff as much as possible, until the fury dies down and more quality products are being made with it. But the fact of the matter was, there was little about Avatar other than the beautiful environment, CG, and great 3D that drew people to see it in theatres. If it didn't have that 3D technology he insisted on using, I imagine theatre turnout would've been much lower; I realize this is a bit of a fallacy, but I only really go see a movie in theatres about once a year. There were quite a few other movies I wanted to see when Avatar came out, but I deliberately saw it in theatres because I was afraid of losing the impact if I saw it on DVD or Blu-Ray.

There are a lot of rules in the English language, most of which have a solid number of exceptions to the point that they're barely rules anymore. Here's [a fun Wikipedia article about pronouncing acronyms and initialisms]( I imagine this sort of thing is difficult for non-native speakers, because it's all willy-nilly.

If the colors are muddled, please, PLEASE complain to the manager of the theater. This is not the studio's fault; it's the theaters that don't give a shit. They think (erroneously) that dimming their projector bulbs to half brightness gets more life out of them, and they are ruining your moviegoing experience because they think they're saving money, and they're counting on you not to notice or complain . Demand your money back. You should get it. If you don't, write a letter to corporate. In fact, write a letter to corporate anyway, because fuck those theater owners who are doing their jobs wrong . A good 3D projection should be bright and colorful. If you don't demand quality, you won't get it. EDIT: This reminds me of a story: A friend of mine (vfx expert) went and saw a 3D movie, and noticed the eyes were swapped. For 20 minutes, she sat there with her glasses on upside down (which swaps the eyes back), thinking she'd gotten a bad pair. Then it occurred to her to check her friend's glasses-- Still swapped. The projection was bad. The whole audience was watching an inverted movie, just sitting there getting a headache and not knowing why. She went up to the projection booth and raised hell, and they swapped the eyes back. The whole theater exploded in sighs of relief. Similar story about an SF Bay Area theater: Opening day of UP 3D. Same person goes in and puts glasses on. Screen is dark. Everything is awfully blurry. It looks like someone slathered vaseline on the projector lens with a mason's trowel. She calls a friend and they send some Studio Folks out to investigate. Turns out the theater had their popcorn maker venting directly onto the glass of the 3D filter , spewing congealed, yellow popcorn grease in thick, caked layers all over it. Skulls were appropriately cracked, as I am told. The audience had just been putting up with it, though.

Perhaps when you are savaged hard enough by your poverty someone will care enough to support you? TBH there is over 9000 of you sitting around smoking pot not wasting time on reddit whom I will be happy to occasionally listen to. It's a crapshoot for you artsy types and you are all so needy that if nobody paid you anything ever and if it cost you money you would still do it. All musos go deeper and deeper into debt at the cost of family loved ones etc etc all the time, sure we might miss out on the occasional hit pop song but it's no great loss. Music is like sunrise with 6 Billion plus peeps in attendance we couldn't get you to STFU if we paid you.

and what is wrong with bedroom-made computer music? Last time I checked, it was the large studio-made, half assed pop albums (with maaaaybe one song worth kinda hearing) that had people searching for better stuff on Lime Wire or cherry-picking favorite songs instead of buying whole albums in the first place. I'll pay money for an early Warp, UR, Trax, Mute, Thrill Jockey, Sub-Pop (or what have you) release on VINYL to hear where a TALENTED producer takes me any day. That being said, I completely agree with you regarding your point about funding talent. People's reluctance to recognize the creatives over the creative's employer is what dilutes the whole scenario here. There is no way anyone can eke out a career in independent music or -insert creative industry here- without a paying customer base. So having taken out your frustrations on the major labels, studios, developers ultimately marginalized these industries to the point where the line between indie and major was blurred, resulting in an overriding attitude that has most people with a sense that everything is ripe for the picking. The norm now seems to be such that we live in a society where culture is marginalized by people who see it as their right to take material that has been lovingly created, sometimes to great pains, and ripping it off. When that happens, you are left with the big boys because nobody else has the financial backing to stay in the game. Marginal... I think it's time to mark that distinction, because there needs to be an infrastructure for creatives to work and make a living within. Otherwise what is the point? Big money wins and nobody else has a chance to compete. I'm with a lot of people when I say I don't support the structure of the major music industry, or the practices of the large film studios, but please, can we have some respect for smaller artists who sacrifice everything to hone their abilities and make a career out of what they love? End rant.

Legal" content delivery is absolutely broken. Here's a Canadian example. The Toronto Blue Jays are my hometown baseball team. I don't own a television, and their broadcast rights (not to mention the team itself) are owned by Canada's largest media company. I was about to pay MLB $100 to watch baseball games live online, until I read the fine print: "Toronto Blue Jays games are blacked out live". I literally can't pay for it. Because Rogers doesn't want to let me. Halfway through the season, Rogers announced that they would be showing all Blue Jays games live online, for free!! The catch? You had to be a Rogers customer (internet/cellphone/landline/whatever).

I didn't say that we should be able to watch it for free. I'm not sure if you read my comment or comprehended which side that I was supporting. I was saying that people shouldn't pay for a service that gouges them on the price if they don't want to be gouged. As a community, they should work to lower the price of hollywood movies through not paying, work towards creating competition, and using alternate means of entertainment. I'm saying that entitlement and deservedness has absolutely nothing to do with this, or morality in general. So many people use the word "deserve" as a powerful tool for rhetoric, and it has so many horrible backlashes. For example, the poor deserve what they have because they don't work hard. People don't deserve to eat because they didn't grow the food themselves. People don't deserve to watch anything for free. People don't deserve to make over a million dollars a year. All of these statements are not arguments. They don't mean anything by themselves. Saying that people don't deserve to watch anything for free means that people will never be able to have that thing for free where there is definitely a situation to have that very thing for free. Soon enough, people will try to monetize the internet even more than they do because they have a monopoly. Many people have stated that no one business deserves to have a monopoly, and it's true because it's easy to see how it becomes a racket. Eventually, the internet will be completely monetized, and there will be someone who says that no one deserves the internet for free. Why the fuck not? Why can't the internet be a great tool for education and prosperity like the radio is or the television was meant to be? Eventually, technology will be good enough so that we can start having free lunches. The difference between someone having a meal or not will be decided on whether or not we can get over this whole attitude of desevedness. Some people say that people only deserve what they can earn. I say that people deserve as much as we can give each other.

Yes, I understand what the intended meaning was. My response was a joke playing off of the idea that the subject being discussed was 'logical operators'. The humor of this appears when you consider that the tilde ('~') is a logical operator, meaning negation. This could lead the initial statement to be interpreted two ways, the first being the intended way (approximately 15 years) and the second being the 'literal' way (the negation of '15 years'). The second interpretation plays off of the subject currently being discussed, and is therefore a joke. A more subtle joke is the implication in my reply is that the writer of the original statement would be using a logical operator incorrectly, even though he has claimed that he has been using them for approximately 15 years (see interpretation number 1). This is contradictory and, thus, is another joke in itself.

It would have been funny if it ended with:

I don't even... > “Presumably, they were bringing up custom-built gear they didn’t want anyone else to see.” ~ Chris Sharp How on earth could they hide their custom-built gear? > “They had us turn off all overhead lights too, and their guys put on those helmets with lights you see miners wear.” ~ Chris Sharp So if the guys with these "helmets with lights" can see in the dark, why can't someone breathing down their neck also see? > Google declined to comment on Sharp’s little anecdote. ~ Wired

Or perhaps it was seen as unnecessary to light an entire room full of nothing that actually needs light. I makes a hell of a lot of sense to set up a data centre without lighting; it saves infrastructure costs, saves energy and eliminates waste heat from the redundant lighting. If people need to move around in the data centre, what is wrong with a torch and portable lighting? To me it makes perfect sense and has nothing to do with paranoia. Where I work our DC is lit 24x7 and kept at a cool 17 C. It's like a god damn fridge in there. /

This is what nmrk meant. >The guy (lawyer) had not comment, so he thinks the guy (lawyer/client) got a settlemnt and a NDA. But he (client) also could have been under instructions from his lawyer to not talk to the press... (the lawyer, similarly did not talk to the press) Just to add to nmrk's opinion... I agree. It was badly written and full of speculation. In some cases, lawyers should be wise enough to decline from commenting because they know there is a possibility that a comment may affect the case. Maybe something happened at the time which made him change tactic in handling the press. Writers like this guy (Paul Mcnamara) tend to assume that if people don't make comments it's because they're hiding something. Moreover, he probably got annoyed from his fruitless interview so he wrote the articles with bias. > Monroe was not shy about explaining his client's case to the press. Having heard nothing more in the subsequent four months, I called Monroe yesterday and asked if he could update me on the status of that lawsuit. Then, the lawyer kept giving him the "no comment" responses. > So you tell me: Does this sound like an attorney whose client has accepted a settlement that carries the common stipulation that neither he nor his lawyer will blab about it? That's what I took from all those "no comments" and Monroe's bemused indulgence of my questioning , but I suppose there are other possible explanations. > And Monroe's answer was exactly the one I had expected before making the call. After all, does anyone really think Apple wanted this dirty laundry flapping around in an open courtroom? Pure speculation. He's insinuating that Sergio Calderone is blackmailing Apple by "dirty laundry flapping" - which he simply assumed from the sudden "no comment" responses from the "previously talkative lawyer". Now, it's possible that that is what's happening in the case, but the author just made pure speculation from the "no comment interview" he got. He, in fact admitted that "there are other possible explanations", but he didn't expound on this and kept on attacking the lawyer's demeanor. The author mixes up his facts and opinions about the case, which I think may be dangerous for casual readers who don't analyze the article well enough to see what is fact and what is opinion. Anyway, it's just a blog, so just don't take the article too seriously.

Personally, I think it is coupled to the notion that if something is done by enough people, it can not morally be made illegal because the laws are in place as a result of the majority of opinions in the society. By automating something like tracking people you are freeing up an otherwise enormous manpower requirement to track people. If someone wants to follow another person around to watch their activities that is one thing, it requires at least 1 person (arguably less with really efficient followers, but not by a whole lot). At some level that implies the manpower required to track always exceeds the people being tracked - the majority still rules. Once you automate it and start implementing algorithms to take over the jobs of people otherwise doing the work you drastically reduce the number of people required to watch others - you can not only cut the force required to do so down in size while gaining efficiencies, but it also means the majority is no longer in control.

The reviews don't even have to be fake. There are at least three kinds of genuine low-score reviews that shouldn't exist. 1-3 stars: Product was great! Worked well for 2 years. So happy with it. (Why do these exist?) 1 star: Product was great but delivery took 3 weeks because UPS sent it to China. (Review isn't really about the product. Definition of misdirected anger.) 1 star: Product (coffee grinder) broke when my son tried to grind rocks in it. Manufacturer refused to replace as warranty doesn't cover damage due to rock grinding. (Not the product's fault the customer abused/misused it.)

Amazon tracks additional information to judge the quality of a review. They track votes for "Was this review helpful?" (as well as a bunch of other stuff, but let's leave those out and keep this conceptually simple). The experienced repairman's review will bubble to the top because more people will find his review useful than a shill's review because the shill's review contains marketing information (fluff) whereas the repairman's review contains technical information (meat and potatoes). You can't actually drop anyone's review, even the shills. A filter that totally drops suspected shill reviews would be a fundamentally broken algorithm . A shill's review is never flagged fake because you can never prove it was fake. You can only rank reviews (and reviewers) by your confidence in them and apply a function to weight their rating's contribution to the product's score. Your confidence is determined by how many people found the review helpful or were motivated to purchase the item due to the review. The "Was this helpful?" vote functions as a review of the review (a meta-review). Sure, the shills will obviously vote yes for their own reviews so you may say this is merely avoiding the problem; however, there is analysis I can do on the meta-review I could not do on the reviews. Analysis such as: considering geographical distance between meta-reviewers and reviewers (shills will be in close proximity) product overlap between meta-reviewers and reviewers (shills will have nearly 100% overlap) differences due to the change of intent (reviewers have bought the item so they have a paid purchase; but, meta-reviewers are wanting to buy the item so they have no paid purchase) a purchase of the item after voting the review helpful (a customer is telling us the review is not a shill) Those who fall outside the pattern will have their review confidence reduced so their contribution is weighted less. Only having reviews for analysis does not provide enough of a data trail. Adding the meta-review is a means to generate a more detailed data trail. Knowing a customer purchased an item after flagging a review as helpful is giving me information I did not have before.

According to wikipedia " The Sun's stellar classification, based on spectral class, is G2V, and is informally designated as a yellow dwarf, because its visible radiation is most intense in the yellow-green portion of the spectrum and although its color is white, from the surface of the Earth it may appear yellow because of atmospheric scattering of blue light." >> Go look at the sun in the middle of the day. It's silvery blue. No, it's not, and virtually nobody would agree with you. >> our repeated insistence that our eyes significantly change the color of the sun is fucking hilarious. You do know that the cornea attenuates light at the higher end of the visible spectrum don't you? And it gets worse with age. Early synthetic corneal transplants which were clear resulted in folks having increased sensitivity to blue hues, and if I remember correctly, some sensitivity to UV. Modern implants compensate for this, both to protect the retina from UV and to prevent annoying and unnatural sensitivity to blue. Oddly enough, the blue cones are the most sensitive, but alas, they're filtered by the cornea and vitreous humour so we end up having peak response with the green cones. I guess that's funny if you have a weird sense of humor.

Okay, this is just fucking pathetic. If it helps, the word "than" is a subordinate conjunction. This means that the pronoun after it is in the subjective form, not objective.

We have outcompeted other animals by predicting and modeling their behaviors. We even do this with each other by imagining how others behave and react, and we even model ourselves. Taking this mental ability a step further, if you were to model or simulate the universe internally, you'd be able to make even better decisions. I mostly lifted this argument from a Charlie Stross book, Accelerando.

I've thought about this concept a lot ever since I was in high school. If everybody would indulge me with a little thought experiment: The only assumption that is this: At least 1 civilization in the universe/multiverse is able to develop the computational power to run a virtual "universe" simulation before it gets annihilated or annihilates itself. If follows that: It seems nigh impossible that a civilization would run just a single simulation and be done with it. Let's think about how many simulations would be run. Sociologists, pathologists, biologists, astronomists... practically any scientific field could benefit from being able to run experiments in a whole isolated universe. Okay, now think about all of the graduate students running 30 or 300 simulations at the same time to test different variables for this thesis or that final project. (Example: Starting the big bang with a different ratios of matter, dark matter, & dark energy? Introducing 2, 3, or more space-faring species to each other? Heck, what if we are the "control" universe without any alien interactions, allowed to develop without extra-solar influences?) Eventually, the technology would become common place enough to trickle down to the regular populace. We have Minecraft now, running on machines that would be powerful enough to be classified as supercomputers in the mid-20th century. And how many Minecraft worlds have been made so far by us just goofing off with our computers? Answer: a LOT! So... where does this land us? We have 1 real universe that develops the ability to simulate an significantly large number of virtual universes. The chances of us living in the real universe become incredible slim, practically nil. In the end, it leaves us with 2 possible fates. Either all civilizations that exist or will exist destroy themselves before achieving the ability to simulation a universe, or we ARE one of those simulated universes. There is an INCREDIBLY slim (albeit non-zero) chance that we will end up being a progenitor civilization, but it seems incredibly unlikely.

This will probably never get seen but, on the off chance it does I feel compelled to share. My first thought after seeing this was: Well it would have been nice if they made space travel (ftl) easier to complish. Which make me think that maybe our simulation exists because space travel is hard to achieve. In the real world they have computers faster than we think possible, but they do not have the ability to travel the stars. So since they didnt want to wait they decided to simulate the entire universe (really quickly, relative to them ) and see how we achieved space travel. Then use our methods to travel through space. And it doesnt necessarily have to be space travel out to accomplish. Cure for cancer, a solution to fossil fuels, a plan keep the sun from exploding, hell maybe they just wanna see how it all turns out.

Answers to the relevant philosophical questions... The fact that we could be living in a simulation should not change your belief structure unless you're under the impression that sense data somehow immediately penetrates into core aspects of reality. This is false, we use conceptual models to make sense out of pretty much everything including sense data. As long as the model continues to work we can say that our sense data is giving us correct information and we continue to truly know the world around us. It just so happens that our reality may be based on a computing device of some sort. This is precisely the situation we would find ourselves in if we're inhabiting a "real" world. We would still need conceptual models to make any sense out of sense data and the only way to determine if we're using the right model is to test whether it works. This experiment is so conceptually flawed that it's useless. These scientists are testing for discrete units where they expect to see only a continuity. They are making an unjustified assumption that a simulation would consist of discrete units and that given a simulation made up of discrete units they would be able to detect said discrete units. In other words, there is no reason to think that a "real" world would not consist of discrete units or that a simulation would include a way to detect discrete units from within the simulation.

I understand what you were trying to do: resolve an inconsistency. The explanation you chose creates a bigger inconsistency: even if the machines taught some humans an elegant physics lie to explain something, other humans outside the matrix obviously have a grasp on the real-world's physics, demonstrated by their use of hover-crafts, computers, oxygen, heat and waste processing. If a perpetual-energy source really did exist for the machines, it would also exist for the humans, yet the humans' application of physics is not demonstrably different from what is portrayed inside the matrix and doesn't harness perpetual energy in any way, so the explanation does not hold water whether in the movie's in-matrix-universe, nor in the movie's real-world universe. It's OK if you want to build a movie universe where they have different laws of physics but you have to apply them consistently.

Yeah, but there is no are in the original sentence. And that does make a difference. pre-emptive

I agree that seeing these articles every day is disheartening, but where do you get the idea that people who identify as liberal, or really anyone outside of the political and legal fields, is supporting this? I really haven't even seen any discussions on digital privacy being listed as any party or group's platform. Big government would tend to fall on the side of liberal ideology - both as self-proclaimed and disapproving rhetoric would argue - but I don't know that it's being vocally supported.

you should always assume anything you send to the internet unencrypted or encrypted publicly is 100% public and will always exist forever, expecting a company or the law to protect you is stupid and foolish. doxxing is almost always the result of stupidity on the person being doxxed and it is usually well deserved. maybe tools like these will give reason to people. even as a relativity extreme privacy and security advocate today, i still follow one piece of advice my mama gave me when i was about 7 or so. and that is "dont put any person information on the internet". this has served me well and as a consequence i do not fear any information company for my own sake.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't care to follow this story, I rarely care about stories that affect 1 person. I look at the macro, just the way my brain is wired. This kid got academic journals and made them public, right? He took copyrighted material where the only way the author gets paid for their work is when someone (like me) pays a couple dollars to view them online, and he made it free for everyone to see. Then, when the authors/schools realized that the material was out of the barn and there was no way to recover it, they were the "bigger man" and said it was okay. But the government said no, you can't steal even if the victim eventually gets over it, so they were set to take him to trial. This is what happened, right? (don't link an article,

This is true but keep in mind the students of MIT still aren't back from winter break till next week. Secondly this approval thing you speak of is not how MIT works. Example: the police car on the dome was never approved just ignored. Also i talked to a lawyer protesting outside the office of general counsel at MIT who was protected by 3 MIT police officers so if you think they are silencing protests about Aaron you are wrong. Basically what i'm saying is if you are waiting on the reaction of the student body you will probably have to wait another 2 weeks for students to return and a student group to get organized.

So uh, there's this thing, don't know what it's called. But a lot of universities are offering those who publish a sort of "you can put it on the internet for free" loophole. IIRC most of these journals have a "you can't post this anywhere UNLESS you have some stipulation at your institute that REQUIRES you to post it on an institute run site. This is often optionally required. Georgia Tech has it, I think MIT does too.

Besides all the technical overhead they have to pay, they also have to pay employees or consultants who review and publish the articles. I assume these experts are very highly paid, since they are critiquing and selecting work by the preeminent minds (professors as well as graduate students) in the field. I merely showed that this comment is demonstrably untrue. Honestly, I think journals have the best business model in the world. They get a good reputation, and then people pay them to publish their content (and even give the rights of the content to them!), they get volunteers to edit and review their content, and then people pay them exorbitant fees to read said content! > What gives you the right to access JSTOR's proprietary information for free? When did I ever make this argument? Why respond with this non sequitur? > If they are simply after prestige, well guess what, JSTOR provides it, and sells it to these tenured dopes, and they are free to do so. You do realize that JSTOR isn't a journal, right? JSTOR is an online repository of journal articles; it aggregates actual journals, digitizes them, and provides them to universities. It is entirely a middleman.

You pretty much just described civil disobedience, and if you subscribe to that viewpoint, if you disagree with a law you have the responsibly to disobey that law just like Thoreau with taxes he didn't agree with, Gandhi did it by disobeying the laws against harvesting salt (among other things), and MLK jr. did it by disobeying the law of segregation. But according to you, these three men shouldn't have done so "because just cause you want something to change doesn't mean you have carte blanche to attempt to force that change through illegal actions.

PRTs do exist, and could be implemented on a block-by-block functionality, covering an entire city in fewer than three years, with forced re-housing and destruction of current roads (to force obsoletion of most cars, which have no point and no value). No one should own a car now, but most people are too stupid to actually advocate for the ideal, because they're content with 'good enough', which clearly isn't. Under your system, Denver could have a PRT, but, say, ABQ wouldn't have to... which is similarly bullshit. Ignoring the part that it is entirely immoral to uproot people from their homes for a new transit system you think is better. I'm guessing from this you live in a city. PRT's aren't a solution for rural areas (about 20% of the US population). They aren't even a wise decision for places that aren't major cities. Money is a quantitative measure of how much in the way of materials and labor (to some extent time, but excluding it because the difference is insignificant unless you are trying to deliberately rush things, which for the sake of this discussion I'll concede isn't a priority as it would further demonstrate my case if it were) it costs to do something. We live in a world of finite resources - are fossil fuels the best answer? Yes, actually right now they still are. To replace all the roads with PTRs you would be looking at a massive initial investment in the same resource consumption you are trying to eliminate by their substitution (and remember, most of the fossil fuel use isn't even for private transportation, it's for power - the very same power that will be driving the bulk of the PTRs). If you are looking for a green solution, roads are not the place to start unless you are in a city that can benefit from them otherwise (everyone knows driving in a city blows , there is room for improvement there and more importantly for a new technology, there is a testing ground to start ramping up production and deploying/debugging it rather than buying an entire nation worth of PTR pods and rails and having them all fall to shit in the very same way - change is incremental or catastrophic, there is no happy middle ground to be had there). In terms of a free market, if you look at companies like zip car - if they catch on they will expand, if you look at Google's self-driving cars, they aren't developing that for nothing. The next logical step will be a PTR-type system, but it is an incremental step that will have to work within the rules people set (this isn't simcity, you can't just bulldoze a neighborhood full of people because you think the benefits of putting a PTR in and rebuilding all the homes outweighs the negatives, even if that held true [an enormous assumption for a new technology] - those aren't your lives to uproot, you don't get to make that call, they do). > This is the problem I have with your focus. People can do what they want under very few circumstances... they still have to pay bills, they still have to seek employment, etc. I propose that true freedom is economic freedom, and that it can only be achieved by intellectuals forcing the mundanes to accept what's best for them. You don't have to pay bills or get a job, it's just much easier to survive by doing so. It is perfectly possible to go live in the woods off fish and berries. That kind of lifestyle wouldn't support our entire population, but it's a shitty enough existence it doesn't have to, because it's a hell of a lot easier to get a job and pay your bills to pick berries, build a shelter from sticks and fish every day - not to mention it's much more fulfilling having access to technology. Economic freedom comes from hard work, not intellectuals forcing mundanes to accept what is best for them (take it from someone with an IQ of 191 who scored in the top 0.0001-0.000001 percentile [depending on the precision of the test] in dozens of aptitude tests) - even if you could force people to adapt to what is "best" for them, you don't know what is best for them, nobody does because every fucking day we are in uncharted territory with new technologies, political scenarios, characters acting it all, etc. The best statistical projections we have are still just that, political systems are no different from quantum mechanics - you can get most of the details right, but every now something is going to tunnel across the fucking universe to your utter amazement. A new technology will come along and make you go "wow, investing in all those solar cells was a really dumb idea now that we have fusion - perhaps even dumber that we shut down our fusion testbed and let the europeans lead the charge in the technology" or perhaps something goes catastrophically wrong (a chemical in the manufacturing process of whoever bullshitted their way through the grant process to mass produce the solar panels and PTR's causes cancer, or simply fails catastrophically causing the device to stop working after 6 months instead of the projected 20 years and the "green" project that was only barely fitting of the name to begin with is now very much not).

TIL you can span out two paragraphs of content into a full page article by: Using three different heading fonts, each of ridiculous size. Using double returns when a single carriage return is needed. Using unnecessary carriage returns between sentences in a quotation. Insert an image that is just barely related to your topic.

This isn't an LTE base station, all this is is a Titanium Rocket M5 (or a few sectors of them) floating on a balloon with some solar panels attached. WISPs generally cram 40 to 50 customers on them before having to add sectors to a tower, although they are offering 3 to 10mbps usually, and are usually hampered by the modulation rates of their customers. If their customers all connected perfectly & sync at 300mbps (which means 40mhz channels), you've got a potential bandwidth of 97.2TB a month. Add this on top of the fact that throw at least 3 if not 4 sectors on the same channel on the same tower with coordination, and multiply that by 200mhz of spectrum( 6 contiguous channels, 4 40mhz ones, and 2 20 mhz), and you can push about 2332.8TB worth of traffic to the ground. You'll likely halve this with google's setup, just due to people connecting at slightly lower than optimal modulation, etc Point is, wireless can handle that traffic on the cheap, especially if you set up a few dozen towers in each city. What matters though is the bandwidth out of New Zealand, that is where things get costly. There's only one fiber cable serving NZ, and it is expensive to buy throughput on it. Google can likely subsidize it initially, so as to make it palpable, but they could likely onshore some of their services & get more CDNs to set up shop in NZ to cut costs. Also, NZ Meshnet is a thing, just throwing that in here :)

Incorrect. The round trip latency for geosynchronous satelite internet is 1400ms. The signal has to travel 35,786km each way. For these balloons, the signal has to travel 20km each way. You don't have to do the math to see it will be quick, but I'll do it anyway. Assuming everything but distance is the same as satellite internet, the latency would be (20km/35786km)*1400ms = 0.78ms. The distance it has to travel on the ground (1,000s of km) makes the air travel negligible.

Like other commonly used flammable substances (propane, natural gas, gasoline, alcohol, etc.), hydrogen requires an ignition source to burn. After launch, the only likely source of ignition would be a lightning strike, or perhaps a short in the electronic systems, both of which are unlikely. Should such an event occur, the hydrogen would very rapidly combust and the balloon's comm package would fall to earth - which is exactly what would occur should a helium filled balloon lose structural integrity from a lightning strike or onboard fire.

Transparency should definitely be a goal that is strives for in the developed countries. However giving shit salaries because the current lot you're stuck with doesn't achieve anything won't increase motivation nor loyalty either. Im not only suggesting giving them a decent payment for what they're supposed to do, transparency is also required to know/find out whether anyone recieves bribes, and would also be of aid as a deterrent once those people are kicked out of politics for good. As far as dealing harsh penalties there are few areas where that has any effect. As long as the reward is viewed as high enough people will deal in whatever even if they might be legally killed for it. Rehabilitation for these people would be a waste of time when it is much more effective to bar them from participating in politics, and a prison cell not only costs the nation money directly, you also lose a lot of (tax) income from these people not earning salaries and paying tax for the period you would imprison them.

Generally I'm highly against Adblock. There are a few exceptions such as those with very slow speeds or monthly limits, those are fine. Its also fine for use against highly disruptive noisy/large/popup advertisements. The issue comes when people complain about watching a 15 seconds advertisement or having a small banner on the side of their screen. Many sites are only capable of running off of these banners as they are otherwise non commercial websites, to increase content and pay fees. Heck, many of those websites give any funds they make past hosting fees towards charities. I'm personally disgusted when people use Adblock to avoid these sites. Youtube plays HD advertisements, which is bullshit, so if your connection isn't capable of it, go ahead and block it. Don't block advertising because you cant wait 15 seconds of your life before watching a 5-10 minute video, that allows you to watch that content for free. It bothers me greatly when entire sites go down because advertising isn't paying for the hosting fees. The hosts of many of those sites are alone, spending the time to provide the content free of charge. Its a shame if they also have to pay money from their pay check to do so too.

If you’re building a Windows Store app today, or you already have an app in the Store, and want to update your app to Windows 8.1, here’s what you need to know. You can use Visual Studio 2013 to retarget your app package for Windows 8.1, and you may also want to take advantage of some of the new features available in Windows 8.1 like flexible window layout views, new controls, and improved in-app search. Apps have not been updated to 8.1 yet, so the new in-app search isn't working yet. New Search: You can turn off the bing search results during install or in the settings: Here is what the search results actually look like:

Hearing voices in your head is a common sign of paranoid schizophrenia. So is it more likely that he was a) crazy or b) being controlled by the government to go shoot a bunch of mid level office workers?

Lets me get you in on a little secret of my own. Public internet are not very secure, because they're exactly that! Public! The internet as we know it is made up of an immense amount of people or other entities hosting services and those services being connected (networked). There is nobody who "regulates" the internet in this way. You can host whatever you want, with whatever security measures you want. Thus, some sites etc are insecure. Not to mention that the backbones of the internet are owned by large companies that manage the security. Again, no way to ensure the security (aside from auditing of course, which does happen) of these devices. The government on the other hand has all the tools they need to simply connect their devices together, and create a network. The internet, remember is merely a network. So to say that it is "secret" that the government has their own internet...is a little preposterous to say the least. Not to mention that fact that alot of their examples or speaking points are really just exaggerations or "what if's".

The TellSpec handheld scanner beams a light at the food you wish to analyze, measures the reflected light with its spectrometer, and sends the data via your smartphone, computer, or tablet to the TellSpec servers in the cloud. Those servers use this data to deduce information about your food that is of interest to you.

This will have no impact on consumers other than increased prices from various services. If your VOIP provider uses an excessive amount of data (as stated by the telcos), they'll have to pay an increased fee to upgrade their bandwidth which means you may be charged more. Theoretically, it shouldn't affect your service at all provided said service provider pays for the bandwidth. They won't be sabotaging anything, just saying "If you want preferential treatment and higher amounts of data you have to pay more". The issue is that their current caps are so low that a large amount of companies will be forced to pay up. The FCC rules proposed are a good idea - in theory - but no doubt they will set the floor for "acceptable" speeds far too low to make any difference.

That's not slowing it down. It's not giving them a speed up. Comcast opened up more channels. That's it. They didn't increase the speed, they opened more ways for it to get through. Think of it as a highway. If they add more lanes, traffic will get through faster, but the speed limit is still the same. It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual connection speed, it has to do with the amount of data being uploaded at once. It's hard to understand if you're not a tech, I'm sure, but the issue is that we should be getting better connections baseline instead of paying for the connections.

from their info section it looks like they have honey pots set up so this is just showing the people who attack them. honey pots are servers that are set up solely to be vulnerable, and are usually set up specifically to analyze attacks and traffic to them.

It's horribly, horribly inefficient. The start menu provides very little information about the state of applications, and it's pretty pathetic as an app launcher. People seem to have this bizarre love affair with an abusive UI conceit that's long past its prime. The start screen's not some ideal model of efficiency, but it's worlds better than the start menu. Starting new tasks is precisely the sort of event that can be efficiently modal.

The difference is the business model and type of services. Netflix is like Blockbuster video, only they don't have a physical store. It's either done by mail with physical copies, or online with their streaming service. You pay netflix a monthly fee to have access to their entire library. In essence, when you stream a movie through Netflix, you are watching a "DVD" movie or TV show. Hulu, in contrast, offers network entertainment. Meaning cable tv shows. Hulu gets the content from networks like FOX, CBS, and ABC. Some of the content have restrictions such as new episodes of any giving show will be available the day after it aires. This is basically very limited cable with on demand, only it's over the internet. Some shows give you every episode available. Some only offer the lastest 5 episodes of the most recent season. This type of deal makes it difficult for Hulu to turn a profit. They have to buy the rights to stream episodes and sometimes they buy the rights to multiple shows from the same network, so they sell ad space in the streams to make up for it. I'm assuming that the price of admission goes to the networks and the ad revenue goes into Hulu's pocket, or vice versa. Youtube on the other had is entirely user based. Without you and I making content to be uploaded to youtube, well, there would be no youtube. The ads are a way to create incentive for people to make content by offering them ad money which is rooted in how many views you get on your video. Youtube makes their money the same way. Either through ads in videos or ad space on the page itself.

Most people have heard that cables don't matter when they should have heard digital cables don't matter. People scoff and laugh at me when I say that cables can effect the sound in a way that humans can tell with decent equipment. Whether or not the value is worth it to you is debatable but not whether or not it actually can make a difference. Pure silver cable with quality connectors and solder work vs pure copper cable can and will sound different. On $20 Walmart specials probably not so much but even on a pair of Beats with a good amp and clean should be audibly noticeable.

So, on a slight tangent, I used to work for Cirque du Soleil, and was present for the opening of their show in Macau. This was something of a big deal, because in Vegas, Cirque have a contract with one particular casino company, and they will only do shows in casinos owned by MGM. But in Macau, no such contract, so the owner of the competing Vegas company had bought a Cirque show for his casino in Macau. So this was the first ever Cirque show in 25 years in a Sands casino. Dude flew in on opening night, complete with young blonde wife dripping with diamonds, and proceeded to make a speech about how awesome being rich was because fuck MGM, now he had a Cirque show.

The speaker market is filled with products whose... and you can spend thousands of dollars on audio cables... while those expenses at least have some technical justifications behind them" No. No they don't. You can't hear what you can't hear. This stuff is well documented and, for a journalist, is readily available information even if it requires calling a professional for a succinct overview if the tech detail is too much. Why would you pick apart one bogus claim while supporting others that are just as ludicrous? It doesn't do much for your credibility. Edit: I went and had a look around for some more info on this because it occurred to me that the article itself is not the initial source of the claim and we shouldn't trust the word of a journalist who can't even be bothered to research the other claims they present in their article... The fact that the article has been edited since this thread started indicates some back pedaling and the new inclusion of links to two reddit comments in this thread as supporting facts when, with no disrespect to those redditors, the sources are completely unknown to the journalist, and so there's no way to verify the qualifications of those redditors, just shows a further lack of integrity. So, digging around online, the vast majority of references are similar articles that instantly say "this is a ridiculous rip-off"... But the claim that they're all disputing doesn't appear to have been made by Sony in the first place. Each report just says "Media doesn't introduce noise to audio data", which is correct, data doesn't have noise introduced into it just because of it's storage media. But there are other ways that storage media can introduce noise into an audio signal path: Electromagnetic interference, caused when the data is being read by voltages passing through the circuitry of the media, could cause noise to be introduced if the components have poor shielding. I've been unable to turn up any claim made by Sony concerning the new card, the SR-64HXA, but I suspect that Sony are not stupid enough to make the claim that's being disputed... And are most likely introducing cards with greater shielding to help prevent EM interference within the audio device's circuitry when data is being read. This would primarily be something aimed at the professional audio market, but why not make it available for all the audiophiles with deep wallets and no sense who don't need it, but still want it?

The example you're listing is neither science nor proving i'm wrong. Science is a specific process of hypothesis and experimentation. The hypothesis posed in this article in no way refutes what i mentioned, and the experimentation process used would never be able to pass pier review, nor be published anywhere other than in an unscientific news article. So lets get into the specifics of both my claim, and what this article you posted is addressing. My claim: That a former sommelier was able to distinguish with 100% accuracy the blend or varietal, and with about 75% accuracy the winery producing the bottle (for California wineries only). How did i draw those numbers? In class, the tests we were given were based on distinction of blends of varietals from batch to batch. We'd either get a flight of Reds, or of Whites, and would have to note which we thought each was. Average class scores on this type of test were about 80% correct by the end of the semester, most people would typically get 1 or 2 wrong, the rest right. Some people would get all of them right. The professor would use himself as an example, have 6 students each pick a red (or white respectively), with the teacher being blind to the picks. One of the students would pour the samples, and he would, by smell alone, tell you the varietal or blend with 100% accuracy. Not once in the semester did he ever miss one tested this way. By contrast, the first few weeks of the class i'd get 1 or 2 correct, by the end of the semester would get 5 or all 6 correct. Most of the class progressed at about the same level, but I always had to taste to be sure, i couldn't ever be that accurate on smell alone. For him being able to tell which winery a wine came from with about 75% accuracy: This was only done the last few weeks of the semester. He was a sommelier in California, and worked directly for several wineries as a sommelier. Part of the Master Sommelier certification in CA is testing against exactly the thing you're saying science is proving i'm wrong, so your claim now is that there's an entire professional certification that requires its applicants to be able to defy science in order to get certified... that's a more outlandish claim than the one i'm making, but lets get back to brass tax... The professor had decades of experience working directly for the wine industry specifically in a capacity of knowing what wineries produced what wines, which vineyards grew which varietals, and which years had certain atmospheric conditions that would be ideal for producing certain types of wine. He became a bar owner after he stopped working for wineries, and his bars all had rather large selections of mostly California produced wines. The example he made of himself in regards to this type of testing was much more knowledge of his inventory based on his palate. We were never subjected to this level of test, but the same type of test where he'd have 6 different students pick out 6 different varietals or blends of red, instead he'd have them pick 6 different Zinfandels, or 6 different Pinos, all of them being from California based companies. His bars probably stocked about 10 different brands of each type of wine from California wineries only, and probably another 2-3 of each type from international companies. Of the 4 times we ran this test on him, he only got 100% once, but got 4/6 twice and 5/6 once. As for your article, what it's experimenting against isn't nearly as isolated, and isn't nearly as specific. They were essentially testing if a judge could tell between a cheap and expensive wine of the same varietal. The chose the 'better' tasting of the wines. There wasn't a controlled inventory, there wasn't a double blind (they were specifically shown the bottles, bottles filled with the wrong wines, to intentionally bias the judgement), and no control groups. Just the judges. By that same criteria, i doubt by professor would have done any better or been any more consistent than the judges in your article.

I agree that the price is retarded, but I was looking on Audioquest website to see if the whole thing is a joke. I read through the ~$600 diamond USB spec sheet. What is interesting is that the cable WILL produce higher quality audio output, but only if you send the audio as an analog signal through the cable. Audioquest used a really expensive DAC and a bunch of other high quality peripheral/speakers to eek out a slight gain in audio quality. The whole cost for the demo was like 4-5 grand. Which I find to be totally outrageous for audio fidelity gains.

Further down the rabbit hole: Most modern media protocols have fault recovery which can result in skipped sound due to re/buffering. so, in theory, an electrical "error" can interrupt data patterns and affect buffers. faults can be generated by invalid memory blocks, usually physical damage or pre-indicators of physical damage to the device.. rebuffer loops can be detected and avoided later by marking the bad blocks, etc.. Since most of the MP(x) family uses streaming formats, it makes complete sense to market a "durable" card that "could" result in "less electrical noise", based on the above, produce a positive. So sure, if the ends justify the means. IF I happen to be traveling/racing and such, it could be a good investment if it was a "less electrical noise"-producing effect of physical damage.

I cannot for the life of me imagine that flash memory would be ANY more noisy than the SoC that runs these digital media recorders and players. I certainly as hell can't imagine the noise from an SD card not being totally swamped by the noise from the FREAKING SWITCH MODE POWER SUPPLY in these things either.

I think you're wrong, but I don't know enough about audio engineering to argue!" All I know is these are the same exact line of reasoning they used for HDMI cables etc... mainly because yes... in professional video recording where you need to send a signal over 15 metres this does come into account. however thanks to bullshit technology advertisers can use buzz words and info used by yourself to just put basic shit on the market to make claims that are not true.

I understand there are two separate things going on: hypocrisy, wanting to pass laws, but clearly not acting as if you follow the ideals the law pursues, or: bad laws, regardless of whether you follow the actual ideals, laws that are plainly and unambiguously bad for the country/people/etc. I don't care if she's a hypocrite, to be honest. If the last vote needed to e.g. pass a gay marriage bill is one from a senator who tells his kids that gays are bad people and are going to hell, then that's his choice. As long as he votes (hypocritically) for a law that makes the country better, then I'd be content. However, SOPA/CISPA/etc are very bad laws . They might give some NSA employees and Fox News radicals a hard-on, but in every other way, they are bad for the US, in terms of security, in terms of freedom, privacy, and for business, since it would scare foreign customers away from US internet-based corporations. It would also be very bad for the global internet in general, since so much infrastructure is dependent on the whims, networks and institutions of the US. That is the difference with the gun laws. Whether the gun laws are good or not, depends on your ideals (and your hobbies: shooting guns is fun). But there is plenty of precedent for stricter gun laws being positive. SOPA/CISPA does not rely on opinion. It's just bad. Objectively and factually bad. For (almost) everyone. Edit, in case the comment is too long:

I honestly don't understand how this shit doesn't qualify as entrapment. 'Oh but they were totally going to commit a crime, whether we set them up with means and method to do so, or not'. Yeah but... Were they? A person can feel strongly about something or be inclined towards a certain type of behaviour, and then never act out those desires. Admittedly I don't know the specifics of the case because most of it doesn't seem to be public.

Thanks, you're the best auto

This isnt the first time starbucks has completely fucked up and allowed people to get free money via their giftcard system. Back in 2013 they offered a deal of $5 credit to any newly registered giftcards. Now the original intention was to credit new customers that were giftcard buyers, but people decided to buy $5 giftcards to get $5 giftcards, 50% off isnt bad. But it got worse, people realized you could get a $0 balance digital giftcard from their app and register that, meaning they were giving out $5 for signing up and had no limitations besides good faith. 814,000 views, 13.2k replies. Starbucks lost thousands that day (nothing to them), and people came away with expresso makers and whatever.

Corporations need a formal process documented for the public for things like this, and incentives, like Google for example. Unfortunately, that's not the case for many. So much hate! I read about this last night in /r/hacking, before it got cool in tech. Yes, it took Starbucks a couple weeks to figure it out, but OP had the right intentions and had to work through some (too much) corporate bullshit. The fact does remain that he did steal from them, to prove the exploit... Which puts him in a tough situation. If it were me, I'd share with SBux anonymously. My value is my earning potential, not some bounty, and sharing this would put me at a lot of risk. Potential to help increase my earning potential, but potential to damage that ability completely. All in all, Starbucks didn't press charges or anything like that, which, IMO, is the best possible outcome for OP...

Corporations are legal fictions. They are not "people," but we pretend that they are for certain purposes. Starting a business is an expensive proposition. You have to buy/rent property, buy tons of equipment, borrow tons of money. And, businesses often fail. So, if you want to open a business, there’s a good chance you’re looking at financial ruin. Under such circumstances, people would, quite reasonably, be vary wary of starting a business… no one wants to risk their ass to open a sandwich shop. But, we want people to take those risks… businesses fuel the economy. We need them. So, we have to mitigate the risk that comes with opening a business. Enter the legal fiction of a corporation. When you organize a corporation, it can act like its own person, independent of the person that organized/runs it, for purposes of doing its business. The corporation can borrow money and contract with others in its own name, just like an actual person can. i.e. the corporation has its own checking account, tax ID, etc. MCHammerBro might run HammerTime, Inc., but HammerTime, Inc. is its own “person.” If the corporation makes a payment to someone, the check comes from HammerTime, Inc., not from MCHammerBro. Similarly, if someone has a dispute with the corporation, HammerTime, Inc. gets sued, not MCHammerBro. And, to get the money to rent office space, lease equipment, pay employees, whatever… HammerTime, Inc. goes to the bank and borrows money or solicits investment from individuals. That’s why, to get money for a startup, you have to have a business plan… you have to convince the bank/investors that this business is actually gonna make money, because the bank/investor is taking a risk by loaning money to this fictional person… they want their money back. If the business goes tits up, the bank has to try to get its money from HammerTime, Inc., and MCHammerBro doesn’t end up bankrupt, so it needs some assurance that HammerTime, Inc. is actually gonna go somewhere. Under circumstances like this, MCHammerBro is much more likely to take the risk and open a sandwich shop, because he’s not risking his ass to do it.

Why is the Reddit title as alarmist and melodramatic as the CNN one? Because they're both terrible, and the opposite of the actual content or conclusion of the article.

The days of military battles fought as huge set pieces are over. If somebody wanted to hurt the U.S., they could easily do so, and billion-dollar fighter jets would be of no use. Yes, and that's thanks to things like the F-22. Do you think people would have stooped as low as to strap bombs to cars, drive them near crowds, and blow themselves up if conventional warfare was still possible? Many countries in the middle east have access to the weaponry (mainly Russian) needed for conventional warfare. But they, nor any other group of people (e.g. a country) would never do something that stupid. Our military advantage over virtually the entire world means that nobody is going to try anything conventional. Sure, hijacking planes and bombing trains will certainly kill people, but nothing like carpet bombing or rolling over cities with tanks would.

Note that the WikiLeaks website was attacked (hosting, domain name), some of their finances were cut off (bank account closed, online payment methods shut down), and that Julian is currently in jail for the only dirt they could get on him: he supposedly violated some obscure Swedish law regarding condoms (and note that no complaints were made the night they had sex). And yet no key to insurance.aes256 has been released. WikiLeaks is playing it cool. They're being slapped right this instant , and instead of punching back, they're turning the other cheek. And yet you claim that they are acting maliciously. WikiLeaks doesn't want to release the insurance file -- it would result in unnecessary loss of life, a loss of bargining power, and a loss of any publicity they could get from future releases (possibly a loss of fine-grained control over the releases). It's mutually-assured destruction. I'm guessing that the key won't be released until both all members of WikiLeaks are dead or incapacitated, and the cooperating newspapers get some serious threats from their respective governments.

I call BS. There are a lot of advantages to towers, not the least of which include: Limiting the public's exposure to radiation / dense waves / etc. They want to put these indoors? The public is already worried about getting cancer from their cell phone. Physical security! Radios on lampposts will get trashed or stolen. Line of Sight: cell coverage. The reason cell (and TV) towers are on top of mountains is the fantastic coverage. You would need billions of small transmitters to get the same coverage. Line of Sight: non-cell coverage. These towers are used for TV signals, wireless internet, point-to-point radio, etc. On your average tower there are maybe a dozen technologies, all running on different spectrum. Where would all of these go? The towers are built. They're in the ground and built to last 100+ years, maybe more with reconstruction / "upgrades to carry more weight." This would kill the ROI on the towers. Consolidated point to run an internet backbone. This is a much more efficient method to consolidate all of this access. Imagine trying to control 10 major rivers (of 1's and 0's) vs. 10,000 little streams. So why would Alcatel-Lucent benefit from switching transmitters? The key, I suspect, is in the cell coverage I mentioned earlier. You would need a billion of these little radios to replace a single, powerful tower-based transmitter. It's got to be more expensive (e.g. more revenue for Alcatel-Lucent). Let me know if I'm wrong!

I had one of the original 30 gb Zunes. I had it in a plastic case the entire time I owned it. I ran out of space and decided I wanted more. Zunes only had up to 120 gb players and iPods had up to 160 gb. I went with the iPod; it also worked with my car stereo and much of my other technology.

This is actually a great point that a lot of people won't appreciate. The whole point of University back in the ye' olde days was much like a PhD today - hands-off/group based learning. You'd get lectures and guidance, but then were expected to hit the books and pass tests. University today, particularly in the US, is much more like school. They take attendance, they assign homework, they give you pop-quizzes, and it is frankly much harder to fail. I think colleges today really do their students a disservice by babying them. Frankly you should sit back and let students flunk out - they're adults, let them make mistakes! This is a large part of why people in their mid to late 20s still feel like "kids" and are treated the same. They haven't ever been treated or acted like an adult, even after going through all of the normal rights of passage.

Here's the thing.... A few thousand people leaving Digg.com is crippling. A few thousand people leaving Godaddy.com doesn't even register as a blip on their radar. As others have said, they gain and lose more in a typical week than they've lost as a result of the SOPA/GoDaddy fiasco. And let's take a look at Reddit. Do you really think that every single person who's said they either have or would move their so-called "hundreds" of domains, or thousands, or whatever number they claimed actually have those domains to begin with? I'm not saying that nobody has that many, but I'm also willing to bet that a vast majority of them are completely full of shit. And GoDaddy knows this -- any idiot can come up with a throwaway account and make a claim that they're moving their "hundreds" of domains. Why? Because it sounds really good. They can inflate their e-penis by making claims that nobody can prove or disprove. It gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling that they're putting pressure on a big bad corporation when in reality knows that they're full of shit anyway, and it would have no impact on their bottom line even on the off chance they're legit.

Can we do this for John Barrow now? He is one of the co-sponsors and his seat is in peril this next election due to redistricting. The redistricting means he has lost Savannah, a Democratic stronghold (not advocating for repubs here) and he no longer lives in the district for in which he will be running. My brother and I both wrote to him about SOPA and his was "While I respect peoples opinions that they should be able to see whatever they want to on the Internet for free, we must remember that the constitution protects intellectual property rights." So obviously my opposition to the bill means I am a pirate. I have no idea who is running against him and cannot find any information about it either. I at the least want him to understand he cannot dismiss opposition to the bill as advocating for piracy.

The molten salt used as a moderator/coolant is fairly corrosive over time. Probably the biggest hurdle to LFTR right now is materials science research into an appropriate metal that can be used to build the containment vessel, which needs to hold up to constant neutron bombardment and corrosive salts. The last I checked, I think the best/current ideas for containment would last about 5 years before they need to be replaced. This is probably a bit too quick to be very economical.

Reddit (And Kirk) would have you believe there is a US wide conspiracy keeping nuclear tech down. I've personally spoken with people [high in regulatory positions]( and unfortunately the problem is a lot less glamorous than usually made out. Even plain vanilla technology which has been around for 60 years (aka most existing boiling water/pressurized water plants) is tremendously expensive to implement. The high upfront capitol requirement to build a new plant - several billion dollars - along with uncertain NRC licensing practices makes nuke an extremely risky endeavor. This is for tech that has been around for 60 years. The problem is compounded even further when you introduce newer technology which has yet to be proven. With the natural gas boom the united states has seen over the last 10 years (fracking) growing by the day, there is even less reason to adopt high-cost, high-risk investments such as nuke.

Solar thermal storage (in my opinion) is a much more viable use of molten salts. They can get away with using different salt mixtures which melt at much lower temperatures (common nitrate salt mixtures melt around 120C, very exotic expensive mixtures as low as 65C). Some companies are dumping a large chunk of money into developing this technology, Siemens and Abengoa to name a few. That and, the salts are less toxic, less expensive and less corrosive compared to some fluoride salts.

As much as I love thorium and fluid fuel reactors, the reality is this: Investment in efficient photovoltaics is a smarter plan in the long run. with a higher energy ceiling. That's how trees did it, that's how life does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far.

This is a myth, molten salts are not corrosive to properly selected wall materials, from Ni-Mo alloys to graphite or SiC composites. ORNL solved the corrosion issues already in the 1960s. Also, containment and reactor vessel are completely different things, please do not confuse the two.

The advertised proliferation resistance of MSRs with Thorium is that another by product is U-232, which is too radioactive to have humans around when building a bomb. Thats not all that proliferation-proof. 1) The gammas are not just killing workers. THey will trash the electronics, degrade the explosives, and tell everybody where the weapon is. While it is not proliferation PROOF, it is very much proliferation resistant, since trying to overcome these issues is much more costly, time consuming, and uncertain than just building a regular U235 or Pu239 weapon. Simply put, if somebody with a working LFTR fleet would like to make weapons, the LFTR fleet would not make it easier, since it would still be easier to use the well proved 235 or 239 routes instead. 2) For countries where you want to be very paraoind you can use DMSR version of the MSR, which is denaturated with U238, so there is no possibility of any weapons even in theory. > As a nuclear engineer, i love the fact that my fuel STAYS still by design. Enjoy your hotspots, Xenon poisoning, pellet-clad interactions, rod-grid fretting and all that jazz. It seems nice on paper on undergrad level, but once you look into details there are troubles. Partly because the fuel does not actually stay still. > These unpredictable density variations mean unpredictable temperature distributions MSR fuel is homogenized on timescale of seconds, there are no "unpredictable density variations" nor "unpredictable temperature distributions", and the shape of the reactor stays constant, unlike the fuel rods bowing in solid fuel reactors. > We have a hard enough time getting reactor materials to perform well in a very well understood fluid (water) under irradiation. Which is not surprising since highly pressurized water at 320C is extremely corrosive, unlike molten salts. > ... nor have I seen any journal articles or conference presentations by any of the supporters. This just shows you did not really looked.

Have you ever worked with a splallation neutron source? They're not the most reliable pieces of equipment in the world. Beam interruptions that last tens of minutes to hours are regular occurences. Not to mention the [maintainence cycle]( Not to mention the engineering challenges associated with injecting the neutrons from the spallation source into the core since most reactors are lined with neutron reflective material to keep neutrons inside from getting out. There's also the fact that you wouldn't want the neutrons from the accelerator to be concentrated in a loalized region of the reactor, since that would give you a localized power pulse.

That seems so obvious, so why aren't we doing it? In fact, the sun has always been shining (as far as humans have been around), so why use anything else? "That's how trees did it, that's how life does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far." Indeed; and if you want the standard of living of a subsistence farmer or their crops, that will work out great for you. One problem is solar's Sunlight is fairly diffuse in a given area compared to say burning coal, or oil or nuclear. The less difference between your hot/bright and cold/dark sides, the less efficient your generator or such. A LFTR operating with probably ~600 C difference in a fairly small space is only expected to get almost 50% efficiency for generating electricity. So if you want solar to do the same you have to set up big arrays of mirrors or such to concentrate the light. In Spain they get less than 20% efficiency at Now consider that it's deriving energy from ~75K sq m AND while rated at 11 MW, that's its maximum capacity, not constant output. Clouds will cause issues if you want stable Even in locations with high (Sunlight is strongest where power-hungry population centers tend to not be, ne?) night is always an issue.

i dont need to post links cause i dont care what you think (not to be a douche, just being honest) the point is when i think by itself, i think inside a reactor core in a functional reactor. you dont think that. fissile doesnt mean fissile sitting on the ground or when its supercritical or whatever you are trying to read into it. it means fissile in a primed and cooled reactor core to me and to people who actually care about this kind of thing

If you leave a back door open, hackers aren't supposed to use it at a hack off? Or use prior work? You never met or seen a hack off have you? They'll punch holes in walls at a black Box to get past a few firewalls. And plan out their moves weeks in advance just to get sometimes only a hour a head of the others. Apple knew of the contest ( and the contest actually tells them the day of & what they are going for) and did not put out a update like everyone did (firefox, Opera, Google) but not explorer. And look at google they had to give a million dollars out as a contest to find holes no one could find one (i believe) for two years and one more in the past 3 months, total. But every year first browser to be hack Safari. No one really tries explore because it's joke. So, it's not a one time thing. And where dose a lot of Apple's security come from drum roll....... BSD kernel and the open source structures it uses to build "tweak" their OS not apple its self. I'm not hating it's just the truth. No OS is perfect or really that secure if you know what you are doing. Just some are pretty good, others are laughable, and others just use marketing & misinformation to lie to consumers. Now I am done because I don't care about the flame wars: jobs said this, windows said that, and linux does this. I Don't Care!!! It happens, and it happen lot. Not just to Apple. But they tend to not talk about or work with people to fix it as much as others. That's the point.

I don't think you have a grasp of even basic sentence structure...that aside, working in a group still has no bearing on your original statement, but feel free to continue conflating ideas in an attempt to seem like you know what you're talking about. Grammar Nazi, Grammar Nazi, Grammar Nazi. I have no real point but I can pull the last call of a whiner. Cute! Can't beat him with a real point but I can call him on his on grammar. Nice job on being ethnocentric. Maybe A. I really don't care about grammar and I don't re-read my post before pushing save or B. English may not be my first language and I have struggled with it all my life because of ass hats like you thinking everyone is from America or some English speaking country. But you are such a big person for calling me out on it. And you bought up the group thing in a way that made it feel like it was a bad thing to work with others. All I said was you can work in groups.here's what you said >a time which is inconsequential if the development of the exploit was done outside the contest (2 weeks of work by 3 highly skilled experts) Which again I'll say: YOU CAN WORK ON THE HACK BEFORE THE CONTEST. DO YOU NOT GET THAT? YOU DON'T JUST TAKE A TRIGONOMETRY TEST WITHOUT LEARNING HOW TO DO TRIGONOMETRY. AND THE CONTEST IS BASICALLY A OPEN NOTES TEST. DO YOU GET THAT OR ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WHITTLE DOWN WHAT I SAID TO NOTHING? OH, WAIT YOU ALREADY DID WITH GRAMMAR NAZI-ING. What next, are you going to get mad that I yelled and called you a pet name that is a little mean (Ass Hat)? Sorry, I was getting down to your level a bit. And maybe a little below. IOS is a Super locked down BSD Platform correct? We'll say yes. because it is. And is android because on linux and a more open platform? And they show their code? Yes & Yes. So if both are the same on paper (but they aren't) how can one be a hack and the other not? Easy! For one I never said that you just did. I said you are going to laugh it this: >On rooting. Rooting is being a Admin control. Not a guest. Key word for you is "ROOT"ed as in root or /. On windows the first and for some the only account is admin. All others are guest which don't have "root" control. only Admin has "root" control. I said what "root" was. And as a joke or to poke fun it you I said: >I am hacker cause I run root on my phone and computer. Ha ha. And before all that; I said was istuff gets jailbroken the day it comes out sometimes (newer stuff is now harder I heard). Well, if one (apple) is actively trying to lock users out on all levels but the sand box they let you play in. Apple buys all the pieces and has a company make it for them. So, they have in terms a OS and OEM. So, far. Apple. Sandbox. Locked. OS & OEM. Versus Google makes a OS layer on the linux kernel. Then shows the code. Then gives it to OEM for "free" (I can't say if it costs them a little money or not). Then the OEM ( WATCH HERE ) adds more code for their use. and maybe custom GUI or a total rework of the OS. That could be: amazon, HTC, Sony, Samsung, Barnes & Noble, and etc....... Then, the OEM with added code may lock it down not google. So, far. Android free. Shows Code. OEMs may lock down. So, now the OEM are the ones that lock it down. Which in turn you may need to "hack" it as you would say. But does any OEM go above in beyond at lock there device down? Well, yes that would be Apple. So, we are at pure Android is a easy "root" ( in most cases you can pull something out of your hat here). Next step in locked now. Right? Level two middle level lets say. Then level three the final super tight I am a dick level. That would be Apple. So, again we have: 1 easy 2 medium 3 Hard But Android because being made by many different OEM's can fall on any level even three. It is hard to make a broad statement about the device which I didn't make, you did by trying to say iOS is the same as android in the rooting process or vice versa. I can't tell you point. Is android actively locking down their OS? No OEM are. Is Apple actively locking down their OS? Yes, and trying super hard at it and not doing that good of job. > It is laughable that you think rooting an Android phone is diametrically different from jailbreaking an iOS device. Well, the tiny little bit that I talked about shows? Yes, it is different and different on a few levels. >There have been many Android phones rooted before they were released There are many phones that run the same custom OS and similar hard ware. So, if phone 1.0 comes out. Then phone 1.5 by the same OEM with the same custom OS, similar hardware ( maybe a little better in areas) and same drivers comes out later like 3 to 6 months later. This new phone 1.5 shouldn't be "hack" day one?????? sounds pretty reasonably. Or maybe a developer's phone came out which a few phones will be base upon. That won't make it easier to understand how to "hack" it in the right hands??? I have to say I don't know much about developer's phone hardware but I know it help because developer's phones are rooted most times. At least the two I saw and to what I know. Versus Apple :New hardware, Brand new cpu, with new drivers, Brand new OS, but we are locking it down so hard no one will ever get in . 1 day later and it was hack. Totally reasonably versus the scenario for Android. Rrriightt???? Oh, maybe they got a developer's phone????? Oh, Apple doesn't have that. > feel free to continue conflating ideas in an attempt to seem like you know what you're talking about. You must have quite the gymnast of a mind to perform the mental gymnastics you do. No, I actual know how some of this stuff works. And was a computer science major for a bit (around 1.5 years - I got tired of coding). And you need to grasps the details that can and do go on in these systems. Which you do not. But you think you do. Which you don't. And hell I get lost on some myself. But in my time I known a good mid-ish level coder worth of Computer science. Out of 10 you problem think your a 8 in knowledge of computers but you have a Dunning–Kruger effect going on. Because out of 10 I think I'm a 5 if I'm lucky. 1 basic, 2-3 i have seen the terminal , 4 coded a little, 6 code a lot and know languages , 7 beginning hack stuff, 8 Cracker level (crack in to stuff: bank cards, identity theft), 9 Getting in to Darknet to much & 10 no one call them selves a 10 that means you are the internet. Maybe you should look in to: using terminal, kernel development and OS structures. Or try linux so you can understand how complex the idea of a OS or disro can be. Try Arch and build a OS from basically scratch. With out a GUI to help you install.

OK here's some feedback for you. Background/bias: I'm a proponent of free (as in freedom) software but I'm also pragmatic when it comes to my devices. The freeer the better, and while Android isn't as free as it should be, it's much better than Apple's proprietary model for me. I have an Android phone that I use extensively and am the proud owner of the N7. The N7 was my first tablet so I can't really compare with similar devices. I was dubious about how much I would use a tablet but I have to say I use the N7 a lot more than I expected. In general it sounds (my apologies if this is not the case) like you're trying to compare the Android experience in terms of the Apple experience. I don't think you can -- you have to switch gears when you go to Android. The way I see it is that Android is a constantly evolving platform -- Google never says "hey Ice Cream Sandwich is the the best out there, you can use this finished product forever if you want" but rather "ICS is yet another batch of improvements, keep your eye out for the next batch." This sort of "iterative" deployment model has quite a few advantages -- I find that if you don't have the expectation for things to be perfect, you won't be disappointed or angry if feature X is lacking or missing in the OS. You go hunting in the app ecosystem for something that provides feature X because, well, they aren't quite there yet. You use appX (which is hopefully evolving in the same manner) or find that a subsequent OS drop provides X to your satisfaction. Android gives you more freedom but you will have to go searching for things. So to specifically respond to some your questions: 1) I don't believe there's a Google store where you can walk in and have an expert Googler help you, so customer service could be a hassle. But dealing with online customer service has been a reality for a while now. I haven't had to deal with Google customer service before so I can't say much more. 2) The N7 screen is bright, super hi-res--gorgeous to my eyes--and I have never detected any "flicker" -- but the iPad may have a more Amazing screen and the N7 may pale in comparison. For the price I think there can only be praise for the N7's display. 3) As a pragmatist I really don't care how aesthetic/native apps look. Since the Android platform is evolving, different apps are going to be at different stages of "catch up" to the latest native look-and-feel. If it works, I'll use it. I know not everyone has this sentiment, so you'll have to talk to an Andoid aesthete on this point. I will say, however, that at the current state of play Android has gotten their home row buttons (home, back, switch apps) pretty much figured out and they work quite well. A lot of apps, though, (Google apps included) can't seem to decide if they want menus and buttons on the top of the screen or on the bottom, and at the moment it's a bit annoying to do 80% of your work on the bottom of the screen, but then have to reach up and use a menu on the top now and then. I think this will get ironed-out/normalized in the future but it's merely a minor annoyance. For me. It probably sends some people into fits. The OS has never locked up on me as far as I can remember -- I have installed a dodgy app or two ( cough Flash cough ) that get into inconsistent states and need a restart. On the whole, the OS is very stable. It better be, because the damn battery is sealed in the case and I don't know how you'd hard boot the thing. I don't recall having to press UI elements multiple times. But not all apps are created equal, so this may be a problem for some of them. But if it's bothersome you can always uninstall the app, or live with the inconvenience if the app provides something you really want/need. 4) Ah the ol' Apple format "lock"-in. Even though it's not DRM'd you still have all of this media in an Apple proprietary format. The "high and mighty" response is, "I've avoided this by using open formats whenever I can, why haven't you?" but that's not much help for you here. I'm not going to be able to recommend an ALAC converter but I would strongly recommend moving your library to non-proprietary (or less-proprietary) formats when you can. Once you've done so, you'll experience the "tyranny of choice" on what music player to use -- I can only suggest trying a few out (with as open a mind as possible -- look for something that works rather than something that works like what you had before) until you find one that suits you best. 5) I've only recently heard about dictionaries being featured in eBook players -- it sounds like a bit of overkill to me but I can't really judge because I haven't tried one out. Since switching between apps is blazingly fast in the N7, I'd look up words "old school" -- highlight, flip to (recently used) dictionary app / browser, search, reference, flip back, done. 6) I tend to leave my N7 at home so I can't really say anything about using maps on it specifically. I use gMaps on my phone all the time, however. Google offline maps are really useful when traveling, but even when I have data I don't use the Navigation mode. I suspect rudimentary offline routing will become available at some point on gMaps (though this must be pretty difficult to get right)-- at the moment I'm happy to have Google find my route when I'm online and be content with having the cached maps available when I'm offline. (In fact I'd be happier to find an Open Street Maps application that I could use to fully replace Google maps but that's probably a while down the road, for me at least). To me it sounds like your concerns are pretty minor all in all, and if you are on the fence you should at least try the N7. It well overperforms its price point, and if you don't like it I'm sure you can re-sell the thing -- as the orignial article states it's selling like hotcakes at the moment. But maybe, just maybe, you'll get sucked in like I did. You'll have to pry mine out of my cold dead hands.

That is correct, sorry if I came across a harsh earlier. I was worried someone was providing false interpretations of our laws, for he

I think you were hoping no one would read that document. You are citing the allegations but the findings were in Facebooks favor mostly. To quote from your same document under the application section >239. In making our determinations, we applied Principles 4.1.4(d), 4.5, 4.5.2, 4.5.3, 4.3.8, and 4.8. The applicable sections that are found to relate to the your sections allegations >240. Principle 4.1.4(d) states in part that organizations shall implement policies and practices to give effect to the principles, including developing information to explain the organization’s policies and procedures. States the company has a mandatory responsibility to create policies to govern how it collects data and how they came to those decisions. >241. Principle 4.5 states in part that personal information shall be retained only as long as necessary for the fulfilment of the purposes for which it was collected. Principle 4.5.2 states in part that organizations should develop guidelines and implement procedures with respect to the retention of personal information and that these guidelines should include minimum and maximum retention periods. Principle 4.5.3 states in part that personal information no longer required to fulfill the identified purposes should be destroyed, erased, or made anonymous. The specific arguing principal in question here. This says you can only collect and retain data to fulfill the purposes you initially collected it for. But the purpose for collection of data can be two fold in the first place, so if Facebook has more than one reason to keep the data to which the user has signed off on, meaning if they hit agree with out read the terms, the fact that they are allowed to collect data with a users permission for sales and legal purposes beyond you playing farm ville and stalking someone online is legal. They only possible reprimand they have is that the finding indicate that Facebook should make some changes to their policies to add in a time frame for retention and to reword it because they did not feel the current wording was clear enough. The document you cited actually states under pipeda, the Private sector collection of electronic data act( law) that Facebook was deemed to be behaving in good faith, and had demonstrated its needs to retain documentation and had properly shown that it had made available to the user the necessary information at their leisure. But they had stated that they did have some inadequacies to the following sections in pipeda. [Link]( 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 mainly because they believed users were believed to be unable to determine from their public policies that they did have a ability to delete their account.

Can you elaborate what you mean, how is it misunderstood The explanation is a little long, but bear with me here: Let's get a little background info here, Moore's Law is often applied to processor speed, which is usually measured in Ghz (gigahertz), but it goes like hertz, kilohertz, megahertz, gigahertz, terahertz, petahertz, etc. Its sort of like storage (bytes, kilobytes,megabytes, etc.), but hertz is a measure of how fast a processors processes information. Anyways, at age 15, I'm currently at the point where I should be considering my career options. Life goal number one (not life goal number zero - that's to live forever) for me has been to at some point have at least a billion dollars for about as long as I can remember. It seems to me that, given my skill set and interests, the best way for me to do this is by entrepreneuring or perhaps just business-managing in the tech industry. So, as a huge fan of Google, I decided about six months ago that being the CEO of Google is my primary objective in life; I'm smart enough to have a pretty good chance at pulling it off, and there's much less competition to become the CEO of Google than there is to grow your own start-up into a multi-billion-dollar corporation. Everybody wants to start their own company; not many want to take over an existing favorite. Plus, if I fail to become the CEO of Google or decide I don't want to be, I could always try for one of the many other companies I like, or I could still decide to start my own company after all. (That and there's no time limit on starting my own company, while there may be one on the Google thing - Larry Page and Sergey Brin are likely to step down in 2024, and their replacements will probably be in place running the company for quite a long time before I get another chance.) However, both Larry Page and Eric Schmidt are pretty hard to get in touch with; plus, as much admiration as I have for them, I don't really identify with either one personally. So, barred from being able to get input from somebody who knows what it's like to be CEO of Google firsthand, I decided I'd email you; though it isn't Google, you do seem to have experience being in a CEO-like position at a company with a similar corporate structure to Google, albeit considerably smaller. You have over a billion dollars, I know your email address, and, very importantly, out of all the tech figureheads I've ever been a fan of, you're the one I identify with most strongly (a simple example being the fact that you're a brony). So, without further adieu, here is my point: Recently, I've begun to worry about the prospect of being a tech industry CEO, on grounds of the fact that all of them are extremely busy. It's not the workload that intimidates me; the job itself, I think, would be an enjoyable way to spend time. It's the fact that I'm afraid it may be something which goes beyond work, and takes over your entire lifestyle. I'm worried that, if I were to become CEO of Google, I'd have to be ready to make a crucial decision or get to the Googleplex at a moment's notice, 24/7. In this hypothetical outcome, I'd never be able to take vacations, I'd never be able to spend a few hours ignoring calls to pay attention to my family, etc. What's the point of having an $18.7 billion net worth if you never get the chance to spend a few hours walking around your city, throwing money at homeless people, stealing people's cars and replacing them with newer models, or filling every paid parking space in the city with an old car, not paying the meters, and having the cars towed, only to put each one back, and the city can't stop you because you can afford to keep paying the fines, and they don't have enough tow trucks to keep up with you? This hypothetical outcome scares me, not because I think it's likely, but because I might have no way of finding out whether it's the case until it's too late. By the time I'm close enough with any big tech industry leaders to know what their lives are like, I've already devoted my life to getting there; it's too late to change my mind and try making a billion dollars some other way. And, even though I can rationally back it up, the statement "The CEO of Google probably isn't too busy" still sounds rather laughable. So, I decided I would ask you. If any of these are too personal, feel free to tell me off, but if not, answers would be greatly appreciated. Do you get to spend a lot of time with your wife/kids? What would happen if you spontaneously decided to take a week-long vacation because nothing particularly important was happening at work that week? What if you took a week-long vacation but planned it ahead of time? About how many days do you spend at work each year? Essentially, how much of your life is controlled by working at VALVe, and how busy do you feel it makes you? Again, I apologize if any of that's too personal. I appreciate your time reading this, and hope to hear from you. And here's what I just sent back to him: Regarding the quote from Steve Jobs - like I said, I would enjoy the work itself (making customers happy), but more importantly, I set out to make money because I want to make customers - or rather, people in general - happy. There's no way I could ever spend a billion dollars directly on myself; I'd want to spend it funding scientific research, and investing in start-up companies, and personal projects which benefit both myself and others (e.g., filmmaking). In fact, when I was a little kid, the biggest reason I had for wanting so much money - before I could understand things like grant money or corporate investment - was because I thought it would be awesome to have enough money that I could give a homeless person a few tens of thousands of dollars to get their life together, and barely even notice that the money is missing. Regarding the rest of your email, would you say it's fair to summarize your point as something like "the job makes me busy because there's nothing I'd rather be doing?" If so, I'm guessing that, should I be CEO of Google, there will very rarely be a moment of my life where I'm doing something I enjoy more than running Google. I just don't want those moments to completely disappear. Regarding Warren Buffet, I'm well aware of his philanthropy and non-extravagant lifestyle, and he's already a personal role model of mine. I apologize if I'm wasting your time at this point or coming off disrespectfully, but I certainly have thought this through, and I'm still quite certain that my concerns are valid. *

You underestimate the quality people are willing to deal with, especially when it comes to high profile movies which may not even be in stores yet. There's several tiers of captures that end up in filesharing circles. The lowest quality would be any kind of in-theatre video capture. This is usually quite literally just someone's portable camera recording the screen, and if it's a good release, it will be a quality camera setup with direct line audio from the audio jacks provided for people with hearing impairment. This is generally the ONLY option for movies that have just come out in theatres. So while it's atrocious quality, if you want to see the hobbit the day it came out, that's all you're gonna get. The next level is prerelease copies from an average "quality" source. This could be screeners sent to critics, dvds from piracy prone areas such as parts of asia, etc. These are almost comparable to the dvds we are accustomed to in the US, but will probably have things like watermarks, hardcoded subtitles, lower quality audio, etc. These can show up while some movies are still in theatres, well in advance of normal home video release because of the nature of the source. The god tier is bluray/dvd rips. Naturally you have the potential to get the full quality you would see if you bought it at a store, depending on the compression used and what the provider/pirate decides to cut/modify before distributing it p2p. This type of thing you can only expect to see maybe a month in advance of the home video release. Also, file sizes are a major consideration for a lot of people. So they are willing to sacrifice some quality to download the movie faster or be able to store a bunch of them on their tablet and such.

I just don't see why not being able to unlock your phone is illegal. The phone companies put that clause in the contract so that they don't have to (quite rightly) deal with stupid shit people do to their phones cause they think they're tech wizards. I myself have rooted an android device (not a phone) and take the risks along with that as well as the fact that the warranty is now void, and understand that.

As others have commented here a lot of people have issue getting carriers to accept unlocked devices. That may be, but that has nothing to do with the law. I've never had any trouble activating unlocked phones on Verizon. >Also, I was under the impression that sharing unlocking techniques was illegal, even if the individual act is not? No, selling unlock codes and/or a service to unlock phones is illegal. Unlocking the phone is not illegal. The unlock techniques are documented in the owner's manuals and technical white papers for the devices. Manufacturers will gladly share the technique or procedure to unlock the phone if you ask. They may or may not provide the required code, though. The unlock codes are unique to every device since they are based on things like MEID, serial number, and other unique properties of the device. > And again, I feel that by prohibiting somebody from setting up a kiosk in a mall and charging to unlock phones is effectively preventing the average person from even being aware that this is a choice that one could make. I agree, however it's the only clear way to prevent kiosks and non-carrier stores from selling unlocked international phones in the US market. The FTC found that millions of cell phones were illegally purchased or stolen overseas and then brought to the US to be unlocked and sold on eBay and craigslist. For years, people got away with it and then started getting ballsy by setting up real store fronts to do it. Other countries also found similar situations. Millions of old/stolen/unlocked US phones were flooding international markets. It was making the US mobile industry look bad. The easy way to fix that was to make a law that says "alright, look...you can only sell phones in the US that have been approved and licensed for sale in the US. Also, only people with the proper FCC licenses can provide unlock codes." In your scenario with the soccer mom... more often than not, the soccer mom has a phone that can't go to another carrier due to hardware/network limitations. For instance, a Verizon SGS3 (that is a quad-band phone and, technically, compatible with AT&T) won't work on AT&T because the frequency ranges are different. Even though the radios and technologies are the same between the carriers (as it relates to LTE service), the frequency ranges are different. Verizon LTE phones cannot tune in to the AT&T towers. There's no reason for Samsung to pay the FCC license fees to operate the device on all carriers when they can save money by only licensing based on carrier infrastructure. AT&T may tell you that they "won't" activate the Verizon LTE phone on their LTE network, but they really mean to say "we won't because it won't work anyway. you'll be stuck with 1G/2G service, you won't have data or voicemail or mms or reliable E911 service. we aren't allowed to sell/service devices that don't meet the E911 and other FCC requirements." For phones that are completely compatible and unlocked, the carriers MUST activate the phone if you can show that the phone wasn't illegally purchased, stolen, or otherwise 'dirty.' Those requirements are subjective, though, and up to the carrier. T-Mobile just wanted to see a fax of my Amazon receipt. AT&T kept giving me the run-around asking for more and more information to prove the phone wasn't stolen. Consider this: say the soccer mom takes her AT&T phone to t-Mobile. T-Mo can say they are not able to activate the AT&T phone because it is locked. T-Mo can also, legally, provide the soccer mom with information on how to get the phone unlocked properly so she may activate it with T-Mobile. T-Mo can't necessarily perform the unlock themselves, but they're totally allowed to tell the potential customer what to do. Again, the fact that carriers don't engage in that kind of behavior has nothing to do with the laws and has everything to do with corporate greed and the salesman's commission check. That also means it's not illegal for a mall kiosk to sell phone accessories and provide free information about unlocking phones. They just can't sell the unlock codes illegally obtained by the cracked key generators found online.

so we go from owning discs/cartridges that we could play as long as they last as long as the console doesn't die. pay once and play till it breaks. older consoles lasted a long time. you can still plug in a N64 and play games. With Xbox One you just pay for a license which is the same cost as buying a game now, and hope you they continue giving you permission to play the game you already bought ...and if you don't have household internet connection, you have to take out your smartphone and sync the console. everyday you want to play. for as long as you own it. or hourly at a friends house if they don't have a wired internet connection. with xbox 360, if you have no internet there's no online servies or multiplayer(which you had to pay more for anyways) but lots of games let you hook up a number of consoles together for system link and you could play split screen offline as well. with Xbox One you have to have the usual: a place to game, electricity, TV, console, game, but also internet(which if you don't want at home you'll have to pay an additional $15+ a month), and Microsoft's permission to play the game you already payed for, daily or hourly if you aren't at home. if you bought 15 Xbox One offline games to play over 5 years, at $40 each you have to pay $500 for the console, plus $600 for the games, and $900+ for regular internet connection(if you didn't have or want one already). that's going to be over $2000 for even offline playing over only 5 years. longer costs more. if you did the same for PS4(if they keep their word) even at $60 a game that would only cost $1300 total. For that $2000 total cost of 5 years of offline games with Xbox, at $40 a game that's 40 PS4 games vs 15 Xbox games..... and you don't have to ask Sony for permission to play everyday and you could keep them for as long as they work even if Sony stopped support for PlayStation.

Pwn" is common parlance in some segments of the hacker community; i.e. "pwning a box" = gaining high-level access (usually administrator or root) on a computer, usually through a combination of various attacks (social engineering, privilege escalation, etc.). It spilled over from the gaming community, where it originated as a typo of "own".

I can understand the need of a sniper to know all the physics calculations. He's in the field. This childish notion that you will be doing advanced calc on the side of a piece of scrap metal in the middle of a city is a little strange. If your computer crashes, you grab your buddy's laptop and load your variables. I blame Scotty for the tendency to overstate the complexity of engineering.

One day just not on current technologies. Not even the 256 Quantum computer systems can do the calculations we need reliably. Why? Because all computational data is based on stepped data patterns with a cut off point. Floating point data comes close but still is not high enough resolution to create the same kind of data as an analogue system can. When we can solve the full numeric value of pi on computers is when we can start looking into doing only computer simulations. Outside of that we also need to know the exact properties of each component being tested. The number of variables is too variable to be able to rely on human input into the computational systems. Wind, water, oxidation are only a few main contributors. What about imperfections in the final product that are in the "margin of error"? What about mistakes in products because of corner cutting or piss poor employees? The best we can do is to create a "best case scenario" with computers. Computers can't calculate all the variables based in human emotion and reactions. As far as I can see the real world calculations done in a computer will always take far more work than random product testing or pre-production work. Having an understanding of even something as simple as a 32 bit openexr image file and how much data that can be is nuts, but still falls short of real world color reproduction. For example the formula to arrive at how much color data is in an exr is this: For just the red channel we have 2^32 = 4,294,967,296. Now we repeat that for green, blue, and alpha channels. The Math now looks like: R= 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 G= 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 B= 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 A= 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 Now we don't just add these values up we have to cube them for the end result. Now what we have is an equation that looks like this: 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 now cube this result. 4,294,967,296^4 = 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38. Now take that same math and repeat it billions, trillions, or even a googolplex (10^10^100 don't try this number on your phone it will error out). I don't know of any folding network or quantum computer than can calculate that kind of data. That hundreds of billions of petabytes of data for one simulation.